Why do we feel Sympathy & Empathy?

in philosophy •  6 years ago 
A somewhat complicated question mind you, even though it takes seconds to write it out. Most of us, unfortunately not all, are equipped with the ability to feel sympathy and empathy, to care about others, to be able to put us aside for just a second, and see someone on the other side. Have you ever wondered why? Why is it that we can care for others?




Evolutionary Psychology


Often talks about different behavioral traits that sure exist because it helped us overcome adversity. In other words, if a new psychological feature on a brand new human helped that human survive, reproduce and what not, then that mental feature was considered an evolutionary advantage.

The goal of this field however is come up with a plausible reason for them, a plausible reason as to why for example, all teenagers have a rebellious stage, what advantage that behavior offered mankind when it first sprouted in ancient society.

Sympathy & Empathy


These two words often get confused, but they are social glues of different intensities. One synonym that I find valuable for the word sympathy is compassion. As humans we value compassion, we think that being a practitioner of compassion is noble, admirable and worthy of memorable saints.

As a matter of fact many religions latch on to this concept as a core element of their doctrine. It's powerful enough to evoke reverence in all of us, and even lower the shields of healthy skepticism.

Now when it comes to empathy, that is a lot more intense than compassion. Empathy is feeling exactly what the other person is feeling. Empathy is the closest think we might ever get to emotional emulation, a mind reading of sorts.

What's the advantage?


Is there one to begin with? We have to deduce that there must be, otherwise we would not have it, and these words and concepts would not be part of our social structure. We might not even think of them often, but we practice one form or another every single day.

Feeling compassion allows us to do what's right. To return someone's wallet that just fell to the floor, to donate a dollar to someone that is begging for food waiting at a stop light. Compassion allows us to seem selfless, even when we are not.

I believe that no action is truly selfless because if we feel pleasure when we are being compassionate, our gain may have not be material per say, but it sure is psychological, emotional. And who doesn't like to feel good about themselves, to smile to a mirror?

So we see that the reward mechanism is there, those who practice compassion feel good about themselves, but we have to ask: What is the social advantage? - The only plausible answer I can come up with is that compassion allows us to walk away from strictly darwinian thinking, to value the life of others enough to strengthen social safety nets. When we act compassionate, and are observed to be so and appreciated, we also somewhat secure social value for ourselves, not guaranteed of course, but in life nothing is.

Have you not automatically felt appreciation, love even, for someone who is kind and compassionate? I sure have, and it was effortless to do. The value of that person in my eyes took a shortcut to my heart.

Yeah, but empathy?


I'm starting to think of empathy as some sort of social intensive care. People who are highly empathic suffer a lot, but they are also capable of enjoying life intensely. A double edged sword no doubt, but with an important mission within their social circles at times.

Someone who is empathic can help others reconnect if you will with their social circles. They can help people regain their "caring" their "desires", not because an empath is all knowing, not because an empath is magical, but because it removes other people's loneliness by practicing loneliness with them, as paradoxical as it may sound.

Someone who is empathic can be a diffuser of conflict as well, because he or she can truly understand both sides. Two positions in complete opposition can have validity, because the people who hold those ideas are valuable.

That to me is so powerful and at the same time so wild, I have a hard time not feeling overwhelmed by those thoughts as I type them.

This post has been a truly fascinating mental exploration for me that would probably require hundreds of posts to encase all that I'm thinking. But, as it always happens on saturday nights, listening to @clayboyn philosophy show has my mind racing and I did not want to go to sleep without sharing some of these thoughts on this crazy little blog of mine.

Thank you for reading...


• A full plate, but that's ok
• Helpie's application for MSP Witness Support
• Helpie is now a Steem Witness
• The Queen's Gambit
• What will it take for Crypto to moon?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Empathy is connection and the ability to lovingly communicate non verbally and with feeling. This is the basis of many lost abilities and is absolutely necessary for survival. 'Survival of the fittest' is misleading in that it suggests some kind of competition and a 'winner', whereas in reality we are dealing with 'survivial of the most loving'. Those who fight and do harm are less likely to survive and reduce the survival of life in general. Empathy leads us to deeper levels of consciousness and thus understanding, which is needed for our own survival.

Those who fight and do harm are less likely to survive and reduce the survival of life in general.

I very much agree with this. In any case I feel society is walking more and more towards these truths. We tend to hear/read all about everything that is wrong with the world when there are people like professor Pinker who actually show, with data, that we've constantly been making strides for betterment.

There are those among us who are living and choosing a path of evolution and there are many more who are going the opposite direction. Many who are headed for destruction are long since past the point of no return - therefore, it is true that humanity is evolving and devolving simultaneously.

"it removes other people's loneliness"

Even the idea that people get lonely is a clue as to how much people need other people. People have evolved to need each other, to feel positive feelings when they cooperate with each other. To love each other. Empathy is a subset of that overall human operating software.

Your sociopath, by contrast, is not normal, precisely because the parts of the brain that make empathy happen don't work.

Empathy is Darwinian, weirdly. Tribes with empathic members thrive, because those who fall behind get lifted up. If you have a soldier willing to give his own life for others, your side is more likely to win a battle, and be a surviving tribe. Imagine if a disaster looms, and noone is willing to give their life to save everyone else: then everybody dies.

Without empathy in a tribe, a war of all against all wears everybody down. Everybody ends up losing out. The tribe without empathy dies out ultimately, where the tribe with empathic members thrive.

It's only empathy (and sympathy) that prevent perpetual competition and war, amongst individuals, destroying the human race. Humans are so successful as a species precisely because we are programmed to need each other, and serve each other, and our brains affirm such actions with positive feelings. We are a social species. :)

as always Rodney, right as rain, right as rain....

Interesting post, just a small point about Darwinian thinking. Darwin's original writings noted as much about co-operative behaviour and, in terms of what you are writing about, what might be called caring behaviour, as he did about competitive behaviour. However, his writings about competitive behaviour and survival of the fittest suited a particular 19th century capitalist rhetoric and were taken out of context.
There is evidence that co-operative behaviour - looking out for each other or caring for each other - is hard wired into our dna and that we don't like cheating or poor social behaviour. There is also evidence that there is a crucial period in the early years (about two or three years of age, I think) where these senses and behaviours are developed given the right stimulus and responses which may go some way to explaining why some people don't develop empathy and sympathy.

Thank you for sharing, I did not know that about the early years, I'm going to read up on it or watch some videos...

:)

I usually feel pimpathy.

hahahahahah that's right

Sinceramente yo considero que "ser auténtico" es parte de la clave del éxito, no pretender ser "nadie mas".
Sin embargo "una sonrisa" nunca sobra.
Te mando un fuerte abrazo, amigo @meno

Again...
THANK YOU!

We feel sympathy towards those who have gone through the same pain or suffering we went or are going through

I think sympathy and empathy are just two sides of a coin we cannot have one without the other. and it is human nature to feel towards another human being whether he/she is a relative or a close person

Upvote if you like my comment :)

Interesting in my education as social worker we had a close focus on this subject. But for some reason we learned it the other way around (of course it might just be the language) Where empathy would be you understand the person's pain, but don't take it close to you. where sympathy is where you feel the person's pain that might even come from previous personal pain you have had.

in other words I understand vs I feel :)

Posted using Partiko Android

oh ya? interesting... you mean on a different language other than english?

Yeah I don't know if that might be it. Like my language is danish so maybe just the way we express or talk might mean something else than in English= language misunderstanding in some way.

Posted using Partiko Android

You are right about this subject, it has been an essential part our social evolution yet I fear it’s function in today’s structure of society it’s not evolving quick enough.

I am very empathetic but I often find myself drawn to protect the victim, at least the side I perceive as the victim. It still requires tons of restraint to show the diplomacy required for diffusing situations. It is useful yet also very painful walking around with the worlds sorrows on my mind, simple things can get to me such as watching a mother unintentionally psychologically damage their children.

I think you should continue flushing this idea out 😎 I’d be very interested to read where it leads you!

Posted using Partiko iOS

This is a problem that I feel many empathic people suffer from. Without constructing a filtering mechanism, it is exceedingly easy to hear about someone's plight and get into their mind set. Whether or not they are actually the victim may well be irrelevant. If a man has been a cheat and a liar his whole life, but all you know about him is the sob story he tells you about how he's been kicked out of his apartment and doesn't have a place to stay, wouldn't you empathize with him? Never mind the fact that he's done a tremendous amount of harm to others?

Empathy is good, and it allows us to present the way a party is perceiving the situation to the opposing party. That restraint is a difficult thing to master, and, in my opinion, requires an active attempt to distance oneself from either party.

very good observation Andrei... I can't say I've not done this myself. In psychology they call this behavior codependency and its really ugly and taxing for those who participate of it, on both sides of the coin really.

Very good point.

Yes mate. Empaths can make great mediators as they’re able to truly “walk as if in another’s shoes” for both parties in a dispute.

They also need to be able to detach from the empathy, otherwise they will get overwhelmed and be unable to make decisions.

As you say, creating a filter.

Posted using Partiko iOS

I’m loving the conversation along evolutionary lines.

Because I’ve always thought that compassion and empathy are signs that we as a species are evolving beyond ‘evolution’ – at least in a Darwinian sense. It’s what sets us apart from the ‘law of the jungle’.

Although it is interesting if we consider the theory of Lamarck, who published his theory of evolution prior to Darwin, essentially that evolution occurs through cooperation, not (as Darwin describes) through competition.

I’m curious why Darwin’s ideas took off whilst Lamarck’s did not. I wonder if it’s not because compassion and empathy are somehow ‘unscientific’ - that they are a little too chaotic and anarchistic; not rational enough.

Thanks for sparking my own contemplations this evening.
😊🙏🏽☯️

Posted using Partiko iOS

very good points.. btw are you familiar with Professor Pinker? good food for the brain.

Pinker... 🤔… nope, don’t think so. Please elucidate.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Wow! Thanks for your article, that was quite a good read. :)

You got a 48.63% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @meno!

Hi @meno!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 5.647 which ranks you at #444 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 1 places in the last three days (old rank 445).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 373 contributions, your post is ranked at #9.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You've built up a nice network.
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Good user engagement!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Sympathy and Empathy - perhaps two of the most valuable human emotions there are... Without them, we'd be soulless, selfish, and devil-like... If one lacks either of the two in any meaningful way, one needs to check themselves pronto - or risk succumbing entirely to the ever-burgeoning darker side of humanity...