Hi Massimo, the discussion on empathy is an interesting one; it seems it depends very much on how and in which context it is used. In a psychotherapeutic sense without empathy and by this I mean the ability to see another's worldview as if it were your own, as the American psychologist Carl Rogers would have used it, it is indispensable but that seems to be very different from how Paul Bloom thinks of the term.
Peter, I think empathy is both natural and necessary, without it we'd all be psychopaths. But Bloom and others are concerned that it is easy to manipulate, and that therefore we need to balance it with sympathy, which is a more cognitive-based response to other people's distress.
For instance, I see images of a starving child and may feel empathy. But I can't feel empathy when I'm presented with a statistics of millions of children starving. That's where sympathy comes in. Think of it as a cognitive-based corrective to empathy.
Yes, I completely agree with all of that Massimo. My point was a narrower, psychotherapeutic one as envisaged by Carl Rogers in which he allied it with other attributes in order to create what he termed the "therapeutic relationship". Paul Bloom seems to interpret it:somewhat differently. Perhaps it is simply a difference in definitions and context.
I got into Confucianism and Stoicism at the same time and they appealed to me for largely the same reasons. I'm glad to read this article and see some of what I've felt given more disciplined form.
“many professional philosophers think the whole idea of philosophy as a way of life is beneath them, looking with contempt to people who practice and write about it.”
It is beyond the scope of my understanding on why many modern professional academic philosophers do not apply the most critical teaching that has been handed down to us through the ages ie; that virtue is it’s own reward and is the grease that allows us to be immersed in the joy of our own humanity.
Melville, it's a byproduct of the competitive modern academy. I've seen it in the sciences as well: contempt for anyone who "wastes" time engaging in public outreach instead of churning out highly technical papers that are going to be read by a few dozen people.
But it is counterintuitive, because if someone has learned about Philosophy As A Way Of Life and is reading and studying these ideas — then the forces of delusion — such as gaining favor from our society by engaging in over
competitiveness’s in a dog eats dog world — should not take hold. In other words they should know better that they are going down a road that leads to a dead-end ie; there is no peace, happiness or eudaemonic reward from this type of endeavor.
Things are slowly changing. The fact that I, as an academic philosopher, can spend so much time teaching and writing about Stoicism with my Department’s approval is indicative.
You write not just on Stoicism, but on a whole range of subjects under the umbrella of embracing wisdom.
Though by reframing, this can be seen through the lens that the Art Of Living is the superset and Stoicism is in this set, most things will be a subset of and is part of engaging with Stoicism as a way to care about how we live our lives by using it as we navigate the trials and tribulations of outrageous fortune.
I like the idea of sets and supersets. And yes, I try to write on a variety of subjects which I think fall under the broad umbrella of practical wisdom. Hence, among other things, the change of name of this newsletter.
Hi Massimo, the discussion on empathy is an interesting one; it seems it depends very much on how and in which context it is used. In a psychotherapeutic sense without empathy and by this I mean the ability to see another's worldview as if it were your own, as the American psychologist Carl Rogers would have used it, it is indispensable but that seems to be very different from how Paul Bloom thinks of the term.
Peter, I think empathy is both natural and necessary, without it we'd all be psychopaths. But Bloom and others are concerned that it is easy to manipulate, and that therefore we need to balance it with sympathy, which is a more cognitive-based response to other people's distress.
For instance, I see images of a starving child and may feel empathy. But I can't feel empathy when I'm presented with a statistics of millions of children starving. That's where sympathy comes in. Think of it as a cognitive-based corrective to empathy.
Yes, I completely agree with all of that Massimo. My point was a narrower, psychotherapeutic one as envisaged by Carl Rogers in which he allied it with other attributes in order to create what he termed the "therapeutic relationship". Paul Bloom seems to interpret it:somewhat differently. Perhaps it is simply a difference in definitions and context.
Yes, I'm going to bet on a difference of context, as I assume the definition of empathy is set in psychology.
I got into Confucianism and Stoicism at the same time and they appealed to me for largely the same reasons. I'm glad to read this article and see some of what I've felt given more disciplined form.
“many professional philosophers think the whole idea of philosophy as a way of life is beneath them, looking with contempt to people who practice and write about it.”
It is beyond the scope of my understanding on why many modern professional academic philosophers do not apply the most critical teaching that has been handed down to us through the ages ie; that virtue is it’s own reward and is the grease that allows us to be immersed in the joy of our own humanity.
Melville, it's a byproduct of the competitive modern academy. I've seen it in the sciences as well: contempt for anyone who "wastes" time engaging in public outreach instead of churning out highly technical papers that are going to be read by a few dozen people.
But it is counterintuitive, because if someone has learned about Philosophy As A Way Of Life and is reading and studying these ideas — then the forces of delusion — such as gaining favor from our society by engaging in over
competitiveness’s in a dog eats dog world — should not take hold. In other words they should know better that they are going down a road that leads to a dead-end ie; there is no peace, happiness or eudaemonic reward from this type of endeavor.
Things are slowly changing. The fact that I, as an academic philosopher, can spend so much time teaching and writing about Stoicism with my Department’s approval is indicative.
You write not just on Stoicism, but on a whole range of subjects under the umbrella of embracing wisdom.
Though by reframing, this can be seen through the lens that the Art Of Living is the superset and Stoicism is in this set, most things will be a subset of and is part of engaging with Stoicism as a way to care about how we live our lives by using it as we navigate the trials and tribulations of outrageous fortune.
I like the idea of sets and supersets. And yes, I try to write on a variety of subjects which I think fall under the broad umbrella of practical wisdom. Hence, among other things, the change of name of this newsletter.