Sympathizing with the Other: The most central preoccupation of Thessalonians in their reflections on Ephesus is the need to Sympathize with the other. They maintain that theosis does not consist in receiving the other as a mere accompaniment of theosis, i.e., in receiving God in order to be holy. Rather, theosis involves becoming a victim of the other, becoming involved with his or her sufferings. And as a victim, one must be sympathetic, just as a sympathizer must be interested in his fellow human being.
Oneness and Difference: A related idea to Sympathizing with the Other is that there is a distinction between being at once and being in existence. Being in existence, they believe, consists in the keeping of continuity with reality, whereas being in difference, they believe, involves breaking with continuity. In other words, in order to be a Sympathizer, you must first and foremost demonstrate your own inherence with reality, your own identity, etc. Then others can be Sympathized with you if you are willing to take the time to become a genuine and open observer of what they experience. And a genuine and open observer is someone who can sympathise with another's sorrows without taking a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Eisikovits: One might suppose that the word "Eisikovits" means, "attributing emotions." This concept is false. The word simply identifies an attitude of sympathy -- of seeing the suffering as an emotional experience rather than merely a physical fact. In fact, the best definition of Eisikovits is to say that it is an attitude of sympathy "in the true sense of the term" --that is, a subjective approach to the suffering of others. And this gives us the essential clue to the whole problem of Sympathizing with Others: the only way to show them your sympathy is by behaving as a Sympathizer rather than as a Sympathizer trying to show them your sympathy.
Sympathizers often complain that those who sympathize do so by pretending to feel something rather than by actually feeling or sharing their own pain and sorrow. True Sympathizers do feel, or at least feel some emotion. We know there's a big difference between pretending to feel something and showing yourself truly doing so. So how can we differentiate between Sympathizing and Condoling? Here are two contrasting types of Sympathizing: Sympathizing with others to offer them your sympathy and Condoling to others to show them that you think that what they're going through is your problem as well.
Sympathizing with others to offer them your sympathy -- in the form of words or actions -- is often the tactic used by those who have just discovered or been hurt by another human being's actions. Those who feel strongly that people should be respected, cherished, and not abused are known as Sympathy Seekers. On the other hand, those who feel that people deserve rights and are not to be abused are known as Condemners.
The second difference between Sympathizing and Condoling relates to the fact that Sympathizing is a passive form of sympathy while Condoling is an active form of sympathy. Those who sympathize with others by words or actions are said to be Eisikovits. A true Eisikeros would actively participate in helping those in need. On the other hand, those who express their sympathy without offering any help are called Sympathizers and they are not really eisikersos. For example, if you are listening to a radio talk show by someone who sympathizes with the situation of the victim, then you are listening to a Sympathizer and not a Condemner. Similarly, if you are listening to a television show hosted by someone who refuses to consider the victim to be in any way responsible for the crime committed, then you are being a Sympathizer and not a Condemner.
One can easily observe these differences by looking at two contrasting case studies. Take for instance, a newspaper column written by an expert who sympathizes with the victim would often foliate with a Sympathizer. However, such a stance would be considered unfriendly by many Sympathizers. On the other hand, the position taken by a Sympathizer who expresses sympathy for the victim would often be considered unfriendly by many Sympathizers. This is because, for a Sympathizer sympathy is always appreciated, whereas a Condemner refuses to consider the victim to be guilty of anything. Similarly, there are many people who believe that a person should only express sorrow over another human being who has lost his or her life.
To sum up, a true Sympathizer is someone who helps and supports other human beings when they are in need. On the other hand, a Sympathizer is not someone who Sympaths but rather someone who Condemn the act of hurting others. The former is considered to be more compassionate while the latter is considered a coward. Nowadays, one can often find both kinds of Sympathizers. Nevertheless, those who offer genuine sympathy are much appreciated while those who do this only to win some brownie points are most likely to lose friends.
