You describe two categories: empathy and sympathy. But I see three categories.
1. Immediate sympathy: when we see a hurt child, nothing stands between us and immediate sympathy.
2. Pure empathy occurs when we try to understand motivations of another without feelings of sympathy or loathing. Incidentally, this can be important in warfare. Understanding what your opponent will do and why he will do it can be enormously helpful. When Robert E Lee invaded Maryland in 1862, he knew that Union General McClellan would respond slowly and cautiously. This allowed Lee two whole weeks to raid in Maryland and gather supplies before he had to face McClellan. As they used to say in WWII: “Know your enemy."
3. Empathy leading to limited sympathy: When you recognized how miserable your Hampton neighbor was, you were able to feel a measured sympathy for him rather than undiluted gut-cramping loathing. You were even able to pull a Robert E Lee on him— you went and grabbed the best litigator in the Hamptons before he could attack you!!! Well played, sensei!
I once had a similar experience. I was having a peaceful morning in church, and when it came time for communion, a large man jumped up and bulled his way past me so that he could get ahead of me in line. If I hadn't been sitting down, he might have knocked me over. I felt an instantaneous surge of rage. Then a thought entered my mind—I think it was straight from God: “A person who behaves like this cannot actually be happy inside. Aren't you glad you're not as crazy as he is?” Rage turned to into a measured sympathy, and I have applied this lesson on many occasions since.
BTW, there is a French proverb that makes the same point: "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner." // “To understand everything is to forgive everything.” This promises that empathy will result in complete sympathy. Personally, I am satisfied with measured sympathy.
Much wisdom here. People have their political preferences of course, but the current popularity of loathing the opposition renders opponents into enemies and transforms simple disagreements into hatred.
One of the best therapeutic techniques that help broken people heal is empathy. However there are those who are "broken:" who capitalize on their negative, toxic and bad behaviors by gathering legions of followers in the same condition. It is a sad commentary on a culture and a society that allows disgusting and despicable people to attain such popularity that they are elevated to positions of power. Those sad souls have no interest in making things better for others or themselves. They are ego-maniacs and empathy is not welcome in their world. This is the tragedy of our times. They have not evolved as human beings and our empathy for them goes nowhere and changes nothing.
I totally agree that loathing takes a lot of effort and isn’t always productive. Though sometimes it produces entertainment. My friends and I have turned Trump-bashing into an intramural sport, which fills our cup and maybe a few hours of belly laughs. It’s better than Ultimate Frisbee.
David, I found this very thought-provoking, though I don’t think I agree with you completely re: the value of Cognitive Empathy. Yes, stepping back to get some distance on the loathing you feel matters and puts the emotional reaction in context - but the emotion is still there, and it’s a form of information, too. At the very least, examining why I loathe somebody (eg, Elon Musk) or some organization (Meta) can be a way for me to examine by own biases and values. I’m leery of separating analysis and emotion as binary modes - for me, what matters is practicing the ability to pause, step back, and question my own impulses before immediately responding to something loathsome.
And this brings to mind the quality of compassion, which is not the same as empathy - compassion is the thing many therapists and spiritual counselors (as in loving kindness mantras for those who have hurt you) say is the ultimate goal in facing a world in which so much feels out of our control, unfair, even traumatic. I am very far from having compassion for Donald Trump himself (and any empathy I feel for his upbringing doesn’t help me there). But lately, I have been trying to cultivate compassion for MAGA voters as well as those on the left who are too doctrinaire for me. I am trying to sit with what they express and ideas I don’t agree with, because I think we are all afraid in this uncertain world. We need to witness and acknowledge each other’s pain before sinking into loathing - or despair.
Great post, and I'm reminded of similar arguments around art that is *made by people who are personally unsympathetic* - i.e. by "bad" people.
I think so much of what's wrong about our current literary discourse is this idea of needing literary fiction - or contemporary narratives - to validate our existing moral worldviews. And what ends up happening is that this strictness reaches down into art and imposes itself into a rigid, cast-like structure that chokes out some of the chaos that is needed to produce work that's interesting. This doesn't mean that we approve of "me-too" style abuses or anything like that, but that we accept that sometimes artists are going to be shitty people (who produce good work).
I totally agree that empathy for others, particularly those we dislike or loathe is helpful in changing our perspective to understand a person's motivation. My only concern with this piece is that you failed to do the exhaustive research on Biden as well to demonstrate your point. That would have been truly interesting 🤔
Well observed and explained! Empathy has it's dangers too - too much contextualizing, intellectualizing, and explaining can blind us to the need to act and/or rob us of the necessary emotional energy we need to act, react, compete (which you refer too). I guess, in the the end, what what we seek is balance - the inextricable intertwiness of Kirk and Spock.
Hmmm. How about we restate this more simply and say that everyone has a logic? Decades ago, I read John Toland's biography of Hitler and came to understand why Nazis were unapologetic in the years after the war. Their logic, based in eugenics, was, "We were protecting five hundred years of European civilization from the Slavic hoards to the east. We asked your help (England and France) and you turned us down. Now look what happened. The Slavic hoards have taken over." (Wealthy Jews were considered complicit and poor Jews part of hoard problem.) Everyone has a logic, the assumptive boundaries within which they operate. The essence of psychiatry is...or should be...discovering that logic and attempting to alter it. When you're doing Trump, don't forget mom, which is likely why Donald doesn't drink or use recreational drugs. Still, understanding a person's logic does not mean that they become any less the enemy. Empathy is supposed lead to generosity...generosity of spirit. Call me unempathetic, but I fully understand Trump...and even met his younger brother Robert, who seemed like a reasonable guy...and still loathe him and think him evil. Alito as well. Because, in the end, it's about behavior and Trump, Alito, and your pathetic neighbor make life worse for the people around them.
Well, David, this essay is more than I could ever have hoped for. I’ve learned so much from your methodical approach, especially that empathy is a cognitive skill that can be cultivated and improved. Of course you guessed right about who I had in mind and I appreciate the analysis you took us through regarding that person‘s upbringing. I’ve thought about it quite a bit myself. And yes, the difference between sympathy and empathy -- thank you for clarifying that. One of your readers in the comments above brings compassion into this conversation, which I very much appreciate. Yours in the quest to become a better person.
Answer: I don't bother with it. Carrying anger, loathing and such benefits no one and does not hurt the loathed. It would only rob me of energy and time and there is no good reason I should give my time and energy for no good purpose.
I enjoyed how you focused on empathy which is so hard sometimes. My spouse and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and yet have stayed married for close to 20 years. I have found his beliefs, like my own, a direct result of his upbringing. While I vehemently oppose most of his stands on social issues and more, we co-exist. I feel I have been given a gift of understanding the other side while remaining committed to my own ideals. I'm not sure if this is empathy but it has meant we could remain married!
You describe two categories: empathy and sympathy. But I see three categories.
1. Immediate sympathy: when we see a hurt child, nothing stands between us and immediate sympathy.
2. Pure empathy occurs when we try to understand motivations of another without feelings of sympathy or loathing. Incidentally, this can be important in warfare. Understanding what your opponent will do and why he will do it can be enormously helpful. When Robert E Lee invaded Maryland in 1862, he knew that Union General McClellan would respond slowly and cautiously. This allowed Lee two whole weeks to raid in Maryland and gather supplies before he had to face McClellan. As they used to say in WWII: “Know your enemy."
3. Empathy leading to limited sympathy: When you recognized how miserable your Hampton neighbor was, you were able to feel a measured sympathy for him rather than undiluted gut-cramping loathing. You were even able to pull a Robert E Lee on him— you went and grabbed the best litigator in the Hamptons before he could attack you!!! Well played, sensei!
I once had a similar experience. I was having a peaceful morning in church, and when it came time for communion, a large man jumped up and bulled his way past me so that he could get ahead of me in line. If I hadn't been sitting down, he might have knocked me over. I felt an instantaneous surge of rage. Then a thought entered my mind—I think it was straight from God: “A person who behaves like this cannot actually be happy inside. Aren't you glad you're not as crazy as he is?” Rage turned to into a measured sympathy, and I have applied this lesson on many occasions since.
BTW, there is a French proverb that makes the same point: "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner." // “To understand everything is to forgive everything.” This promises that empathy will result in complete sympathy. Personally, I am satisfied with measured sympathy.
Have you read Paul Bloom’s Against Empathy? Recommend.
Much wisdom here. People have their political preferences of course, but the current popularity of loathing the opposition renders opponents into enemies and transforms simple disagreements into hatred.
One of the best therapeutic techniques that help broken people heal is empathy. However there are those who are "broken:" who capitalize on their negative, toxic and bad behaviors by gathering legions of followers in the same condition. It is a sad commentary on a culture and a society that allows disgusting and despicable people to attain such popularity that they are elevated to positions of power. Those sad souls have no interest in making things better for others or themselves. They are ego-maniacs and empathy is not welcome in their world. This is the tragedy of our times. They have not evolved as human beings and our empathy for them goes nowhere and changes nothing.
I totally agree that loathing takes a lot of effort and isn’t always productive. Though sometimes it produces entertainment. My friends and I have turned Trump-bashing into an intramural sport, which fills our cup and maybe a few hours of belly laughs. It’s better than Ultimate Frisbee.
Great connection between your brother angle as a public defender to give 45 grace. The world could use more of it.
Feeling and practicing empathy can be a noble trait, but I feel little empathy for DJT. He's crossed that line far too many times.
Great essay. I find so much I agree with here, and I restacked with a note.
David, I found this very thought-provoking, though I don’t think I agree with you completely re: the value of Cognitive Empathy. Yes, stepping back to get some distance on the loathing you feel matters and puts the emotional reaction in context - but the emotion is still there, and it’s a form of information, too. At the very least, examining why I loathe somebody (eg, Elon Musk) or some organization (Meta) can be a way for me to examine by own biases and values. I’m leery of separating analysis and emotion as binary modes - for me, what matters is practicing the ability to pause, step back, and question my own impulses before immediately responding to something loathsome.
And this brings to mind the quality of compassion, which is not the same as empathy - compassion is the thing many therapists and spiritual counselors (as in loving kindness mantras for those who have hurt you) say is the ultimate goal in facing a world in which so much feels out of our control, unfair, even traumatic. I am very far from having compassion for Donald Trump himself (and any empathy I feel for his upbringing doesn’t help me there). But lately, I have been trying to cultivate compassion for MAGA voters as well as those on the left who are too doctrinaire for me. I am trying to sit with what they express and ideas I don’t agree with, because I think we are all afraid in this uncertain world. We need to witness and acknowledge each other’s pain before sinking into loathing - or despair.
Great post, and I'm reminded of similar arguments around art that is *made by people who are personally unsympathetic* - i.e. by "bad" people.
I think so much of what's wrong about our current literary discourse is this idea of needing literary fiction - or contemporary narratives - to validate our existing moral worldviews. And what ends up happening is that this strictness reaches down into art and imposes itself into a rigid, cast-like structure that chokes out some of the chaos that is needed to produce work that's interesting. This doesn't mean that we approve of "me-too" style abuses or anything like that, but that we accept that sometimes artists are going to be shitty people (who produce good work).
If you're interested, I wrote about this here: https://www.decentralizedfiction.com/p/in-spite-of-ourselves-the-immoral
I totally agree that empathy for others, particularly those we dislike or loathe is helpful in changing our perspective to understand a person's motivation. My only concern with this piece is that you failed to do the exhaustive research on Biden as well to demonstrate your point. That would have been truly interesting 🤔
Well observed and explained! Empathy has it's dangers too - too much contextualizing, intellectualizing, and explaining can blind us to the need to act and/or rob us of the necessary emotional energy we need to act, react, compete (which you refer too). I guess, in the the end, what what we seek is balance - the inextricable intertwiness of Kirk and Spock.
Hmmm. How about we restate this more simply and say that everyone has a logic? Decades ago, I read John Toland's biography of Hitler and came to understand why Nazis were unapologetic in the years after the war. Their logic, based in eugenics, was, "We were protecting five hundred years of European civilization from the Slavic hoards to the east. We asked your help (England and France) and you turned us down. Now look what happened. The Slavic hoards have taken over." (Wealthy Jews were considered complicit and poor Jews part of hoard problem.) Everyone has a logic, the assumptive boundaries within which they operate. The essence of psychiatry is...or should be...discovering that logic and attempting to alter it. When you're doing Trump, don't forget mom, which is likely why Donald doesn't drink or use recreational drugs. Still, understanding a person's logic does not mean that they become any less the enemy. Empathy is supposed lead to generosity...generosity of spirit. Call me unempathetic, but I fully understand Trump...and even met his younger brother Robert, who seemed like a reasonable guy...and still loathe him and think him evil. Alito as well. Because, in the end, it's about behavior and Trump, Alito, and your pathetic neighbor make life worse for the people around them.
Well, David, this essay is more than I could ever have hoped for. I’ve learned so much from your methodical approach, especially that empathy is a cognitive skill that can be cultivated and improved. Of course you guessed right about who I had in mind and I appreciate the analysis you took us through regarding that person‘s upbringing. I’ve thought about it quite a bit myself. And yes, the difference between sympathy and empathy -- thank you for clarifying that. One of your readers in the comments above brings compassion into this conversation, which I very much appreciate. Yours in the quest to become a better person.
Answer: I don't bother with it. Carrying anger, loathing and such benefits no one and does not hurt the loathed. It would only rob me of energy and time and there is no good reason I should give my time and energy for no good purpose.
I enjoyed how you focused on empathy which is so hard sometimes. My spouse and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and yet have stayed married for close to 20 years. I have found his beliefs, like my own, a direct result of his upbringing. While I vehemently oppose most of his stands on social issues and more, we co-exist. I feel I have been given a gift of understanding the other side while remaining committed to my own ideals. I'm not sure if this is empathy but it has meant we could remain married!