undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdavorak7mo ago0 comments

> not necessarily the emotional mirroring aspect he's defined empathy to be.

The way the wikipedia article describes Bloom's definition is less generous than what you have here

> For Bloom, "[e]mpathy is the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does"[1]: 16

So for bloom it is not necessarily even accurately mirroring another's emotions, but only what you think there emotions are.

> Bloom also explores the neurological differences between feeling and understanding, which are central to demonstrating the limitations of empathy.

This seems to artificial separate empathy and understanding in a way that does not align with common usage and I would argue also makes for a less useful definition in that I would then need new words to describe what I currently use 'empathy' for.

0 comments

username3322117mo ago

Surely you can empathize with an act? In fact it's probably a requirement in order to be able to enjoy cinema and theater.

And actors aren't the only ones that pretend to be something they are not.

If you don't want to distinguish between empathy and understanding, a new term has to be introduced about mirroring the emotions of a mirage. I'm not sure the word for that exists?

davorakOP7mo ago

> If you don't want to distinguish between empathy and understanding

I said "This seems to artificial separate empathy and understanding" not that they had the same meaning, or that empathy is used only for one meaning

The artificial separation in Bloom's definition I quoted above because it removes or ignores aspects that are common to definition of empathy. After those parts are removed ignored and argument is constructed against the commonly recognized worth of empathy. Of course the commonly recognized value of empathy is based on the common definition not the modified version presented by Bloom. Also artificial because it does not obviously form a better basis for understanding reality or dividing up human cognition. There is only so much you can get from a wikipedia article, but what is in this one does not layout any good arguments that make me go "I need to pick up that book and learn more to better my understanding of the world."

gausswho7mo ago

I've read about half the book. I stopped because I got the impression it'd run out of steam.

With that caveat, I do recommend it. In particular your comment indicates you would like it, if you're willing to accept the terminologies the author spends right away defining. He's very explicit that he's not trying to map to the colloquial definition of empathy. Which is the correct approach, because people's definitions vary wildly and it's important to separate from the value-loaded components to come to a fresh perspective.

The author makes a strong case that empathy, of the kind he defines, is often harmful to the person having empathy, as well as the persons receiving empathy.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse