NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Sam Vaknins Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1999 edition) defines empathy as: The ability to imagine oneself in anthers place and understand the others feelings, desires, ideas, and actions. It is a term coined in the early 20 th century, equivalent to the German End? hung and modelled on sympathy. The term is used with special (but not exclusive) reference to aesthetic experience.
The most obvious example, perhaps, is that of the actor or singer who genuinely feels the part he is performing. With other works of art, a spectator may, by a kind of introjection, feel himself involved in what he observes or contemplates. The use of empathy is an important part of the counselling technique developed by the American psychologist Carl Rogers. Empathy is predicated upon and must, therefore, incorporate the following elements: (a) Imagination which is dependent on the ability to imagine (b) The existence of an accessible Self (self-awareness or self-consciousness) (c) The existence of an available other (other-awareness, recognizing the outside world) (d) The existence of accessible feelings, desires, ideas and representations of actions or their outcomes both in the empathizing Self (Empathor) and in the Other, the object of empathy (Empathee) (e) The availability of an aesthetic frame of reference (f) The availability of a moral frame of reference While (a) is presumed to be universally available to all agents (though in varying degrees) the existence of the other components of empathy should not be taken for granted.
Conditions (b) and (c), for instance, are not satisfied by people who suffer from personality disorders, such as the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Condition (d) is not met in autistic people (e. g. , those who suffer from the Asperger syndrome). Conditions (e) is so totally dependent on the specifics of the culture, period and society in which it exists that it is rather meaningless and ambiguous as a yardstick.
Condition (f) suffer from both afflictions: it is both culture-dependent AND is not satisfied in many people (such as those who suffer from the Antisocial Personality Disorder and who are devoid of any conscience or moral sense). Thus, the very existence of empathy should be questioned. It is often confused with inter-subjectivity. The latter is defined thus by The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 1995: This term refers to the status of being somehow accessible to at least two (usually all, in principle) minds or subjectivities.
It thus implies that there is some sort of communication between those minds; which in turn implies that each communicating minds aware not only of the existence of the other but also of its intention to convey information to the other. The idea, for theorists, is that if subjective processes can be brought into agreement, then perhaps that is as good as the (unattainable? ) status of being objective completely independent of subjectivity. The question facing such theorists is whether inter subjectivity is definable without presupposing an objective environment in which communication takes place (the wiring from subject A to subject B). At a less fundamental level, however, the need for intersubjective verification of scientific hypotheses has been long recognized. (page 414).
On the face of it, the difference between inter subjectivity and empathy is double: (a) Inter subjectivity requires an EXPLICIT, communicated agreement between at least two subjects (b) It involves EXTERNAL things (so called objective entities). These differences are artificial. This how empathy is defined in Psychology An Introduction (Ninth Edition) by Charles G. Morris, Prentice Hall, 1996: Closely related to the ability to read other peoples emotions is empathy the arousal of an emotion in an observer that is a vicarious response to the other persons situation Empathy depends not only on ones ability to identify someone elses emotions but also on ones capacity to put oneself in the other persons place and to experience an appropriate emotional response. Just as sensitivity to non-verbal cues increases with age, so does empathy: The cognitive and perceptual abilities required for empathy develop only as a child matures (page 442) In empathy training, for example, each member of the couple is taught to share inner feelings and to listen to and understand the partners feelings before responding to them. The empathy technique focuses the couples attention on feelings and requires that they spend more time listening and less time in rebuttal. (page 576).
Thus empathy does require the communication of feelings AND an agreement on the appropriate outcome of the communicated emotions ( = affective agreement). In the absence of such agreement, we are faced with inappropriate affect (laughing at a funeral, for instance). Moreover, empathy does relate to external objects and is provoked by them. There is no empathy in the absence of an empathy. Granted, inter subjectivity is intuitively applied to the inanimate while empathy is applied to the living (animals, humans, even plants). But this is a difference in human preferences not in definition.
Empathy can, thus, be re-defined as a form of inter subjectivity which involves living things as objects to which the communicated intersubjective agreement relates. It is wrong to limit empathy to the communication of emotion. It is the intersubjective, concomitant experience of BEING. The empathy empathizes not only with the empathee's emotions but also with his physical state and other parameters of existence (pain, hunger, thirst, suffocation, sexual pleasure etc. ).
This leads to the important (and perhaps intractable) psychophysical question. Inter subjectivity relates to external objects but the subjects communicate and reach an agreement regarding the way THEY have been affected by the objects. Empathy relates to external objects (the Others) but the subjects communicate and reach an agreement regarding the way THEY would have felt had they BEEN the object. This is no minor difference, if it, indeed, exists. But does it really exist? What is it that we feel in empathy?
Is it OUR emotions / sensations merely provoked by an external trigger (classic inter subjectivity) or is it a TRANSFER of the objects feelings / sensations to us? Such a transfer being physically impossible (as far as we know) we are forced to adopt the former model. Empathy is the set of reactions emotional and cognitive to triggering by an external object (the other). It is the equivalent of resonance in the physical sciences.
But we have NO WAY to ascertain the wavelength of such resonance is identical in both subjects. In other words, we have no way to verify that the feelings or sensation invoked in the two (or more) subjects are one and the same. What I call sadness may not be what you call sadness. Colours have unique, uniform, independently measurable properties (like energy). Still, no one can prove that what I see as red is what another calls red (as is the case with Daltonists).
If this is true where objective, measurable, phenomena are concerned it is infinitely true in the case of emotions or feelings. We are, therefore, forced to refine our definition: Empathy is a form of inter subjectivity which involves living things as objects to which the communicated intersubjective agreement relates. It is the intersubjective, concomitant experience of BEING. The empathy empathizes not only with the empathee's emotions but also with his physical state and other parameters of existence (pain, hunger, thirst, suffocation, sexual pleasure etc. ). BUT The meaning attributed to the words used by the parties to the intersubjective agreement known as empathy is totally dependent upon each party. The same words are used, the same denotes but it cannot be proven that the same con notates, the same experiences, emotions and sensations are being discussed or communicated.
Whereas the intersubjective agreement regarding measurements and observations concerning external objects IS verifiable or falsifiable using INDEPENDENT tools (e. g. , lab experiments) the intersubjective agreement which concerns itself with the emotions, sensations and experiences of subjects as communicated by them IS NOT verifiable or falsifiable using INDEPENDENT tools. The interpretation of this second kind of agreement is dependent upon introspection and an assumption that identical words used by different subjects still possess identical meaning. This assumption is not falsifiable (or verifiable). It is neither true nor false.
It is a probabilistic statement with no probabilities attached. It is, in short, a meaningless statement. As a result, empathy itself is meaningless. In human-speak, if you say that you are said and I empathize with you it means that we have an agreement.
I regard you as my object. You communicate to me a property of yours (sadness). This triggers in me a recollection of what is sadness or what is to be sad. I say that I know what you mean, I have been sad before, I know what it is like to be sad. I empathize with you. We agree about being sad.
We have an intersubjective agreement. Alas, such an agreement is meaningless. We cannot (yet) measure sadness, quantify it, crystallize it, access it in any way from the outside. We are totally and absolutely reliant on your introspection and my introspection. There is no way anyone can prove that my sadness is even remotely similar to your sadness. I may be feeling or experiencing something that you might find hilarious and not sad at all.
Still, I call it sadness and I empathize with you. This would not have been that grave if empathy hadnt been the cornerstone of morality. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999 Edition: Empathy and other forms of social awareness are important in the development of a moral sense. Morality embraces a persons beliefs about the appropriateness or goodness of what he does, thinks, or feels Childhood is the time at which moral standards begin to develop in a process that often extends well into adulthood. The American psychologist Lawrence Ko hlberg hypothesized that peoples development of moral standards passes through stages that can be grouped into three moral levels At the third level, that of post conventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and that he accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society's opinion. He is aware of the arbitrary, subjective nature of social standards and rules, which he regards as relative rather than absolute in authority.
Thus the bases for justifying moral standards pass from avoidance of punishment to avoidance of adult disapproval and rejection to avoidance of internal guilt and self-recrimination. The persons moral reasoning also moves toward increasingly greater social scope (i. e. , including more people and institutions) and greater abstraction (i. e. , from reasoning about physical events such as pain or pleasure to reasoning about values, rights, and implicit contracts).
But, if moral reasoning is based on introspection and empathy it is, indeed, dangerously relative and not objective in any known sense of the word. Empathy is a unique agreement on the emotional and experiential content of two or more introspective processes in two or more subjective. Such an agreement can never have any meaning, even as far as the parties to it are concerned. They can never be sure that they are discussing the same emotions or experiences. There is no way to compare, measure, observe, falsify or verify (prove) that the same emotion is experienced identically by the parties to the empathy agreement. Empathy is meaningless and introspection involves a private language despite what Wittgenstein had to say.
Morality is thus reduced to a set of meaningless private languages. The Encyclopaedia Britannica: Others have argued that because even rather young children are capable of showing empathy with the pain of others, the inhibition of aggressive behaviour arises from this moral affect rather than from the mere anticipation of punishment. Some scientists have found that children differ in their individual capacity for empathy, and, therefore, some children are more sensitive to moral prohibitions than others. Young childrens growing awareness of their own emotional states, characteristics, and abilities leads to empathy i. e. , the ability to appreciate the feelings and perspectives of others.
Empathy and other forms of social awareness are in turn important in the development of a moral sense Another important aspect of childrens emotional development is the formation of their self-concept, or identity i. e. , their sense of who they are and what their relation to other people is. According to Lips concept of empathy, a person appreciates another persons reaction by a projection of the self into the other. In his? sthetic, 2 vol. (1903 - 06; Aesthetics), he made all appreciation of art dependent upon a similar self-projection into the object. This may well be the key.
Empathy has little to do with the other person (the empathy). It is simply the result of conditioning and socialization. In other words, when we hurt someone we dont experience his pain. We experience OUR pain. Hurting somebody hurts US. The reaction of pain is provoked in US by OUR own actions.
We have been taught a learned response of feeling pain when we inflict it upon another. But we have also been taught to feel responsible for our fellow beings (guilt). So, we experience pain whenever another person claims to experience it as well. We feel guilty. In sum: To use the example of pain, we experience it in tandem with another person because we feel guilty or somehow responsible for his condition. A learned reaction is activated and we experience (our kind of) pain as well.
We communicate it to the other person and an agreement of empathy is struck between us. We attribute feelings, sensations and experiences to the object of our actions. It is the psychological defence mechanism of projection. Unable to conceive of inflicting pain upon ourselves we displace the source. It is the others pain that we are feeling, we keep telling ourselves, not our own.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica: Perhaps the most important aspect of childrens emotional development is a growing awareness of their own emotional states and the ability to discern and interpret the emotions of others. The last half of the second year is a time when children start becoming aware of their own emotional states, characteristics, abilities, and potential for action; this phenomenon is called self-awareness (coupled with strong narcissistic behaviours and traits SV) This growing awareness of and ability to recall ones own emotional states leads to empathy, or the ability to appreciate the feelings and perceptions of others. Young childrens dawning awareness of their own potential for action inspires them to try to direct (or otherwise affect) the behaviour of others With age, children acquire the ability to understand the perspective, or point of view, of other people, a development that is closely linked with the empathic sharing of others emotions One major factor underlying these changes is the childs increasing cognitive sophistication. For example, in order to feel the emotion of guilt, a child must appreciate the fact that he could have inhibited a particular action of his that violated a moral standard. The awareness that one can impose a restraint on ones own behaviour requires a certain level of cognitive maturation, and, therefore, the emotion of guilt cannot appear until that competence is attained. That empathy is a REACTION to external stimuli that is fully contained within the empathy and then projected onto the empathy is clearly demonstrated by inborn empathy.
It is the ability to exhibit empathy and altruistic behaviour in response to facial expressions. New-born's react this way to their mothers facial expression of sadness or distress. This serves to prove that empathy has very little to do with the feelings, experiences or sensations of the other (the empathy). Surely, the infant has no idea what it is like to feel sad and definitely not what it is like for his mother to feel sad. In this case, it is a complex reflexive reaction. Later on, empathy is still rather reflexive, the result of conditioning.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica quotes fascinating research which dramatically proves the object-independent nature of empathy. Empathy is an internal reaction, an internal process, triggered by external cue provided by animate objects. It is communicated to the empathy-other by the empathy but the communication and the resulting agreement (I know how you feel therefore we agree on how you feel) is rendered meaningless by the absence of a monovalent, unambiguous dictionary. An extensive series of studies indicated that positive emotion feelings enhance empathy and altruism.
It was shown by the American psychologist Alice M. In that relatively small favours or bits of good luck (like finding money in a coin telephone or getting an unexpected gift) induced positive emotion in people and that such emotion regularly increased the subjects inclination to sympathize or provide help. Several studies have demonstrated that positive emotion facilitates creative problem solving. One of these studies showed that positive emotion enabled subjects to name more uses for common objects.
Another showed that positive emotion enhanced creative problem solving by enabling subjects to see relations among objects (and other people SV) that would otherwise go unnoticed. A number of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of positive emotion on thinking, memory, and action in pre-school and older children. If empathy increases with positive emotion (a result of good luck, for instance) then it has little to do with its objects and a lot to do with the person in whom it is provoked.
Free research essays on topics related to: moral reasoning, encyclopaedia britannica, personality disorder, moral sense, external objects
Research essay sample on Encyclopaedia Britannica Moral Reasoning