Farren

Yguy, lets explore the objection you raised earlier about "understanding and entering into another's feelings". The latter part of this statement you seem to take issue with.

I don't know if you've done much programming but if I were to write a computer program that had to, say provide ad-hoc backing music ("jam") to someone singing (this has, in fact been done at an Apple demonstration with Debby Harry years back), the program would have to do the following:

1) Accept the input via a microphone
2) Translate the analogue signal into digital data
3) Categorise and store the data in a memory array
4) Use a lookup table to find harmonious ("in key") notes to play along with the voice
5) translate the notes into analogue sound data
6) play the sound via a speaker.

Now I've provided a few steps here but in fact the actual enaction of this is actually many more sequential, logical steps. So many steps, in fact, that until recently computers used for sophisticated musical composition required massive amounts of memory and exceptionally high speed hard drives in order not to fall behind or skip sections.

A tuning fork, on the other hand, simply resonates at a certain frequency. What this means is that when sound of a certain frequency hits it, it instantaneously vibrates at that exact frequency, and responds to no others. This is a physical, single molecule level process. This process is massively more efficient than a computer interpreting and synthesising the same frequency, since a single programming instruction may use hundreds or millions of molecules in its execution.

Now its conceivable to create a machine with a vast number of tuning forks, each pitched to a different frequently. If each fork is in turn attached to some mechanism (like a hammer on a string) with a deliberate slight flaw to offset the output sound randomly. The same task described above could be achieved a thousand times more efficiently.

Similarly, human beings have two ways of concieving of the emotions of others. The first is through conscious intellectual understanding, which can be formulated (if I may indulge in some rhetoric for easy demonstration):

1) Percieve
2) Translate
3) Extrapolate
4) React

But, like the tuning fork, we have an infinity of infinitesmal mechanisms for evaluating emotion non-consciously and far more efficiently than the intellectual process (several studies with, for instance subliminal images of faces show extraordinarily fast autonomous reaction to expression). This set of non-conscious abilities can be formulated:

1) Resonate.

This is what is implied by "entering into someones feelings". The "understanding" part comes from the slower (more prone to fault) intellectual process. This doesn't render intellectual undertstanding useless. Intellectual understanding can allow us to realise instincts that may act against compassion, such as certain hunting instincts.

But the training of the simple ability to resonate with another individual, autonomously of intellect, opens the door to far more rapid and accurate evaluation of the underlying motives and emotions of another human being, whereas the intellectual understanding yields far fewer insights over a longer time period.

Its self evident that "entering into someones emotions" doesn't imply hooking their amygdala to your brain or putting on their skin. Its a reference to the faculty to establish a connection with another person which is so rapid and rich in information that you are almost an extension of their thoughts.

Neither does it imply that their motives become your own. We all debate things in our own minds, so to say two minds establish this connection is not to say that the one surrenders its own rich dialog, but rather that it extends its dialog to incorporate someone elses.

Sabine Grant

I can relate so well to your final comment even as a ...christian.

Pyrrho

I think you might find Bertrand Russell's essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian" (in a book of the same title) interesting, particularly the portions in which he discusses the character of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

yguy

Sounds more than slightly Borg-ish to me.

Sabine Grant

YGUY ....it appears more and more to me that you define empathy as a negative notion which results in encouraging other individuals in a course we may consider immoral. Correct me if I am wrong please.
Empathy is not an action IMO... it cannot have consequences in terms of the accountability of the other person. It is what inspires us to comprehend what caused that person to be in the condition he or she is. It is an emotional connection. A way to relate. I truly believe Yguy that we must empathize with other people to be able to help them out. Empathy can be a tool for correction also. It would be then the " loving " part of correction.
I also associate empathy with humility. Because when we empathize we consider ourselves not beyong reproach. The " oh dear.. I would never feel that way " or " I could never do that" do not prevail anylonger.

Farren

Yguy, my preceding post was a description, not a prescription. If it seems Borg-ish to you (and I assume you mean this in a negative light), I have to ask:

Are you horrified by your own humanity?

Jagged

Thanks Pyrrho.

At this point I think I could clarify that I was not asserting that Christ was a real person; or that, if he was, he was completely moral, or all of the other things he said he was. I was defending the text on its own terms, not mine. I admire the person or the construct of the person of Christ and am not averse to using him as a reference point in discussions such as this.

[/derail]

chant

the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' quote is a problematic moral guide, it seems to me, for if i am a sado-masochist what i like doing to others and having done to me is likely to seem pretty undesirable to most people.

i think that empathy is fundamental for morality and for correcting immoral behaviour in others. if my child beats other children up because he is unhappy, then simply telling him he's behaving in an immoral way, or that he will get 'grounded' or 'a clip round the ear' if he keeps doing it might alter his behaviour patterns, but won't remove the cause of his anti-social behaviour. some understanding of what motivates people to behave badly is necessary, i think, if they are to be 'assisted', and this is where empathy comes in.

i also think that without empathy there can be no forgiveness. if someone hurts me for what i perceive to be no reason, i can feel nothing but angry with them. only by understanding what has motivated them to act in the way they have done can i arrive at some form of forgiveness. our need to know why people act in the way they do is very great, i think, and how can this be done if not by empathy?