Culture v Understanding

[coberst]

Culture v Understanding

I am an advocate of self-actualized learning as a means to better understand the world and the self. I have been questioned as to the importance or such things when compared to the action that needs to be taken to attack the problems evident and immediate. I think we are dealing with the question “self-actualized learning seems to be an empty vessel; can self-actualized learning walk-the-walk?”

The post that outlined this accusation was a mind stimulating experience for me. I had to pause and come to grips with an important consideration.

Sympathy is emotional response humans make in almost a completely unconscious reaction to something perceived. Sympathy causes us to cry at movies and to respond automatically to help an old man who falls to the sidewalk in front of us.

Empathy is however much different. Empathy happens when we, in an attempt to understand another person, attempt to create in our mind an analogy of what that person is experiencing so that we can better understand that person. We may try to empathize with a terrorist in the effort to understand what drives someone to become a suicide-bomber. Citizens of a Western nation may have a very difficult time trying to create an analogy that is suitable for understanding a person of an eastern culture. A person seeks understanding willfully through empathy.

I think that there exists a hierarchy of comprehension. We are aware of many things but conscious of only a few. We often drive while in a state of awareness and become conscious when passing a patrol car or a highway accident. We may be aware of our daughter’s new boyfriend but we become conscious of the young man when the daughter announces their planned marriage.

We are conscious of much and knowledgeable of little. We have knowledge of much and understanding of little. Sympathy leads to consciousness and empathy leads to understanding. A lack of understanding makes it possible for a person to avoid occasions of sympathy because some people prefer the occasion of “out of sight out of mind”.

Empathy is a form of understanding but it, of course, is not THE form of understanding. Empathy does give us an idea of the difficulty inherent in the process of understanding. It also gives an idea, I think, of the very individualized nature of what understanding is. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and it must be worked at until we each one become conscious of our particular means to understanding.

I think that some talents are best suited for trying to enhance understanding. I think that the goal of both types of effort might be the same but the techniques are different; but I think that both types of approach to the same goal are necessary and need not be exclusive.

Reality is a multi-layered thing and requires much effort to penetrate beyond the surface. There exists a whole phalanx of ideological enculturation constantly undermining any effort by the citizenry to become an understanding people. Anti-intellectualism must be constantly attacked. I think that the greater the understanding of the citizens of a democratic nation the better the democracy of that nation.

[SOJOURNER]

In sympathy you have a connection with another person. You feel and think the same.

In empathy you are trying on a feeling you preceive them to have and you understand them only withhin the realm of your own experiences.

I think we all unconsciously use both methods in our interactions with people.

[OpenMind]

Sympathy and empathy are both emotionally driven by the 'heart'. They are not necessarily conscious acts to know or to understand another's feelings.

A person who does not automatically experience either has cut themselves off from their 'heart'. I use the term 'heart' in a connotative sense relating especially to love rather than its denotative meaning for the pumping organ itself.

Seeking to understand human emotion is a study of the self, on the one hand, and a study of social relationships on the other. Emotions affect how we behave as individuals, but also determine how we relate to one another. It is a study we begin as toddlers and refine as we grow up. This is one of the reasons why our childhoods are so important and why we should be very careful how we behave in front of children.

[coberst]

SOJOURNER wrote: In sympathy you have a connection with another person. You feel and think the same.

In empathy you are trying on a feeling you preceive them to have and you understand them only withhin the realm of your own experiences.

I think we all unconsciously use both methods in our interactions with people.


As I understand it empathy requires the imagination to create something that will allow me to place myself into your shoes for the purpose of better understanding where you are. Such an activity seems to me to require an act of intention. Whereas sympathy is not an intentional act. I think that empathy is a necessary ability for understanding those that are alien to us in many ways.

[coberst]

OpenMind wrote: Sympathy and empathy are both emotionally driven by the 'heart'. They are not necessarily conscious acts to know or to understand another's feelings.

A person who does not automatically experience either has cut themselves off from their 'heart'. I use the term 'heart' in a connotative sense relating especially to love rather than its denotative meaning for the pumping organ itself.

Seeking to understand human emotion is a study of the self, on the one hand, and a study of social relationships on the other. Emotions affect how we behave as individuals, but also determine how we relate to one another. It is a study we begin as toddlers and refine as we grow up. This is one of the reasons why our childhoods are so important and why we should be very careful how we behave in front of children.


I am copying my reply to sojourner

As I understand it empathy requires the imagination to create something that will allow me to place myself into your shoes for the purpose of better understanding where you are. Such an activity seems to me to require an act of intention. Whereas sympathy is not an intentional act. I think that empathy is a necessary ability for understanding those that are alien to us in many ways.

[Galbally]

All human behavior is exaplainable through the requirements of DNA to sucessfully replicate itself throughout an entire species, includng and up to sacrafice of someones life for soneome else, sympathy and understanding are nice things, but don't too worked up about human beings, we're not that hard to understand.

[OpenMind]

coberst wrote: I am copying my reply to sojourner



As I understand it empathy requires the imagination to create something that will allow me to place myself into your shoes for the purpose of better understanding where you are. Such an activity seems to me to require an act of intention. Whereas sympathy is not an intentional act. I think that empathy is a necessary ability for understanding those that are alien to us in many ways.


Empathy is still emotionally driven. It matters whether you care to understand another person or not. It is not necessarily a conscious act. It depends on whether the other person is behaving in a familiar way or not.

Understanding comes mainly from knowing ourselves and empathy is an outward sharing of feelings borne of understanding and love. If I didn't care how the other person felt, I may understand that person's feelings without any empathy towards the person.

This is a definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary of empathy:

Remember that 'action' may be conscious or unconscious.

[interested]

Are sympathy and empathy not mirror images of our own emotions? We sympathize with someone because we recognize having felt the same emotion previously and we empathize, again because we have felt the same emotion. (Not necessarily the same situation, but the same emotion). We recognize at a subconsious level the same emotion within ourself.

[Accountable]

While both sympathy and empathy may be somewhat hardwired, I have found that, with adults, empathy can be trained far easier than sympathy.



It is an interesting question how much comes from culture and how much is natural.

[coberst]

I am having computer problems I may be delayed a bit.

[coberst]

Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic response.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child caused by a suicide bomber we feel immediate sympathy. Often we will come to tears. But we do not feel anything like that for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child who was the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt through imagination and reason to create a situation that will allow us to understand why this was done. This is a rational means to understand someone who acts different than we would.

This I think might be a good site to see how empathy is taught in school.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brils ... ichsa.html