Sense of "compassion" related to "empathy"?

[wordy]

Not really philosophy for me but moral behavior maybe is formally seen as a philosophic thing.

Could one say that some persons claim to have great compassion for all of humanity but still show incredibly little empathy for fellow beings.

Maybe empathy is a misleading word.

Formally IIRC it is a term that first was used in Freud theraphy? and later taken over by "care" like Hospitals and such. So it maybe technically means to know how the other feels but it have no obligation to feel it oneself or to care about the others feeling.

One "Nurse" told me it meant that one know how the Patient feels but still do the job even if it is very hurtful and being a job one don't feel much at all cause that would only come in the way of doing the job so all this about feeling is misleading.

Feeling is more like pity???, empathy means you should understand the feeling of the other but not feel like them cause that then will disturb and bias your view on them. Empathy is to keep a formal distance? Professional
distance and neutrality?

What compassion means that I fail to get. Seems a very difficult word to grasp. Yes the words in the D. is very clear but those who claim they are compassionate don't behave like that. They are often extremely rude and blunt and claim that the crueler they are the more compassionate they are.

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity. what dictionary says about compassion.

Synonyms: pity, compassion, commiseration, sympathy, condolence, empathy

These nouns signify kindly concern aroused by the misfortune, affliction, or suffering of another.

Pity often implies a feeling of sorrow that inclines one to help or to show mercy: felt pity for the outcast.

Compassion denotes deep awareness of the suffering of another and the wish to relieve it: "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism" Hubert H. Humphrey.

Commiseration signifies the expression of pity or sorrow: expressed their commiseration over the failure of the experiment.

Sympathy denotes the act of or capacity for sharing in the sorrows or troubles of another: "They had little sympathy to spare for their unfortunate enemies" William Hickling Prescott.

Condolence is a formal, conventional expression of pity, usually to relatives upon a death: extending condolences to the bereaved family.

Empathy is an identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives: Having changed schools several times as a child, I feel empathy for the transfer students.

[Danhalen]

That's an interesting question. My gut feeling is compassion falls into a subset of empathy. That is, all compassion is necessarily empathetic, but empathy is not always compassionate. I am basing this on the definitions you have provided.

Your observation of empathy as a technical term seems to be correct as well since compassion includes the desire to act (by definition) whereas empathy does not.

[wordy]

Dan, yes you are better thinker than I am. Yes I agree. As the "Professionals" in "Care Units" define it they mean that it allow them to "know" how the Patient feels but if they felt the same angst or fear or pain then they would totally fail to help the Patient cause they would faint out of feeling that intense burning or unbearable pain etc.

So they need to know how they feel and to not get overwhelmed by feelings on their own.

Compassion is less problematic than Pity cause that word is almost a bad word now.

A demeaning word even? None wants other to feel pity for them cause that is a kind of devastating condition or something very bad or at least very embarrassing.

Loss of respect or something?

And the Religious Right in US A have made Compassion into a political slogan so it is tainted by Compassionate Conservatism??? And how much such do they have. Brutal compassion at times.

Even words like "care" has been tainted. It smacks too much of not being allowed to take ones own decisions cause if I am in care of somebody then they make all the good decisions for me. :D

[Christina]

One "Nurse" told me it meant that one know how the Patient feels but still do the job even if it is very hurtful and being a job one don't feel much at all cause that would only come in the way of doing the job so all this about feeling is misleading.

Feeling is more like pity???, empathy means you should understand the feeling of the other but not feel like them cause that then will disturb and bias your view on them. Empathy is to keep a formal distance? Professional
distance and neutrality?

You've used the words 'know' and 'understand' and I'm not sure if you mean them to be synonyms or not. From the point of view of the person being evaluated and treated in a clinical setting, I don't think they're the same thing. Professionals have studied and read and learned enough to 'understand' how people with different mental disorders behave and they understand the psychological and/or physiological issues that drive the behavior. They don't 'know' how I feel because they don't have the frame of reference to be able to know how a mental state that they've never experienced feels to any particular individual. What I think that psychologists (at least mine) can empathize with is how it feels to wander around the normal population having a disorder with no cure that you can't always control and can't be talked away. Everyone feels ashamed and embarrassed and frustrated sometimes and that's easy to empathize with. I don't know about everyone, but I want my psychologist and psychiatrist to keep a professional distance and keep those boundaries in place. They're there to help me, not to have a pity party with me. They're not cruel in the least, but sometimes compassion isn't pleasant but it's what you need to hear at the time. And of course some people are just jerks and like to think of themselves as compassionate, or they feel compassion for some things but not others.

I'd be very interested to know what Tod thinks about this from his perspective.

[Jobar]

Be careful of the multiple senses of the word 'feelings' here, wordy. It refers to both emotional experiences, and to physical sensation. It's possible for a medical professional to have great empathy for a patient's feelings, and yet not actually experience the bodily pain of the patient.

Empathy is the common experience of, or identification with, the emotion of the patient. And though they aren't exact synonyms, I think both compassion and pity are close cognates of empathy.

[LoneWolf]

If you see a guy get kicked hard in the crotch and you bring him an ice pack to help with the pain that is compassion.

If you see a guy get kicked hard in the crotch and you reflexively wince and cover your own genitals, THAT is empathy.

Next question.

;)

[wordy]

Good comments, words easily get mistaken by us who are not native user of E.

Maybe I search for a different word.

I remember a guy that maybe live on coining concepts so his words are most likely copyrighted but came up with something that made me wonder if he was on to something important.

But few or none was interested in it. Which surprised me.

Related to feeling and compassion and empathy in that he kind of turned the Golden Rule upside down.

Commonsensism: A version of the golden rule put into modern, non-religious terms that some people live by is, "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated".



Buddhism: 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."



Judaism: 1300 BC, from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."



Hinduism: 3200 BC, From the Hitopadesa- "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."

Zoroastrianism: 600 BC, From the Shast-na-shayast 13:29- "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others."

Confucianism: 557 BC, From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

Christianity: 30 AD, From the King James Version , 7:12- "Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them."


Here in West usually expressed in this old way by christians but also cited by a few atheists.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you

He came up with "Treat others the way they want to be treated."

Which is exactly??? as the very old Hindu rule.

One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.


First time I heard of the Hindu one today. Surprising that none of the many Hindus mention it.

Seems to be a better rule if one know how to interpret it.

To know how the others want to be treated that requires that one look through the politeness they show to not do any request at all. Many don't give true answers if one ask them about their wishes cause to be frank about such can be seen as being forward and demanding and so on.

One need to be good at social skills to get them to reveal what they really want.

To be able to read their body language. I am very bad at such.

Now that I know he took his rule from the Hindus then I guess it is ok to use it in their way of saying it.


One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.

the only problem is to get what they wish. So there the compassion and empathy and feelings and social skills to find out is needed.

[Brianna]

You are still stuck on this? :)

That is ok. I just remember you talking about this before you left IIDB.

[wordy]

If it is me you are talking to???

before you left IIDB.

well one can say I left IIDB and was more active at TR for a long time but after a row with some Moderators I went back to IIDB and was active there and are active there daily cause I am dependent on feedback from people who care about me so I could not stay at TR cause too few there had time to care. They was totally immersed in getting it functioning so my texts drowned in all the practical things and I am not technical and practical enough to be of help with such demanding things as what to do with PD and other demanding posters.

I am at it since 1983 cause I still search for atheists that share my variety of feeling religious but to not be religious cause that almost always include supernatural things or woo woo like PSI and Paranormal and "Emptiness" that is lacking desires and I am not into lacking desires. I think desires are actually good as long as you don't get dependent and overwhelmed or compulsive and hooked on them.

And many atheists that claim to be "spiritual" or "religious" are into such woo woo.

so yes me is at it and have I left IIDB. Depends on what it means to leave. I am active writing there but I don't donate money to them. I was very active in the October 2007 thing. one of the first to protest if I remember.

But I am at the moment active in TR too. But not sure for how long. Happy to have been told about this place too.

[Brianna]

If it is me you are talking to???



well one can say I left IIDB and was more active at TR for a long time but after a row with some Moderators I went back to IIDB and was active there and are active there daily cause I am dependent on feedback from people who care about me so I could not say at TR cause too few there had time to care. They was totally immersed in getting it functioning so my texts drowned in all the practical things and I am not technical and practical enough to be of help with such demanding things as what to do with PD and other demanding posters.

I am at it since 1983 cause I still search for atheists that share my variety of feeling religious but to not be religious cause that almost always include supernatural things or woo woo like PSI and Paranormal and "Emptiness" that is lacking desires and I am not into lacking desires. I think desires are actually good as long as you don't get dependent and overwhelmed or compulsive and hooked on them.

And many atheists that claim to be "spiritual" or "religious" are into such woo woo.

so yes me is at it and have I left IIDB. Depends on what it means to leave. I am active writing there but I don't donate money to them. I was very active in the October 2007 thing. one of the first to protest if I remember.

Oh, I guess that should say, "when i left IIDB"

:) I like what your talking about.

[wordy]

* Big Smile*

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Good comments, words easily get mistaken by us who are not native user of E.

Maybe I search for a different word.

I remember a guy that maybe live on coining concepts so his words are most likely copyrighted but came up with something that made me wonder if he was on to something important.

But few or none was interested in it. Which surprised me.

Related to feeling and compassion and empathy in that he kind of turned the Golden Rule upside down.



Here in West usually expressed in this old way by christians but also cited by a few atheists.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you

He came up with "Treat others the way they want to be treated."

Which is exactly??? as the very old Hindu rule.

One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.


First time I heard of the Hindu one today. Surprising that none of the many Hindus mention it.

Seems to be a better rule if one know how to interpret it.

To know how the others want to be treated that requires that one look through the politeness they show to not do any request at all. Many don't give true answers if one ask them about their wishes cause to be frank about such can be seen as being forward and demanding and so on.

One need to be good at social skills to get them to reveal what they really want.

To be able to read their body language. I am very bad at such.

Now that I know he took his rule from the Hindus then I guess it is ok to use it in their way of saying it.


One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.

the only problem is to get what they wish. So there the compassion and empathy and feelings and social skills to find out is needed.

Which gets back down to Moriah's bottom line: that the foundation of all true morality (not programmed religious crap but the real native deal of being sentient) resides in the subjective experience of the self and in that respect alone, comes hardwired and will unfold naturally in any environment where a child gets taught to trust and process the input of his senses, not tricked or abused into turning on himself and doing otherwise.

It does not take religion or education to "teach" any one of us that a hug feels good and a kick in the face does not. We can experience even ONLY the former, while imagining the latter, to arrive there. And by extension, recognizing that if a hug feels good to oneself it will feel good to another, whereas if a kick in the face feels horrible to oneself it will likewise feel horrible to another. Right there, hardwired into the infant and sensorimotor developing tot, resides all the "morality" any of us wil ever need -- if we just get encouraged to embrace it AS reality instead of subjected to a zillion abusive toxic memes attempting to reprogram our defaults to something else, something twisted and unnatural.

[Jobar]

The fact that much of our ethics is 'hardwired' in our brains can be shown by studying autism. In acute autism, other people (and living things in general) are perceived as no different from any other object; compassion and empathy are impossible for such an unfortunate, and they will always require special care and oversight, even incarceration, to prevent them from damaging others.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

So then, fair to say compassion occurs as an outward function, or manifestation, of empathy?

[Criada]

As i see it, empathy is the ability to identify with and understand the feelings of others, whether through reference to one's own feelings in similar circumstances, through a high degree of emotional intelligen ce and ability to read the words, expressions and body language of others, or simply through a good imagination.
Compassion is not really possible without empathy, and involves the desire to alleviate the suffering of another or others.
It is very possible to empathise and feel no compassion... I do not think it is possible to show compassion without at least some degree of empathy.

I also thing that there is a tendency to equate compassion with 'warm fuzzies' and a kind of woolly saying nice things, which does not do it justice.
This morning my cat brought me a half-dead mouse. I believe that my killing the creature was a compassionate action, although it was far from 'nice'. Similarly, compassion towards others does not always involve hugs and sympathy, it can involve action which seems harsh.. which is maybe why those who claim to be compassionate sometimes come across as not being so. If someone has a mangled leg, sympathising with them will not help, whereas amputation may be the compassionate course of action.

That said, many are unnecessarily cruel under the guise of compassion.

[Cath B]

The fact that much of our ethics is 'hardwired' in our brains can be shown by studying autism. In acute autism, other people (and living things in general) are perceived as no different from any other object; compassion and empathy are impossible for such an unfortunate, and they will always require special care and oversight, even incarceration, to prevent them from damaging others.

Is it possible that at least some autistic folk feel compassion but lack the nous to express their compassion in a way that easily makes sense to neurotypicals?

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

That said, many are unnecessarily cruel under the guise of compassion.
This occurs, IMO, way more often than bona fide "hard" or "difficult" things getting done as genuinely compassionate acts. People do not want to relinquish their self-images, so they say or do harsh things to others and then later try to cover their asses with some convoluted explanation to "save face" and still appear as if they did something completely selfish and wrong for the other party's "own good". :mad: :bang:

Moriah fucking hates that bullshit. It does not help that we have entire "schools of thought" that pass for "normal" or "conventional wisdom" which actually ADVOCATE this type of horse shit, either, making it easier for people to justify the whole notion of "harming others for their own good" to begin with, and from there, apply it to their own pathetic excuses for being lousy.

But lets face it. Most people's "compassion" ends where their own comfort and convenience begins.

[wordy]

It is very possible to empathise and feel no compassion... I do not think it is possible to show compassion without at least some degree of empathy.

That was even what they expected of Doctors and Nurses cause their "Professional" role was to be distanced and above the patient. So they should understand but not feel anything. The colder intellect the more accurate assessment something. Being objective while if you felt for the Patient then that feeling could lead you astray from your role.

[wordy]

The fact that much of our ethics is 'hardwired' in our brains can be shown by studying autism. In acute autism, other people (and living things in general) are perceived as no different from any other object; compassion and empathy are impossible for such an unfortunate, and they will always require special care and oversight, even incarceration, to prevent them from damaging others.

Is it possible that at least some autistic folk feel compassion but lack the nous to express their compassion in a way that easily makes sense to neurotypicals?


Yes it is not easy to know. I have a great deal of Asperger but all of us with that diagnose are very different from each other.

Some maybe intellectually do know they are supposed to feel and do something for the person in pain.

The embarrassing for me was that I kind if got "blank" in my head at several instances that would normally motivated me to be compassionate and sympathetic and sharing my concern and show tender love and care cause it was my wife and I just got blank or what to name it. Empty and I kind of had no idea what to do about it either. I even failed to tell her that I knew I was supposed to be there for her and I totally failed and that was one such instance that I vaguely began to get that something was terribly wrong with me but I failed to get aware of it any deeper than that. It took me some 15 years more to become aware enough to ask for a diagnose why I was different.

Many other such situations too did happen. It is very embarrassing now when I get it or understand it better that I was so blind to how ill I behaved. I had no clue at the time what was supposed to happen.

Cath B you use the word neuro typical. I am not criticizing you I just tell my view on the word ok

That word was loved by my fellow Aspergers. They even bragged that us Aspergers was somewhat better at things cause we where not neurotypical.

I think that word is not a good word. It sounds too Political Correct. There are more like a contineum of differences so none is typical but we could maybe talk about "average" or "mean curve"? those in the middle of the curve being many and us not there being fewer.

[wordy]

Is it possible that at least some autistic folk feel compassion but lack the nous to express their compassion in a way that easily makes sense to neurotypicals?

I want to know this even more about so called Sociopaths or conning deceiving persons.

They seems to know how to act as if they are very compassionate and loving and maybe they feel that way too at times but too often they only use that ability to con people into giving them a lot of money and free access to everything the other have.

Autists usally are so bad at social skills that it is obvious within a minute or faster that this is not a normal person.

That did happen to me at a short time job at a Pastoral Administration at a Church. I was the Summer vacation jump in to save them to take turns sitting in the expeditions. The Priests was needed to take care of death and newborns and doing preaching. :D so I got paid to answer the phone and directing the few visitors.

One young Priest after talking to me a few seconds took me aside and asked if her intuition got my body language right, that I had a diagnose and I had. She saw that instantly due to my lack of normal responses to the body language going on around me. My lack of social skills was obvious to her. We had fun talks about atheism and faith during the time I was there and she and her hubby invited me many times to their house.

[Cath B]

Cath B you use the word neuro typical. I am not criticizing you I just tell my view on the word ok

That word was loved by my fellow Aspergers. They even bragged that us Aspergers was somewhat better at things cause we where not neurotypical.

I think that word is not a good word. It sounds too Political Correct. There are more like a contineum of differences so none is typical but we could maybe talk about "average" or "mean curve"? those in the middle of the curve being many and us not there being fewer.

I wasn't too happy to use "neurotypical" myself for the same reason.

But I was in a rush to get my post posted and couldn't think of anything more apt off the top of my head.

Sometimes when that happens I abandon my post, but this time I thought, "Oh well, it'll do."

But it was fair enough for you to pick me up on it.

[wordy]

Yes it is not easy to find good words for what is average mean value or what the name is statistically?

Am I socially challenged maybe. How cool does that sound? In swedish we say. Socially not competent. sometimes when we look for jobs the describption is that one should have social competence and feel happy being in a group that has a team spirit and be good at negotiating and fast to adjust to change of plans. :D

I am incredibly slow about change of plans.

My latest wife did a change of plan. She started to go to a fundy group. I have still not adjusted to it. That was some 25 years ago. If one are an aggressive atheist like me then it is a big No No to go to fundy church. I mean I would even be worried if it was UU or Quakers cause both are heavy into post modernism and I don't like their relativistic view on knowledge and moral.

[Jobar]

Wordy, have you read any of my discourses on the Metal Rules?

The Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would be done by.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
The Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not be done by.
The Brass Rule: Do unto others as they do to you.
The Iron Rule: Do unto others as you will.

If you try to live by any single one of those, you won't be able to live as happily or as well as you can by applying different ones appropriately. Some people will take advantage mercilessly if you always apply the Platinum or Golden Rules; the Brass Rule can result in an endless vendetta; the Iron Rule will make your life a painful and lonely battle against everyone else, in the end. Yet in some situations, like open warfare, not applying the Iron Rule is probably a path to defeat and death.

The simplest analogy I know for demonstrating morality in human interaction is the prisoner's dilemma (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2267248#post2267248). If you always try to screw your opponent in prisoner's dilemma (apply the Iron Rule), you lose in the long run. If you always try to cooperate (Golden Rule) you lose too.

The best results come from a strategy which starts with the Golden Rule, then immediately switches to the Brass Rule. If you're screwed, screw back! But- every once in a while, revert to the Golden Rule (turn the other cheek). Long computer simulations of this simple but profound game show that strategy wins in the long run.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Moriah prefers the platinum rule to the golden rule. The golden rule can all too often just be a lot of pretty words given to what winds up being the iron rule in disguise. By creatively extrapolating, distancing, and spinning what he would want done to himself, supposedly, any human can easily make a case for calling any type of abuse "acting in another's best interest", and use the golden rule as a cover for the iron rule in the most inappropriate and inexcusable situations.

So it has found anyway.

[wordy]

Moriah , that seems to be what Jobar says too.

A cheater or power gamer can twist anything to their advantage.

Jobar that was a good way to do it. Easy to grasp apart for me when it comes to the Prisoners Dilemma. A lot of math in that one. But I've seen many TV tests of it and agree with you that it is very interesting.

Is PD a kind of expanded TitForTat? Which also use your strategy. To always start nice but to retaliate properly when the other deceived the open format of being nice.

I think the problem arise when they have different preferences and norms.

What I think is to start nice could by that person be seen as not nice.

So that is why the Platinum has some advantage over the Golden Rule.

One need to get where the other are at to know what is to treat him or her nice.

To start as the Golden Rule with what I think is nice could be a fatal mistake.

Unless one do a generous reinterpretation that what I read into

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

is rephrased to mean the Platinum Rule.

[Jobar]

None of those rules are perfect. What if the 'other' is a serious masochist? If you try to apply the Platinum rule to such a one, are you then to treat them like crap and cause them pain to give them their sexual jollies? Because some people are deeply twisted in various ways, you have to pick and choose which rule to apply. AFAIK there is no single infallible guideline which will allow you to always act appropriately towards others; every human interaction involves judgment.

[David B]

The best results come from a strategy which starts with the Golden Rule, then immediately switches to the Brass Rule. If you're screwed, screw back! But- every once in a while, revert to the Golden Rule (turn the other cheek). Long computer simulations of this simple but profound game show that strategy wins in the long run.

Yes, I've come across literature on this.

It reminds me of what I understand of the altruistic feeding behaviour of vampire bats. Which I regard as a sort of proto or quasi morality.

None of those rules are perfect. What if the 'other' is a serious masochist? If you try to apply the Platinum rule to such a one, are you then to treat them like crap and cause them pain to give them their sexual jollies? Because some people are deeply twisted in various ways, you have to pick and choose which rule to apply. AFAIK there is no single infallible guideline which will allow you to always act appropriately towards others; every human interaction involves judgment.

My bold.

Yes, but sometimes judgement made with inadequate, or even wrong, premises.

As an example, I think there is a tendency for people to assume that other people are like them, and a tendency to treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. And I think that empathy is related to this, though not identical.

If I am wrong about something, then I want to be told that I am wrong, and have what is right explained to me.

It has taken some time to understand that not all people share this wish.

Some people seem to view it as patronising or rude when I don't let things like their belief in, say, astrology or Bach Flower remedies pass unchallenged.

Also, if people have a conversion (or deconversion, for that matter) experience that they view as profoundly valuable, they do seem to want to share it, perhaps at least in part on the basis that if they think it valuable, then other people will also find it so.

Not everyone wants to hear, though.

David

[wordy]

Jobar, give it to them. The sexual pleasure. Beat them up! :D Just kidding.

But I agree, one certainly need good judgment to know when to do what.

David, yes I have had same experiences myself. I urge them to tell what went wrong and they refuse. If Wordy fail to guess it from their body language the first time or the words they used first time then forget about it, they will not attempt to explain it again.

Some kind of pride or principle of Tell once and if that fail then that person should not be given another chance to get it. But there are other reactions too. Too embarrassing to explain things.

It took me some 50 years to find out why a "Buddy" behaved so strangely in my teen years. He was not my Buddy, I only thought so cause his Dad had asked him to bring me over cause his Dad and I had same interest in building Shortwave transmitters.

so he was only a "friend" to me cause he didn't want his Dad to be disappointed with him. And I certainly appreciate to be friend with his Dad. I liked his Dad much and it was fun talking Radio with him but I thought this guy my age was my best Buddy.

It feels like I've been deceived my whole youth. Things was much worse than I could even in my worst pessimism imagine. I did not have such twisted imagination to guess me could be deceived that easily. I really trusted he was my best friend.

No wonder people trust in Jesus or Amida. Those are to be trusted cause they are only imaginative symbols for something universal. Empathy and compassion or something.

So every person can interpret them in a way that suites that person. Some 3000 varieties of Christian interpretations having congregations too. Same with Amida.

I made phone call to the Taiwan variety here in Sweden and their Amida was different from the Amida Trust in England version. Taiwan from maybe year 500 CE while Japan variety from 1200 CE and hundreds of different Schools in buddhism too.

I made phone call to at least 10 different Centers here in Sweden. Only two of them had heard of Amida. Only one doing Nembutsu they others only at death bed.

So one group do it many times daily. and the other extreme only at death bed and the third extreme do not do it at all ever. So everybody has their own version.

Real people are not that individual. Elvis was Elvis and not different Elvis. But after his death he maybe can be very individual. I did look up to him as an idol when I was maybe 12 to 16 or so and then I lost my "Fan" fancy for him. Beatles took over. Bob Dylan took over. Folk Music took over.

[epepke]

The best laconic description I've heard is as follows:

Empathy is appreciating another's emotion in their terms.
Sympathy is appreciating another's emotion in your terms.
Compassion is a kind of abstracted sympathy.

Anyway, I like this, from Nietzsche:

Our personal and profoundest suffering is incomprehensible and inaccessible to almost everyone; here we remain hidden from out neighbor, even if we eat from one pot. But whenever people notice that we suffer, they interpret our suffering superficially. It is the very essence of the emotion of compassion that it strips away from the suffering of others whatever is distinctively personal. Our "benefactors" are, more than our enemies, people who make our worth and will smaller.

[wordy]

Nietzsche is not one of my idols.

Could one really trust that guy?

with that view on compassion he maybe don't like Buddha then?

But I agree that maybe the compassion Buddhists show are superficial.

Jodo Shinshu that I try to get inspired by has a view that ultimate reality seen as our true identity is compassion in itself. infinite compassion named as Amida and maybe the reason is the interconnection, all being one. A- means without limit and mita what you measure. The compassion of Amida is thus without limit or infinite.

Intellectually that is very abstract but as an experience it is very direct in that it touches our heart and felt as being loved?

the words are only trying to explain the feeling.

that is why I wanted to name it entrustism. A teaching about trusting a feeling and the reason one can put trust in it is that it is evidence based.

All research on medicine confirms that some 25% of feeling better is attributed to the trust in the situation of getting or receiving a treatment from someone who is supposed to know what they are doing. Our body has a built in readiness to trust an authority that care for you. Most likely a way that evolution made us gullible as kids to trust our parents and those our parents trusted.

One can see it as a byproduct of evolution.

I prefer to see it from evolutionary pshychology perspective. To me that feels much safer than to see if from a Buddhist perspective but EP is not known to allow for using it as a Life Practice which Buddhism is most known for to be suited for.

So I have mixed feelings about it. Maybe I can test to use both at same time and see what that leads the project.

[epepke]

Nietzsche is not one of my idols.

Could one really trust that guy?

I don't have idols. Some of his stuff works very well, though.

with that view on compassion he maybe don't like Buddha then?

He had some criticisms of Buddhism, but they really aren't important here.

But I agree that maybe the compassion Buddhists show are superficial.

What about Buddhists is particularly compassionate? I know that Buddhists have good PR, but I haven't seen particular compassion. Those I've encountered seem to have flat affect. They've ranged from ineffectual to supercilious, but none has shown any particular compassion. In fact, they've tended toward apathy in my book.

[wordy]

That is what I try to tell them but me not having your effective language and skill using thinking makes me fail to put it in words.

They have a kind of very generalized all encompassing over all inclusive kind of compassion that is non attached to individuals cause them seeing all as impermanent and bound to cause suffering makes them cautious in investing that much feelings and attachment to a particular individual?

[epepke]

They have a kind of very generalized all encompassing over all inclusive kind of compassion that is non attached to individuals cause them seeing all as impermanent and bound to cause suffering makes them cautious in investing that much feelings and attachment to a particular individual?

I'm sure you'll enjoy this:http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/11/nyregion/buddhists-release-animals-dismaying-wildlife-experts.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

And this: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055%5B0006%3ARFOWPA%5D2.0.CO%3B2

And this: http://www.tatnews.org/special_interest/Wildlife/3316.asp

And some more:

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=773&sts
http://www.issg.org/database/species/management_info.asp?si=71&fr=1&sts=

[wordy]

And Buddhists brag that they see the world just as it is without delusions free of prejudice and misunderstandings. They even fail to be wise in their supposed acts of compassion.

I guess they are into Animal Rights and Vegan eating and against abortion too.
I am very skeptical to their practice.

What I find interesting is the notion that there is something that some of them name tariki in Japanese and other power in translation. alternative translation is power beyond self.

This is something I have experienced myself and in my case it was most likely Asperger Syndrome which in my case has rather severe lack of concentration or that I rather too easily get distracted when I need to concentrate.

So that is why I am interested in such views among them cause I fail to find good texts about such among humanists.

Humanists are very much like self power Buddhists. Humanists expect that one has a good dose of self power.

[Ronin]

So that is why I am interested in such views among them cause I fail to find good texts about such among humanists.

Humanists are very much like self power Buddhists. Humanists expect that one has a good dose of self power.

You may have addressed this before in our conversations over at IIDB, but what is your view of this text:



We share the view that Humanism is a democratic and ethical philosophy which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. We believe that virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity are derived from natural human values and reason which have been tested by the commonality of our practical experience and critical analysis of the natural world we live in.

We take the positive position that Humanism by definition is naturalistic, scientific, and secular.

Furthermore, we recognize that Humanism is a broad field of thought and action bordered on one side by the transcendental and oppressive views of traditional fundamentalist religions and on the other by an equally oppressive anti-theism both of which reflect absolute claims with a totalitarian emphasis.

Humanism includes those who are agnostic about claims of ultimate realities, supernaturalism and absolute truths and who adhere to an enlivened ethic that informs our lives and guides our relationships with all living things. It also includes those who have examined religious claims and found no evidence to support a belief in them.

Humanism certainly recognizes that life is more than mere cognitive responses to stimuli and appreciates the full range of human emotion, from the varied reactions to life's tragedies to the wonder and awe at our natural self and surroundings.

While we accept that science has led us to comprehend emotions as natural phenomena this understanding certainly doesn't lessen the actual wondrous experience of them.

A basic premise to Humanism is that conclusions about many things in this world have to change as knowledge grows. It is necessary to remain open-minded, to avoid jumping to conclusions and often to simply suspend judgment.

Because we commonly use the scientific method we recognize that even our most central beliefs may have to change in the light of further evidence. Even more importantly, when we form a conclusion it is important that we do not force it upon other people.

As Humanists, we are socially responsible, culturally tolerant, personally ethical, informed by science, inspired by art and moved to compassion for others.

[wordy]

I stopped here:

Furthermore, we recognize that Humanism is a broad field of thought and action bordered on one side by the transcendental and oppressive views of traditional fundamentalist religions and on the other by an equally oppressive anti-theism both of which reflect absolute claims with a totalitarian emphasis.

I made bold the part I don't remember I've seen before. Could it be a new added one?

The ironi is that Christians and also liberal progressive commentators in Sweden accuse our Secular Humanists to be what that bold part says.

So either the Swedes has gone astray compared to this text or the Commentators ascribe views the Humanists doesn't have.

What about this one then:

We believe that virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity are derived from natural human values and reason

and this one:

As Humanists, we are socially responsible, culturally tolerant, personally ethical, informed by science, inspired by art and moved to compassion for others.

Both seems to promise that all of us are able to live up to these virtues. There is nothing there about what Humanists suggests could help those of us who fail to live up to these virtues.

That is why I see it as a Self Power Movement.

Now I am very much against Christian and Jew and Myuslim and Buddhists and Hindu suggestions on what to do.

Christians have their idea on Original Sin and the solution is to see Jesus as savior and Islam suggest one submit to Allan and Buddhists suggest a lot of meditation or entrusting Amida and chanting Nembutsu. and so on. Zoroastrians that one have Good Thoughts and actions and so on. Also self Power.

Cognitive Behavior Therapy also suggests Self Power.

As far as I know. Placebo Power is almost 100% evidence based. Again and again the only explanation we have to that people actually do feel better despite there is only salt or sugar in the Placebo Pill or Treatment being a faked treatment they still get an effect

Placebo Power is not Self Power. One need to do the ritual and really believe in it being the real thing and not a fake treatment.

So that is why I am critical to Humanism.

Humanism leave the Humanists out in the blue. The only suggestion that a Humanists is obliged to do anything about those fellow humans that fail to have Self Power is the very general or universal "duty" to care for humanity now and coming generation. So maybe some Humanists would see this as a responsibility to set up structures that could help us who lack Self Power.

The text you quoted seem to have no such suggestion does it? What social structure does that text suggest could help us who lack Self Power to live up to the Virtues and to be of help to others who lack them?

How much I have hated Christians but they have Prayer groups in each little town and humanists have nothing comparible for us who need secular such self help groups.

Naturalist.org has such group but they are heavily inspired by Determinism and Buddhism so that is totally out of question for me to support as atheist.

If Humanism had anything to give us then the Naturalist.org could have make use of Humanist resources instead of going to a Determinist and Buddhist context?

I've known organized Humanists here in Sweden since 1985 and they have no support to give to us who lack Self Power.

Humanism here is a Human Rights Activism Group and not for those who lack Self Power.

[wordy]

on the other by an equally oppressive anti-theism both of which reflect absolute claims with a totalitarian emphasis.

May I guess the text is from AHA and that quote is referring to Paul Kurtz Center for Inquiry who seems to live up to that view maybe? I am too remote here in Sweden to really know. Whom are they referring to? The Objectivists? Madalyn O-Hair Murray? Sam Harris?

I prefer when people give proper ref and not sweeping accusations and one have to guess wildly what on earth they refer to. China's reaction to Dalai Lama or what. Their reaction to Falungong or what the name is.

[Ronin]

I wrote it, wordy.

It is my general interpretation on how to live a good life and articulated as a “mission statement” for a volunteer group I organize to help out around the community at planned events.

I'm not sure exactly what you are critical of regarding "self-power".

The benefit of humanism is that it merely states a practical and reasonable format for others to interpret and act upon. It makes no promises regarding the actual successes or failures when committed to humanist action, just a need to act along with some guidelines that may be meaningful and sensible “in the field”.

These values are not dogmatically imposed upon others that they must behave this way or that.

To me that is a very beneficial trait.

Does that mean that it leaves others behind who do not fulfill the stated standards and values?

My opinion is that it is up to the individual to assess the claims for themselves and act according to their own conscience.

Are you looking for some charismatic leader or document to tell you how to behave as a good person and then make you do it?

[Ronin]

on the other by an equally oppressive anti-theism both of which reflect absolute claims with a totalitarian emphasis.

May I guess the text is from AHA and that quote is referring to Paul Kurtz Center for Inquiry who seems to live up to that view maybe? I am too remote here in Sweden to really know. Whom are they referring to? The Objectivists? Madalyn O-Hair Murray? Sam Harris?

I prefer when people give proper ref and not sweeping accusations and one have to guess wildly what on earth they refer to. China's reaction to Dalai Lama or what. Their reaction to Falungong or what the name is.

Well, my experience is that once examples are given then the discussion spirals into an argument over personalities.

My statement refers to those who are totalitarian "my way or the highway" types in general.

That is pretty clear and not much of a point to get hung up on, in my opinion.

[wordy]

Oh it is your text. *Friendly Smile*

Yes I can understand that if you point to somebody particular that could be problematic.

but then I would chose other words but you are not me so if that is satisfactory for you don't let my worries worry you :D

Are you looking for some charismatic leader or document to tell you how to behave as a good person and then make you do it?

No not at all. I am usually very skeptical to such.

No I look for structures that would allow me and others who lack Self Power to help each other help ourselves.

I am starting to see promise in something named Behavioral Activation.

It seems to be the most effective and evidence based therapy for mild depression. Even better or on part with CBT who also are evidence based.

It seems to have been neglected since 1975 or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_activation

Seems to have been best expressed and researched back in 1975 by this guy.

Lewinsohn, P. M. (1975). The behavioral study and treatment of depression. In M. Hersen, R. M., Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavioral modification (Vol. 1, pp. 19-65).New York: Academic.

But too few supported it so the profession seems to have forgotten about it.

The theoretical underpinnings of behavioral activation[3] [4]for depression is Charles Ferster’s functional analysis of depression[5][6]. Ferster's basic model has been strengthened by further development in the study of reinforcement principles which led to the matching law and continuing theoretical advances in the possible functions of depression [7], as well as a look at behavior analysis of child development in order to determine long-term patterns which may lead to dysthymia.

One active guy at the moment are Christopher Martell.

http://www.christophermartell.com/ba.php

I don't know how representative he is to the mainstream BA field.

But it looks possible to set up self help groups based on it.

[wordy]

C. B. Ferster (1973) proposed a behavioral analytic theory of depression providing an alternative to psychoanalytic theory that was prominent at that time. Peter Lewinsohn and colleagues at the University of Oregon were the first to develop Behavioral Activation as a treatment for depression, and developed the treatment to increase pleasant activities for depressed individuals (Lewinsohn, 1994; Lewinsohn, Biglan, & Zeiss, 1976; Lewinsohn & Graf, 1973).

While committed behavior therapists continued to utilize this approach much more research was conducted on cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression, which incorporated behavioral activation but focused mainly on the typical distortions in thoughts and beliefs that are characteristic of depressed individuals. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s CBT became the most widely studied treatment and consistently demonstrated effectiveness in treating depression, anxiety and other disorders.

http://www.christophermartell.com/ba.php

I guess the Cognitive part was so "sexy" that they got caught up in cognitive views and forgot about the behavioral activation part. Theory is much more sexy for theorists than the hands on actual work of activating somebody that is inactive.

[Nohweh]

Could one say that some persons claim to have great compassion for all of humanity but still show incredibly little empathy for fellow beings.Of course. Many persons claim to have some capacity but do not demonstrate it in their actions.

But empathy is not the same thing as compassion. In fact it is a prerequisite for compassion. Empathy is deep understanding of another person's feelings, awareness and motivation. Compassion begins with such understanding and then moves on to acceptance and forgiveness. This is the functional and very useful definition advanced by McKay and Fanning in their book Self-Esteem (http://books.google.com/books?id=oaWV7cWDxfEC&dq=self-esteem+mckay+fanning&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=j9AiPQcCgI&sig=YiE1T1yLCCGUZCOYYL2O7TBcK1U&hl=en&ei=WQroSc7kFYOUswOBkdDsAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7).

[wordy]

Thanks for the link to that book.

I know too little about self esteem.

I had a false high self esteem for some 20 years and that makes me very cautious about doing that mistake again. Mine are still too high or not humble enough. I constantly misjudge my capacity and how I come through to others and I need a more realistic view or take on whom I am.

So if I should change my self esteem then it needs to be evidence based. And then it can not be high cause I have nothing to base it on. I fail on all accounts or how to say it.