Community Chat

[blackhole99]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

           I'll respond since your post is directly after my comments.    Your sarcasm aside, I hope you don't feel that anyone here thinks by posting that means they have the final answer.    We're just offering opinions, or at least that's what I do when I post here, and sometimes our views will be opposing ones.   And maybe, in the process, we'll think of the issue in a way we didn't think about before we read all the comments.    I believe all of us here are "enlightened," and I agree, education is wonderful!

---

Oh come on, if everyone is so " enlightened" you would not feel the need to point out the sarcasm in her post.Just my opinion.

[Noel7]

---

@YorkieonmyPillow wrote:

LOL. Selective reading, selective responding.

---

*******************************

@YorkieonmyPillow

You and I were able to speak civilly to each other for awhile.  Suddenly, you changed all that and reverted to nothing but sarcasm and personal attack.  I'm not interested in it.

[dooBdoo]

---

blackhole99 wrote:

---

dooBdoo wrote:

---

Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

           I'll respond since your post is directly after my comments.    Your sarcasm aside, I hope you don't feel that anyone here thinks by posting that means they have the final answer.    We're just offering opinions, or at least that's what I do when I post here, and sometimes our views will be opposing ones.   And maybe, in the process, we'll think of the issue in a way we didn't think about before we read all the comments.    I believe all of us here are "enlightened," and I agree, education is wonderful!

---

Oh come on, if everyone is so " enlightened" you would not feel the need to point out the sarcasm in her post.Just my opinion.

---

          Why?   I don't see the connection between the two.   I was interpreting her as being sarcastic, but if I was wrong I stand corrected.   (eta:  The written word is so limiting, so I realize my interpretations sometimes are wrong.)  In any event, I believe all the posters are enlightened and their contributions are worth consideration.

[YorkieonmyPillow]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@YorkieonmyPillow wrote:

LOL. Selective reading, selective responding.

---

*******************************

@YorkieonmyPillow

You and I were able to speak civilly to each other for awhile.  Suddenly, you changed all that and reverted to nothing but sarcasm and personal attack.  I'm not interested in it.

---

Nor am I.

Where did I attack you?

I wouldn't attack you.

I was just asking if this person you're calling a sociopath has been diagnosed. Personally, I never heard of the man.

[Moonchilde]

Just personally, I don't feel that "empathy" inevitably means feeling driven to alleviate (as in eliminate) a situation; fairly far from it, actually.

An empathetic person can put themselves in someone else's shoes, and they can pretty well understand how that person might be feeling. Their empathetic sympathy, combined with insight into the person's issue, means that they might well be able to relate well to the person, and the person might actually feel better having talked to them, because they feel the empath really "gets it" while others, though they mean well, may not.

A compassionate person "feels sorry for" anyone in an unhappy situation, but many if not most times, feeling badly for the person is as far as it goes. You can feel bad for someone even if you can't relate to the situation.

I have always been empathetic - but not for everyone and every situation, because empathy is more than compassion. Empathy involves giving something of yourself, and compassion - not necessarily. I'm happy, and feel "successful" (though I don't think of it that way) if I only make someone feel better for awhile, and they know someone really heard them. I would never presume to think I had to fix things all up for anyone and solve their problem.

So, I guess I disagree fundamentally with the book's definition of empathy.

[Beth-QVC]

This is an interesting thread and a very civil discussion with differing opinions....just a reminder to stay on topic!

Beth QVC

[Juniebugz]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

Sarcasm is a weak response. Why not just accept that there are varying degrees of opinion here? I've read some excellent posts.

I try to look beyond what one person is saying literally to what the consequence of that statement might mean. I infer from the author of the article differently than you do, obviously.

I think he makes a distinction without a difference or plays with minor definition variances in order to get to a particular point -- that we best not let our emotions get involved.

But both empathy and compassion call for emotion. So it's clear to me that is trying to make a decided political statement, one that I don't favor.

---

Exactly @suzyQ3!

Sarcasm is a weak response, a lame tool used as a personal attack.

I was reading along enjoying the discussion then BAM in the one post she personally insulted everyone who didn't agree with her or her pals. 

Let's all go back thru the thread and see how many posters write about the TOPIC and how few write personal attacks toward other posters. 

No wonder decent people leave the boards and stop posting here. SMH.

On the topic I didn't realize the distinction between the two words. Now I do. 

[Juniebugz]

---

@FdooBdoo wrote:

---

@blackhole99 wrote:

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

           I'll respond since your post is directly after my comments.    Your sarcasm aside, I hope you don't feel that anyone here thinks by posting that means they have the final answer.    We're just offering opinions, or at least that's what I do when I post here, and sometimes our views will be opposing ones.   And maybe, in the process, we'll think of the issue in a way we didn't think about before we read all the comments.    I believe all of us here are "enlightened," and I agree, education is wonderful!

---

Oh come on, if everyone is so " enlightened" you would not feel the need to point out the sarcasm in her post.Just my opinion.

---

          Why?   I don't see the connection between the two.   I was interpreting her as being sarcastic, but if I was wrong I stand corrected.   (eta:  The written word is so limiting, so I realize my interpretations sometimes are wrong.)  In any event, I believe all the posters are enlightened and their contributions are worth consideration.

---

There is no connection @dooBdoo. Nothing wrong w your post. 

Note she has nothing to say about the actual thread topic lol. "Just my opinion."

[Juniebugz]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

Just personally, I don't feel that "empathy" inevitably means feeling driven to alleviate (as in eliminate) a situation; fairly far from it, actually.

An empathetic person can put themselves in someone else's shoes, and they can pretty well understand how that person might be feeling. Their empathetic sympathy, combined with insight into the person's issue, means that they might well be able to relate well to the person, and the person might actually feel better having talked to them, because they feel the empath really "gets it" while others, though they mean well, may not.

A compassionate person "feels sorry for" anyone in an unhappy situation, but many if not most times, feeling badly for the person is as far as it goes. You can feel bad for someone even if you can't relate to the situation.

I have always been empathetic - but not for everyone and every situation, because empathy is more than compassion. Empathy involves giving something of yourself, and compassion - not necessarily. I'm happy, and feel "successful" (though I don't think of it that way) if I only make someone feel better for awhile, and they know someone really heard them. I would never presume to think I had to fix things all up for anyone and solve their problem.

So, I guess I disagree fundamentally with the book's definition of empathy.

---

I like your summation @Moonchilde.

I think that's my impression after reading the thread and links.

[skuggles]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

This is an interesting comment from an article in Psych Today:

Compassion (‘suffering with’) is more engaged than simple empathy, and is associated with an active desire to alleviate the suffering of its object. With empathy, I share your emotions; with compassion I not only share your emotions but also elevate them into a universal and transcending experience. Compassion, which builds upon empathy, is one of the main motivators of altruism.

Maslow put altruism at the top of man's hierarchy of needs.  I see it there, too.

In his later years, Maslow explored a further dimension of needs, while criticizing his own vision on self-actualization. The self only finds its actualization in giving itself to some higher goal outside oneself, in altruism and spirituality.

Abraham Maslow

---

@Noel7 Interesting point. I'll throw a monkey wrench in to say that I do not believe that there is true altruism, except for some rare exceptions. So Maslow's theory could easily get lost in the enormity and depth of slightly  differing theories looking at this from different perspectives.