Well, the true meaning of empathy then could be distorted, into something deemed to be fake. But empathy in itself is not fake, and if the majority of people expressed empathy for distant strangers, the Covid mRNA injections for example would have been removed from the market long ago.
Charlie intuited what clinical research has recently discovered about a new variant of classical narcissism (I'm the best, greatest, smartest etc.) as instead seeking praise and recognition for virtue signaling an Iago heart worn righteously on their sleeve: "I'm more empathic, compassionate, caring etc. than others". Valuable currency in today's victimhood culture. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/communal-narcissism?utm_source=publication-search
This point crystallized my thoughts about human empathy. Statistically many of those who are now virtue signalling about folk who wickedly mocked and applauded his horrific end, are probably the same people who wished death, discrimination, and removal of any medical support to anyone who refused the poison mRNA jabs.
Yet again, the double standards and hypocritical virtue signalling are apparent to anyone who critically examines their own behaviour and that of the vast majority of western culture.......To be totally blunt, I am guilty of it also! The Human experiences of all epidemics though history is living and historical proof....WE IN REALITY ARE VERY FLAWED CREATURES, thank Jesus for his teachings, that encourage us to look at ourselves....AMEN
This all-too-prevalent pseudo-virtue reminds me of the false lion from CS Lewis's seventh Narnia book, The Last Battle, where the lion skin makes the donkey look like Aslan, but the character is all wrong. However, its appearance as the "true" lion gives the false one much more power to control others. Perhaps that's the end goal in our time. It certainly was Iago's.
In The Weight of Glory, my favourite essay of Lewis's, he writes,
‘There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment’
"Sympathy is a feeling of sincere concern for someone who is experiencing something difficult or painful. Empathy involves actively sharing in the person’s emotional experience."
By this definition, I have to agree with Charlie that empathy has done a lot of damage. First it involves attempting to "live in someone else's shoes" traditionally thought not to be truly possible. Secondly it imposes no obligation to assist the suffering person out of their suffering. Indeed the empathiser benefits by not assisting the sufferer as he can then continue in his empathy and thus feel good about himself.
Charlie said he prefers the word "sympathy". There's a clip somewhere online of it... I think because sympathy takes the emotion out of it?... but don't quote me...
I’ve just read that “empathy” entered the lexicon in 1908 and was rooted in the Greek word empatheia, meaning “passion” or “state of emotion”. Originally, empathy wasn’t about understanding other people, but was used in art theory to describe how viewers project their own feelings into objects like paintings or architecture. Later psychologists extended the concept to interpersonal understanding, especially after World War II, when empathy became recognized as a skill. Sympathy is over 400 years old and means “fellow feeling” or “together suffering” … While the concept of feeling with others has ancient roots, the word “empathy” itself is a 20th-century invention.
From listening to Charlie in debate, I should say he meant refer to false empathy. False empathy (pretending to understand others but for self-serving motives) does seem to be a recognised phenomenon.
(1)
A good study strategy is to ask Google for its analysis of the phrase:-
false empathy and the drama triangle.
(2)
There is a neuroanatomical underpinning to empathy (mirror neurons). The following article explains it.
I would say from listening to Charlie (and his wife), that he could use his mirror neurons to tune into and understand the feelings of others, and (importantly), he could control his "mirror neuron reflex" sufficiently to not let the feelings of others overwhelm him.
In the context of Charlie's (in?)famous student debates. He showed the average Woke student to be inauthentic and (no offence meant), rather stupid. (Because when you are angry, logic "departs the premises"). There is good at the heart of Woke (at its source, it is "being awake to injustice"). But the rescuer in Karpman's drama triangle uses false empathy to multiply the injustices. Thus, the good sentiment behind Woke is swamped by the bad behaviour of Karpman's "rescuer".
Nowadays I always try to look at a person, stay calm, and ask, "What are they feeling?
When my own thoughts take over, I pull myself back by thinking to myself, "No! listen! - What are they saying, what are they feeling?" I try to treat people like I would like to be treated. "Do unto others" is a thing that works when you understand and wisely deploy your mirror neurons.
The notion we hear nowadays in the States is that empathy means to feel another's pain, while (we are told) that sympathy means to feel pity for another. Where this distinction comes from is beyond me, because sympathy means literally "to suffer with." In my experience, people who profess to be "empaths" often subsequently reveal a manipulative streak and little true sympathy for someone in pain.
Empathy in the US means putting yourself in their shoes and a deeper level of connection (understanding how they feel). Sympathy is more like compassion or pity for someone’s situation but not purporting to know how one actually feels. Charlie Kirk was trying to differentiate between false empathy and real compassion, I believe.
Charlie Kirk got it right on 2 counts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy as did merriam-webster "empathy - the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another".
It does your depressed friend no good for you to visit them and sit and stew with them vicariously experiencing their feelings, thoughts, and experience of depression - indulging in their depressed low state of consciousness = to have empathy. It does harm by amplifying their depression. As my Great Uncle Albert used to say out on the prairie of North Dakota - FOOLISHNESS
and "Empathy is a 20th century coinage modeled on sympathy as a translation of the German Einfühlung (“feeling-in” or “feeling into”)."
"Compassion is a much older word; it’s been part of the language since the 14th century, and comes ultimately from Latin com- and pati, meaning “to bear, suffer.”
Help your friend with some chores, get them out of the house for a walk, bring over some good food or a well researched supplement perhaps some such as an over the counter lithium supplement. Bear some of their burden = have compassion for their suffering.
For context, what Charlie Kirk said is, “The new communication strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do where he would say, ‘I feel your pain.’ Instead, it is to say you're actually not in pain. So, let's just — a little very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s, it was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up new age term that — it does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time.”
Well, the true meaning of empathy then could be distorted, into something deemed to be fake. But empathy in itself is not fake, and if the majority of people expressed empathy for distant strangers, the Covid mRNA injections for example would have been removed from the market long ago.
Charlie intuited what clinical research has recently discovered about a new variant of classical narcissism (I'm the best, greatest, smartest etc.) as instead seeking praise and recognition for virtue signaling an Iago heart worn righteously on their sleeve: "I'm more empathic, compassionate, caring etc. than others". Valuable currency in today's victimhood culture. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/communal-narcissism?utm_source=publication-search
This point crystallized my thoughts about human empathy. Statistically many of those who are now virtue signalling about folk who wickedly mocked and applauded his horrific end, are probably the same people who wished death, discrimination, and removal of any medical support to anyone who refused the poison mRNA jabs.
Yet again, the double standards and hypocritical virtue signalling are apparent to anyone who critically examines their own behaviour and that of the vast majority of western culture.......To be totally blunt, I am guilty of it also! The Human experiences of all epidemics though history is living and historical proof....WE IN REALITY ARE VERY FLAWED CREATURES, thank Jesus for his teachings, that encourage us to look at ourselves....AMEN
This all-too-prevalent pseudo-virtue reminds me of the false lion from CS Lewis's seventh Narnia book, The Last Battle, where the lion skin makes the donkey look like Aslan, but the character is all wrong. However, its appearance as the "true" lion gives the false one much more power to control others. Perhaps that's the end goal in our time. It certainly was Iago's.
In The Weight of Glory, my favourite essay of Lewis's, he writes,
‘There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment’
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary
"Sympathy is a feeling of sincere concern for someone who is experiencing something difficult or painful. Empathy involves actively sharing in the person’s emotional experience."
By this definition, I have to agree with Charlie that empathy has done a lot of damage. First it involves attempting to "live in someone else's shoes" traditionally thought not to be truly possible. Secondly it imposes no obligation to assist the suffering person out of their suffering. Indeed the empathiser benefits by not assisting the sufferer as he can then continue in his empathy and thus feel good about himself.
Charlie Kirk was right about empathy. Read Allie Stuckey’s Toxic Empathy to find out why.
Charlie said he prefers the word "sympathy". There's a clip somewhere online of it... I think because sympathy takes the emotion out of it?... but don't quote me...
I’ve just read that “empathy” entered the lexicon in 1908 and was rooted in the Greek word empatheia, meaning “passion” or “state of emotion”. Originally, empathy wasn’t about understanding other people, but was used in art theory to describe how viewers project their own feelings into objects like paintings or architecture. Later psychologists extended the concept to interpersonal understanding, especially after World War II, when empathy became recognized as a skill. Sympathy is over 400 years old and means “fellow feeling” or “together suffering” … While the concept of feeling with others has ancient roots, the word “empathy” itself is a 20th-century invention.
The world is a stage, the character may die, but the actor lives on
https://rumble.com/v6ysuki-dont-be-fooled-they-killed-the-character-charlie-kirk-but-the-actors-still-.html?e9s=src_v1_cmd%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a
From listening to Charlie in debate, I should say he meant refer to false empathy. False empathy (pretending to understand others but for self-serving motives) does seem to be a recognised phenomenon.
(1)
A good study strategy is to ask Google for its analysis of the phrase:-
false empathy and the drama triangle.
(2)
There is a neuroanatomical underpinning to empathy (mirror neurons). The following article explains it.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/three-generations-will-inherit-this-trait-and-its-not-genetic-5799665
I would say from listening to Charlie (and his wife), that he could use his mirror neurons to tune into and understand the feelings of others, and (importantly), he could control his "mirror neuron reflex" sufficiently to not let the feelings of others overwhelm him.
In the context of Charlie's (in?)famous student debates. He showed the average Woke student to be inauthentic and (no offence meant), rather stupid. (Because when you are angry, logic "departs the premises"). There is good at the heart of Woke (at its source, it is "being awake to injustice"). But the rescuer in Karpman's drama triangle uses false empathy to multiply the injustices. Thus, the good sentiment behind Woke is swamped by the bad behaviour of Karpman's "rescuer".
Nowadays I always try to look at a person, stay calm, and ask, "What are they feeling?
When my own thoughts take over, I pull myself back by thinking to myself, "No! listen! - What are they saying, what are they feeling?" I try to treat people like I would like to be treated. "Do unto others" is a thing that works when you understand and wisely deploy your mirror neurons.
Which version of "empathy" are you using..? Do you mean what we in UK say as "sympathy"..?
The notion we hear nowadays in the States is that empathy means to feel another's pain, while (we are told) that sympathy means to feel pity for another. Where this distinction comes from is beyond me, because sympathy means literally "to suffer with." In my experience, people who profess to be "empaths" often subsequently reveal a manipulative streak and little true sympathy for someone in pain.
Thank you..."Empathy" in the UK was a term used by psychologists, and sympathy has
deep significance...Just one example of how the English language has evolved..!
Charlie Kirk's influence still lives on...
Covid is the proof
Empathy in the US means putting yourself in their shoes and a deeper level of connection (understanding how they feel). Sympathy is more like compassion or pity for someone’s situation but not purporting to know how one actually feels. Charlie Kirk was trying to differentiate between false empathy and real compassion, I believe.
Thank you...in the UK, "empathy" is a term used in psychology...always makes things a bit tricky...
I have a friend in Australia who is a psychologist and we have to define terms for each other often 😊
I think you're right.
Charlie Kirk got it right on 2 counts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy as did merriam-webster "empathy - the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another".
It does your depressed friend no good for you to visit them and sit and stew with them vicariously experiencing their feelings, thoughts, and experience of depression - indulging in their depressed low state of consciousness = to have empathy. It does harm by amplifying their depression. As my Great Uncle Albert used to say out on the prairie of North Dakota - FOOLISHNESS
and "Empathy is a 20th century coinage modeled on sympathy as a translation of the German Einfühlung (“feeling-in” or “feeling into”)."
"Compassion is a much older word; it’s been part of the language since the 14th century, and comes ultimately from Latin com- and pati, meaning “to bear, suffer.”
Help your friend with some chores, get them out of the house for a walk, bring over some good food or a well researched supplement perhaps some such as an over the counter lithium supplement. Bear some of their burden = have compassion for their suffering.
For context, what Charlie Kirk said is, “The new communication strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do where he would say, ‘I feel your pain.’ Instead, it is to say you're actually not in pain. So, let's just — a little very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s, it was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up new age term that — it does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time.”
A clip is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4WnWynImd8
The full episode (The Charlie Kirk Show, 10/12/22) is here, and the topic starts at 36:20: https://rumble.com/v1nnu66-dont-believe-your-lying-eyes-everything-is-fine-bannon-sheriff-lamb-patel-w.html?start=2180
Respectfully @johnleake73411, is there a reason you are going along with the manufactured or to utilize the term, just mentioned, "phony" narrative? https://moniquelukens.substack.com/p/i-believed-til-i-didnt-the-disinformation
Sometimes more than one thing is true at once.
For a group that espouses empathy, I see a suspicious number of articles about how to cut your parents out of your life.
Can empathy, as usually defined (“I feel what you feel”), actually truly exist?
iago was a MOOR. not kenneth branagh.