We haven’t had nearly enough philosophy on this blog, so here goes...
I’ve long understood the value of empathy, and have generally viewed it as a trait of the altruist. It is easy, for example, to hate your enemy; but if you can truly understand your enemy, to see from his vantage point, to feel his emotion in a visceral way — and if he can do likewise with regard to you — then the possibility of a dialogue emerges. And forget enemies; how much damage do we inflict on our benevolent relationships due to an inability to hear one another? Throughout history, countless arguments between spouses, between parents and children, between workers and their bosses, etc., have been punctuated by one yelling to the other, directly or silently, “Why aren’t you LISTENING to me?!” Understanding in lieu of judgment. It may be the source of all resolution — and the source, then, of all major interpersonal and social progress. Empathy’s sediment is integral to the monolith of enlightenment.
But is empathy something we should expect only from the enlightened? Or is it, rather, something we should demand of and expect from each one of us — the way we do nonviolence and respect for property? Are we committing a kind of moral crime by not striving to understand the other? By living in our own heads, dishing out silent verdicts, engineering unspoken distances between one another? Ironically, by elevating ourselves above the mass of humanity on the hierarchical moral ladder, when the very quintessence of morality is to see the other as your equal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There's a couple of random thoughts that came as I read your blog. One has to do with how we define empathy. You mentioned "understand[ing] your enemy" and "feeling his emotion". I wonder if this is too far a reach for the concept of empathy. I relate empathy more with the attempt to understand others' experiences and feelings. I bother mentioning this because how we define empathy - the limits we place on it - impact what we can reasonably expect of ourselves to accomplish in the effort to live empathetically.
The other thought I have relates to your main question: should learning/practicing empathy be an expectation we set for mankind? You used nonviolence and respect for property as examples of principles that have reached the level to which we should raise empathy. I don't have to say this, but we both know those principles are not universally respected. More important though for me is how these principles are propogated? Most typically from mother to son, father to daughter and so on. People who value any principle pass them on to their children and other loved ones. This is the first, and one could argue most significant, way these things get passed on. We also use media and religion to pass on our values. What other ways do we go about that work? Which means would you see as the most effective for engendering the universal principle of empathy?
Your final question about "the very quintessence of morality" being that we see others as equal... that one I have to think about. There's a fundamental truth there for me, but I'm hesitating. What I don't know is if it's merely a matter of semantics. The way I'm thinking of it is not seeing equality in ourselves and others, but moreso seeing that we come from the same source. (Personally, I view that from a spiritual, metaphysical perspective. But it could be Adam and Eve or the same pile of prehuman slop on the ocean's shoreline 40 million years ago. It's all the same.) I think this notion of equality has hamstrung us as human beings. Whites must see Blacks as their equal. Men must see Women as the equal (it is most often those with the upperhand who must acknoweldge others equality). Divine, worthy? Yes. But equal just doesn't seem to do enough for us from a linguistic perspective. We most often think of equal in mathematical terms, a synonym same. An equal sign floating in the space between you and me as we face each other. And that's not how we are as humans, really. But what gets at that? How do we adequately describe our mutual experience, the core of all humans that is common. Without getting all new agey on you, the most artful way I've heard it expressed is in the phrase "namaste". Essentially, the light within me recognizes the light within you. With that, or something like it, I can definitively answer "yes" to your last question.
Damn, where to begin.
First, I wasn’t trying to imply that nonviolence and respect for property are universally held notions. I just noted, however implicitly, that these are cultural moral imperatives in Western society. Everyone has an opinion of Roe v. Wade, but not too many people would argue that you shouldn’t punch a guy in the face on a whim, or steal a CD out of a car just because the window was left open. Yes, you can make an argument for how one or both of these might be justifiable given an extreme context (e.g., war), but that’s another argument altogether.
But second, and more importantly, yes — the word “equality” and all its derivatives do fail me in my argument. Clearly, we are not all the same; quite the opposite is true. I like your term, “namaste.” Let’s go with it. And let’s further agree that the quintessence of morality is to regard the value of another’s existence (another’s “light,” as it were) as equal to your own in the grand scheme. As far as how to best propagate the notion of empathy broadly, we might be getting ahead of ourselves.
First we must understand its full ramifications and measure its impact/importance on the individual and greater culture. Being empathetic is no picnic. The most empathetic people I know suffer from it; it’s difficult to know and feel the pain, stress, sadness, despair, etc., of others. But is that the cost of doing what’s right? Maybe. Or maybe it’s too much to ask of people, to take on that knowledge, to assume that responsibility. The serpent told Adam and Eve that by eating the apple, they would know what God knows. His trick was that, in that moment, they couldn’t possibly understand what that meant.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. Anyway, time to get back to work. I got cars to sell. Later --
Post a Comment