"In my non-primordial experience I feel, as-it-were, led by a primordial one not experienced by me but still there, manifesting itself in my non-primordial experience." - St. Edith Stein
In this seemingly chaotic age, perhaps a thought has grazed an individual's mind: 'people are not empathetic nowadays.' One would perceive how those attempting to influence political will upon the other bickering at each other without much dialogue and easily come to the conclusion that people nowadays lack empathy. To explore what it truly means to be empathetic is the aim of this post.
The irony of the current social condition is that those who think that other side of the political power struggle lacks empathy are the very ones lacking empathy. That is to say, all sides lack empathy. Now, when I say that people lack empathy, I do not mean that they are void of empathy, that they are all sociopaths. Rather, I mean that they lac the disposition that gives rise to true empathy to a degree where it cannot give rise to the said true empathy. What is this disposition I speak of? What is true empathy? They are expounded further below.
The first order is to find out what is "true" empathy before discussing which disposition, that is to say human character, gives rise to it. By definition, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. As the common saying goes, "learning to put oneself in another's shoes." I observe that most people make the critical mistake of thinking that empathy is an emotional trait, and not rational. Although partly true, by its very concept, empathy is a rational act.
Look to the italicized quote by St. Edith Stein above. By "primordial," she means readily perceived on the spot, i.e. immediate perception. The "non-primordial" experience she speaks of is empathy. In a beautiful way, she describes how an immediate perception of another is perceived through her non-immediate experience. Now, do note that there is no other way to perceive of things in a non-immediate way other than through one's own mind, i.e. through imagination. One has to force one's own mind to picture a situation of another. Thus, empathy is primarily a rational act. Likewise, true empathy is one of rational act.
Next order is to find out which character trait, disposition, supports a rational act. Normally, a person is able to think clearly when thinking about matters that do not have emotional entanglements. However, when dealing with other persons, especially when another person is perceived to be an opponent, emotional entanglements are sure to arise. In order to reason through another's experience and to truly understand the other, it is thus necessarily to get rid of emotional entanglements, both positive and negative, to objectively imagine another's situation without bias. Thus, the disposition that gives rationality is emotional temperance.
As put forth above, true empathy is a rational activity and the disposition required to attain true empathy is emotional temperance. It sounds well and good in the abstract, but how will it look in real life? Perhaps I should start with an example of false empathy since we supposedly lack true examples.
In our political realm, we are so quick to decry racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, and thousands of other labels as a short-cut to decry the other side as irrational and evil. These individuals think that they are being empathetic to care for the sufferings of black Americans, immigrants, women, homosexuals, Muslims, and trans persons. But they are not truly empathetic. They are sympathetic, to be sure. They desire to be good and they are correct to feel pity and sorrow for the sufferings of another. However, they are wrong to think that they are empathetic for their empathy ends where their sympathies run dry. In short, they are incapable of putting oneself in the shoes of those they oppose, unable to imagine objectively why they . This is so for their emotional intemperance leads them to despise their political opponents, thus creating an emotional entanglement that prevents them from objective, rational, true empathy.
If they were capable of true empathy, they would have been able to understand the other side and rationally discuss their differences. But such a vision is a mere fantasy.
