Reply
Sun 9 Dec, 2007 05:29 am
How can we reason empathetically?
Empathy?-the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it. I can be empathetic with my neighbor by using my imagination to "walk a mile in the shoes" of my neighbor.
Most all of my formal education, I suspect your own also, has been didactic in nature. Didactic education is a method of "teaching by telling" and rote memorization.
My engineering education and most all college level education is didactic. Most college education is designed to train an individual to perform a very specific task. The engineer, accountant, doctor, etc is told what is the logic of performance for a particular profession. After years of this indoctrination the graduate is prepared to solve the problems encountered in the particular chosen field.
Such training is an efficient method for utilizing the scientific method to solve problems in a prescribed frame of reference. It is the type of education designed for a productive and efficient technology. Our technological accomplishments are proof of this. It is not, however, the type of education that prepares the individual for most of the problems encountered by society or self.
Most important issues are not simply matters of fact, nor are they essentially matters of faith, taste, or preferences. They are matters that call for reasoned reflection and sound judgments. They are problems that can be considered from differing perspectives, from different frames of reference. Often a values issue requires at least two perspectives: is it good morality and is it good economics.
How does one structure thinking to produce reasoned reflection and sound judgment in those matters that make up most of life's multifaceted concerns?
Governor Elect Arnold S. must develop a budget for the state of California very quickly. Let us imagine the sessions that he holds with his advisors leading up to the finished budget.
Arnold holds his first meeting with six advisors each with a different expertise; each a strong advocate for a very important aspect of the welfare of the state.
Arnold starts off with the first advisor on his left who strongly suggests budget A is the best for the state. Going clockwise around the table the next advisor recognizing important aspects of the suggestion of the first advisor presents budget B as the better budget. Budget B contains aspects of budget A but also carries strong suggestions in accord with the second advisor's area of expertise.
Each advisor in turn synthesizes the budget proposed by others, adding his articles of improvement. At the end of the first session there is a first draft of a budget. Each succeeding session synthesizes the previous results with new inputs until finally a budget of compromises is developed.
What we see in this imagined budget planning effort is a dialogical interchange encompassed within a dialectical process to produce a result. The dialogue is each advisor placing their argument before the group. The dialectic is the synthesizing of a particular proposal with another input thus creating a new proposal, which in turn is subjected to a continuing repetition. Proposal A is synthesized with proposal B producing proposal C and C is then synthesized with D to produce E etc.
The dialogical-dialectical process for each of us cannot contain all the participants that Arnold has for the state budget. When each Californian decides what the budget should be that individual must, in most cases, internalize the activities.
One can, by reading the papers, discover various opinions that others might have regarding the matter. However, it is up to the individual, in the solitude of her intellect, to provide the various actors. The enlightened citizen must create the multifaceted argument internally. The individual must empathetically create the dialogue and the dialectic within her own mind.
Imagine the number of "frames of reference" one would bring to bear on the issue of the comatose woman in Florida. If one becomes conscious of this issue and brings his/her intellect to bear on this issue s/he might be surprised by the possible ways to analyze this matter. One frame of reference we might not have thought about. That, of course, is the issue of our politicians injecting themselves, for their personal advantage, into the issue.
Do you have an opinion regarding the statement in bold?
Quote:Do you have an opinion regarding the statement in bold?
Yes. It's not only incomprehensible word-soup, it's limited to only one gender.
Re: How can we reason empathetically?
coberst wrote:The dialogical-dialectical process for each of us cannot contain all the participants that Arnold has for the state budget.
Of course it can. All it takes is keeping current with your political representatives and the issues they stand on. It's called doing one's homework, and it is impossible only if one thinks one can solve the world's problems while sitting in the comfort of one's armchair.
coberst wrote:One can, by reading the papers, discover various opinions that others might have regarding the matter. However, it is up to the individual, in the solitude of her intellect, to provide the various actors.
Not only is this simply a rationalization for being lazy, but it also contradicts your numerous assertions that your claims are based on external observation.
I know the image of the solitary, misunderstood genius locked away in his study is a romantic and irresistible one, but if your goal is to fabricate claims about the world without having to verify their validity, just own up to it and say so. You don't have much to lose that you haven't already sacrificed, and you have something to gain by at least being honest about it. But don't try to pretend that philosophy demands your laziness.
coberst wrote:That, of course, is the issue of our politicians injecting themselves, for their personal advantage, into the issue.
It sounds like you are proposing an alternative in which we insulate ourselves from current events and instead inject ourselves, for our own personal advantage, into the issue. Substituting one flawed approach for another is not progress.
An opinion on empathy - it is useless without the desire to connect. It's not empathy then, it's analysis.
An opinion on empathy - It is both the ability to put oneself in anothers shoe, and the desire to connect. 'Empathy' is useless without the desire to connect. It's not empathy then, it's analysis.
edit : excuse the double post
coberst,
I note you have not had a single positive response to this on four of the forums on which you have posted it. Maybe it is because your use of "must" is itself didactic. :wink:
vikorr wrote:An opinion on empathy - it is useless without the desire to connect. It's not empathy then, it's analysis.
You are right on the button.
I defiantly think it is the case that the more suffering each of us endures the more empathetic we become. That is a heavy price we pay for growing our ability to comprehend this very human ability of empathy. Some say that the artist's ability is dependent upon the amount of suffering endured and I can very well see how that may be true.
fresco wrote:coberst,
I note you have not had a single positive response to this on four of the forums on which you have posted it. Maybe it is because your use of "must" is itself didactic. :wink:
Perhaps the use of 'must' is a problem. However, I use it in the sense that it is the only technique that I know of to accomplish the task. It is not meant as a normative demand but as the only way that I know to be successful.
coberst,
Quote:...the only way that I know to be successful.
There
are other routes to "empathy" but your own investment in "
I" will preclude your understanding of them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace