Posted on 12/29/2006 9:11:00 AM PST by AVNevis
Thanks! :-)
One must be careful not to confuse empathy with either sympathy, emotional contagion or telepathy. Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone. Emotional contagion is when a person (especially a child or a person in a mob) identifies with strong emotions others are showing and becomes subject to the same emotions themselves. Telepathy is a controversial paranormal phenomenon, which differs in that empathy is based not upon the paranormal but upon sophisticated processing of what is seen and heard in the usual way.
Sympathy is, "I'm sorry for your pain." Emotional Contagion is, "I have lost my self in your pain." Empathy is, "I feel your pain." Apathy is, " I ignore your feeling. " Telepathy is, "I know how you feel because I'm reading your mind."
Try reading very slowly this time.
Hmmm...Wiki, or Webster's unabridged.
Why would I read "Wiki", when I can read Webster's Unabridged.
Again, Websters says that they can be synonymous.
But to each, their own -- source.
BTW, did you make that Wiki entry or was it...some unidentified nobody?
You bet they are ohioWfan. Beginning and ending and all that.
As disgusting as the pictures are, they help remind us why the vicious animal was executed today. A good day.
Which Webster's Unabridged? Anyone is free to use the term "Webster's" these days, you know. You have to tell which one, as it has entered the public domain and is a genericized trademark.
I don't know how that back and forth started between you and the guy over sympathy and empathy, but in actual usage
there is a pretty blurry border between the two. I use both words, but obviously to relate to different situations: they will NEVER be the same because they are different words , with different prefixes. That's one thing that should be communicated to the other guy---it's a not necessarily helpful shorthand in this context to come out with the usual rule of thumb of "sympathy is feeling with, empathy is feeling into."Once you say that you are still at a loss as to the real-life applications
and exclusivity. The fact is that they are used interchangeably , by people who don't really know what they're trying to communicate, or are aware of the nuances of where one begins and the other ends.
Consider how much bad grammar, misspelling, misuse of words, etc. we are exposed to every day---I don't even want to get into how often I hear it from the whole media spectrum of talking heads, who you'd think would know better: we must fight against certifying or sanctifying ANY mistake which is the result of laziness, ignorance, sloppiness of thought, or the intentional "dumbing-down" by what is still fatuously called "education"
"Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language", RHR Press.
They go on to say: The dicitionary entries are based on the Second Edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language.
True, but you really want to trust any Random source for your information? 8<)
I'd have to read back through the many many posts to get to what really started my conversation with this other person. I only know that the usage of the word empathy in dealing with "celebrating" the death of Saddam with the Iraqi's who he brutalized was incorrect, and I attempted to get that across. I probably didn't reach my objective, but I tried. Thanks for your explanation, and pointing out that the distinction between these two words is often blurred though the common use of both. I enjoyed reading your post, and appreciate your thoughts.
Closer. I do believe one can empathize even without direct experience, but it does require putting onesself in that position, vicariously.
My guess is that's why the "Webster's Unabridged" being cited by Free Reign says "see sympathy" not just "sympathy"... the latter would indicate that they are synonyms. With "see" in there, it means that they are similar words, but you go to "sympathy" entry to see how they differ--that's how most Webster's work.
The Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)--based on what used to be called "Webster's" (the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006), does that. It says "see Sympathy"...and under Sympathy, it has the following (to which I added boldface/italics):
Synonyms 1. concord, understanding, rapport, affinity.Sympathy, compassion, pity, empathy all denote the tendency, practice, or capacity to share in the feelings of others, especially their distress, sorrow, or unfulfilled desires. Sympathy is the broadest of these terms, signifying a general kinship with another's feelings, no matter of what kind: in sympathy with her yearning for peace and freedom; to extend sympathy to the bereaved. Compassion implies a deep sympathy for the sorrows or troubles of another coupled to a powerful urge to alleviate the pain or distress or to remove its source: to show compassion for homeless refugees. Pity usually suggests a kindly, but sometimes condescending, sorrow aroused by the suffering or ill fortune of others, often leading to a show of mercy: tears of pity for war casualties; to have pity on a thief driven by hunger. Empathy most often refers to a vicarious participation in the emotions, ideas, or opinions of others, the ability to imagine oneself in the condition or predicament of another: empathy with those striving to improve their lives; to feel empathy with Hamlet as one watches the play.Note that there's no "see" on the synonyms here. The "see" just said that there's an explanation at "Sympathy"...not that they are actually synonyms. In any case, I just comment because of my interest in language and lexography.
I'm sure that each of the two words does have one or more definitions that are different from the other word.
I'm simply pointing out to you that Webster's as I cited earlier does say that their definitions can be synonymous, meaning that each word has at least one definition in common with the other word.
I've underlined the word "can" in each of my posts. You ignore it and give me an example of how the definitions can be different.
Don't do that. Address my point.
Very facinating post. Thanks for the explanation. You've managed to explain what I was unable to.
Seems to me that is the right approach in this world of imperfect creatures.
Am I correct in feeling joy in his death, satisfaction in the end of his life, and hope that - without him as a reminder - the old Iraqi party faithful now have no one to turn to as a foundation?
Can you also recognize that someone not feeling "joy" at his death, or "satisfaction" in the end of his life without repentance, is not necessarily a bad person? Can you understand that some may prefer him "dead by hanging" to "alive and in power," but still not rejoice?
I believe you can, but my problem is with those who can't.
Putting out a house fire might be preferable to letting it burn, but that doesn't mean a family rejoices at the water damage, even if they are glad the fire company came.
Read Gondring's post 4,994 and get back to me.
5000? Whoo-hoo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.