The Empathy Part I

The Empathy Part I The Encyclopedia Britannica (1999 edition) defines empathy as: "The ability to Another in the same square and the other feelings, desires, ideas and actions. This is a term coined in the early 20th Century, representing the German Imp. hlung and is modeled on "sympathy." The term is used with special (but not exclusively) on the aesthetic experience. The most famous example is perhaps that the actor or singer who genuinely feels that he leads. For other works of art, the viewer may be a kind of introjection, feel that what he has observed or considered. The use of empathy is an important part of technical expertise developed by the American psychologist Carl Rogers. "Empathy and depends, therefore, the following elements: the imagination, which depends on the ability to imagine the existence of independent access (self-awareness and self-awareness), the existence of another available (in other Recognizing the conscious world), the existence of accessible emotions, desires, ideas and representations of actions or their outcomes both in empathizing Self ( "Empathor") and in others, the object of empathy ( "Empathee"); The availability an aesthetic frame of reference "The availability of a frame of moral reference. Even if (a) it is assumed that they are universal for all materials (in varying degrees) - the existence of other components of empathy should not granted.Conditions (b) and (c), for example, are not met by people who suffer from personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder. Condition (d) is not met in autistic people (eg those who suffer from Asperger's syndrome). Conditions (e) is completely dependent on the specificities of culture, time and the society in which it exists - that there is no meaning and ambiguous as a yardstick. Condition (f) suffer from two diseases: the culture is at the same time-dependent and is not convinced many people (such as those suffering from anti-social personality disorder and have no conscience or moral sense). The existence of empathy should be questioned. E 'is often confused with inter-subjectivity. This is from "The companion of Philosophy at Oxford, 1995:" This term refers to the state of some accessible to at least two (usually all in principle) minds or 'subjectivities'. This means that there is a way of communication between the head, which in tu means that any communication spirit not only aware of the existence of others, but also its intention to provide information to others. The idea, for theorists, is that if subjective processes can be used in agreement, then perhaps it is as good as the (unattainable?) State an objective - completely independent of subjectivity. The question of how both theoretical and Intersubjectivity be determined without assuming a target environment where the communication (the 'wiring' from subject A to B.). At a less fundamental level, however, the need for intersubjective verification of scientific hypotheses has been long recognized. "(Page 414). At first glance, the difference between empathy and Intersubjectivity is twofold: Inter-subjectivity requires an explicit, communicated agreement between at least two people. These are things EXTERNAL RELATIONS (the so-called "objective" positions). These "differences" are artificial. This is empathy in "Psychology - An Introduction (Ninth Edition) by Charles G. Morris, Prentice Hall, 1996: "Closely related to the ability of other emotions is empathy - the arousal of an emotion in an observer that the auxiliary is a reaction to the other person the situation ... Empathy depends not only on the ability to identify other emotions, but also able to put oneself in place of another person and experience appropriate emotional response. Just as the sensitivity of non-verbal hints increases with age, such as empathy: The cognitive and perceptual skills needed to develop empathy couple only one child ... (Page 442) In empathy training, for example, each member of the couple is taught to inner feelings and to listen and understand the feelings of their partner before responding to them. The technique focuses empathy couple to draw attention to the feelings and needs that spend more time listening and less time in rebuttal. "(page 576). Thus, empathy, communication of feelings and an agreement on the conclusions of the Commission emotions (= affective agreement). In the absence of such an agreement, we are faced with inappropriate affect (laughing at a funeral, for example). Moreover, empathy leads to exteal objects, and through them. There is empathy in the absence of a empathee. Yes, it is intuitively Intersubjectivity the inanimate and empathy for the living (animals, humans, even plants). But this is a difference in human preferences - definition.Empathy can not be redefined as a form of inter-subjectivity, of living things as "objects" to which the Commission intersubjective agreement relates. E 'empathy for a mistake to limit the communication of emotions. And 'the intersubjective, concomitant experience of being. The empathor empathizes not only with the empathee emotions, but also with his physical condition and other parameters of existence (pain, hunger, thirst, suffocation, sexual pleasure, etc.). This brings the important (and perhaps intractable) psychophysical question.Intersubjectivity relates to exteal objects but the subjects communicate and reach agreement on how they are affected by objects.Empathy relates to exteal objects (the other), but the subjects communicate and to reach an agreement about how they would feel if they were object.This is not a small difference, if any really. Is it really? What we have in empathy? And 'our emotions / feelings only by a trigger signal (Intersubjectivity classic) or is a transfer of feelings / sensations to us? This transfer is physically impossible (as far as I know) - we are forced by the previous model. Empathy is the set of reactions - emotional and cognitive - to triggering by an exteal object (the other). And 'the equivalent of resonance in the physical sciences. But we have no way to get to the "wavelength" resonance in both subjects. In other words, we have no way to verify that the feelings and sensations, in which two (or more) subjects are one and the same. What like a "mouing" is not what it is like a "sad". The colors are unique, uniform, independently measurable properties (eg energy). However, no one can prove that what I consider "red" is different from "red" (as is the case of Daltonists). If this is the case in which "objective", measurable phenomena - it is infinitely true in the case of emotions or feelings.We are forced to our definition: Empathy is a form of inter-subjectivity, of living things as " Objects ", to which the Commission refers intersubjective agreement. And 'the intersubjective, concomitant experience of being. The empathor empathizes not only with the empathee emotions, but also with his physical condition and other parameters of existence (pain, hunger, thirst, suffocation, sexual pleasure, etc.). BUTThe meaning of words by the parties to the intersubjective agreement known as empathy is totally dependent of the individual parties. The same words are used, the same denotates - but can not be proved that the same connotates the same experiences, emotions and feelings are discussed or communicated.Language (and therefore also the art and culture) serve us in other views ( "What is like to be someone else" to paraphrase Thomas Nagle). By providing a bridge between the subjective (inner) and objective (words, images, sounds)-language allows the exchange and social interaction. This is a dictionary that is the private subjective language of the coin of public transport. Knowledge of language and for maximum social glue, although it is based on assumptions and approximations (see George Steiner's "After Babel"). But whereas the intersubjective agreement on the measurements and observations conceing exteal objects to be ascertained, or through independent means (for example, laboratory experiments) - the intersubjective agreement which deal with the feelings, the feelings and experiences of patients in is not verifiable or verifiable using means independent. The interpretation of this second type of agreement is subject introspection and an assumption that the same words by different subjects, but equally important. This hypothesis is not verified (or verifiable). It is neither true nor false. This is a probabilistic statement with no probabilities attached. This is, in short, a meaningless statement. Therefore, empathy is meaningless.In people talking when you said that you said and I empathize with you, it means that we reach an agreement. I think that, as my subject. They communicate with me you have a property ( "sadness"). This provokes in me a recollection of "what is sadness" or "What is sad." I say that I know what to say, I was sad before, I know what it means to be sad. I feel with you. We agree about the sad. We have an intersubjective agreement. (More) The Author Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the rain - as the West has lost the East. E 'a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb, a United Press Inteational (UPI) Senior Business correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in Open Directory and Suite101 Bella Online. Visit the Web site of a Sam