I certainly can imagine how unfulfilling life may be in a slave's eyes. I can certainly imagine how fearful for one's own health, well-being, and safety one may be when they are under the thumb of one who cared little to nothing at all about them as a person. — creativesoul

That’s the problem, it’s just your imagination.

What makes that a problem?

Your saying it is so does not make it so... ya know?

You'll have to do better than that. Address one of the arguments.

I can’t just accept those figures at random like that. Nor do I think anyone could come up with any percentages. — Brett

Yes. Those are my numbers. You agree though that our empathy works well as a rough estimate.

A social rule doesn’t need any understanding, it only needs agreement or adherence. Nor, I imagine, are social rules always agreed to by concensus, or necessarily based on ethics. Sometimes they’re enforced through violence — Brett

For a rational being any rule must be reasonable. We can make arbitrary rules but these usually fall into disuse with time and, sometimes, even incite revolution. History proves this.

I mentioned ethics because I think empathy is most relevant to the subject. Empathy is mainly about getting a sense of another person's situation especially regarding happiness/suffering and isn't that an ethical issue?

What makes that a problem? — creativesoul

Because you are using imagination in place of certain knowledge. You’re not directly experiencing the situation of the other, you’re experiencing ideas of the other, your ideas.

I’m not sure which arguments I should be addressing.

We can't read minds but we can make a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of other people. Can't we? We can't be 100% right but empathy has an accuracy of over 50% meaning its better than just random guessing. — TheMadFool

So 50% of the time we can have a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of others. Is that really an understanding?

Listening lead to better understanding. Empathy leads to better understanding. — creativesoul

Listening may lead to partial understanding. I’m not sure what you mean by better understanding. Better than no understanding?

Empathy is mainly about getting a sense of another person's situation especially regarding happiness/suffering and isn't that an ethical issue? — TheMadFool

This is true. You can get a sense of another person’s situation.

So 50% of the time we can have a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of others. Is that really an understanding? — Brett

The accuracy is higher than 50% i.e. we're likely to be correct about our assessment. People gamble with lesser odds so this level of correctness is acceptable. Don't you think?

Yes, I do. I realised what I’d done after I posted it, that is quoting the lowest figure.

What makes that a problem?
— creativesoul

Because you are using imagination in place of certain knowledge. — Brett

Again. Says you. Your saying that it is so does not make it so... ya know?

All imagination consists in/of thought/belief.
Some thought/belief is true.
Some imagination is true.
Some true thought/belief is well grounded.
Some true imagination(s) is(are) well grounded.
All well grounded true belief is knowledge.
Some well grounded true belief is imagination.
All well grounded true imagination(s) is(are) knowledge.

QED

I’m not sure which arguments I should be addressing.

Start there.

Listening lead to better understanding. Empathy leads to better understanding.
— creativesoul

Listening may lead to partial understanding. I’m not sure what you mean by better understanding. Better than no understanding? — Brett

More is better. There is no such thing as complete understanding. Leading to more is arriving at better.

The OP is just plain false. It works from a few utterly inadequate conceptions... All of the germane ones! Everyday fact contradicts it at every turn.

We're dealing with yet another logical fiction, and that's being quite generous in the assessment... granting coherency and/or lack of self-contradiction.

Einstein imagined himself sitting upon a photon of light...

You wouldn't dare apply your absurd logic about imagination to any other field, you wouldn't use it to try to understand any science field, to learn any game to do anything where we could clearly see whether you were good/understood that thing or not.

I'm not criticising someone like Einstein using imagination, he's doing that for inspiration and to explore possibilities which he will then confirm or investigate. I also use imagination like this for people, if I see someone crying, I may come up with some reasons why that might be and then either confirming or not confirming but hardly saying I understand something because I did that.

Only because you have never witnessed the results of whether empathy is giving you correct answers or not, do you presume it could be effective. I do think if you make an effort to empathise with someone and they are in a situation where they wanted you to empathise with them, you're not going to receive a detailed account of your inaccuracies.

When you're not talking about imagination; reading body language, seeing expressions, interpreting sentiments, you're not talking about empathy. Trying to apply causal arguments to the existence or denial of freedom is similarly, not empathy.

I'm not getting anywhere with imagination so instead let's consider how something like slavery is not the same for everybody.

Surely, it matters who enslaved you and how you're being treated - are you being fed, are you being beaten/raped, how gruelling are the tasks you are forced to perform, were you constantly injured/sick, how educated you were. were you being regularly humiliated and so much more? Surely, all these things matter in how someone is experiencing slavery?

Then people with different temperaments, personalities, levels of intelligence and all the reasons for varying interpretations and emotional proclivities surely experienced those individual things differently? Not everyone who is raped feels exactly the same way about it. People experience it, react and are changed by it differently, surely you see that?

Then people like TheMadFool tell me there's a 50%+ chance of understanding what's going on, I wonder exactly what he's talking about? Understanding whether someone is sad or not? As though empathy is the only way to draw a connection between emotions and sentiments.

You are at best imagining a single possibility for how someone experienced and was impacted by slavery and realistically the whole topic is too complicated for you to do anything but understand sentiments. You'd be much better off just reading a diary from a few slaves/former slaves, you'd already be miles ahead of someone who was using empathy.

Must've hit a nerve.

Is there a valid refutation in the midst of that? A valid criticism? An argument of your own perhaps?

Edit:Nope.

So many games you could play, where winning is all that matters and yet you're here, how perplexing.

That mistakenly presupposes that one cannot do both.

Perplexing... you say???

I told you from jump...

What you say here is contradicted everyday all day long by actual events.

Hmm, there is not much winning to be had in arguments about philosophy. It is rare beyond belief to see someone admit they are wrong but very common to see both sides of the debate believing they won it just as I suppose we both think now. I am not here to win any debates, I want to see the strength of my arguments and perhaps see the weaknesses in my arguments as pointed out by others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaRUALK3550&t=189s

So, here is a pretty good example showing what empathy does do and what it doesn't do, in everyday life.

The reality tv show kitchen nightmares shows Gordon Ramsay meeting an owner after having argued a lot about what changes need to be made to the restaurant. He goes to visit her and tries to understand her better and get on the same page. I think he does a good job of it but look carefully at what actually occurs.

Firstly, he is responding to:
1. Expressed sentiments
2. Knowledge he has about the restaurant business and the likely effects of owning a failing business.
3. Information he has about her and her son

She says that things are very stressful for her, she feels let down by her son and a lot of personal information which she considers relevant. Gordon takes her side, empathises with her difficulties and tries to pick her back up and comfort her.

I think this is great but let's look at exactly what he understood and how he understood it. He says:

1. She's dealing with a lot of stress
2. She's agitated and deeply concerned
3. She's letting the negativity of the business impact her

None of this knowledge is being acquired with imagination, it's all been laid out before him and he is making statements backed up by quite a lot of evidence. She expressed all those things with her body language and statements, it's likely that someone with a failing business and debt is going to be stressed and deeply concerned about that.

He isn't really promising to understand these things in any detail beyond what has been laid out for him. He hasn't ventured into the realm of imagination and started deducing beyond what is well-evidenced. Although he clearly empathises with her on an emotional level, the basis for his understanding is intellectual and is based off on his understanding of her sentiments, body language and the situation.

I think this is how empathy should operate and it can only really work with a single individual rather than a group. That's not to say you can't expect owners of failing businesses to be stressed and concerned. You can do that, I'm just saying that there's a difference between making a causal argument and using empathy (putting yourself in that situation) even if the answer is similar, empathy just goes too far in its predictions.

I will read over what I've said in this thread later with fresh eyes and keep copies of my responses which I want to use to better my argumentation and understanding. You can continue to win against me in your mind, I would imagine a real victory that can be attained in a game would be more satisfying but each to their own.

It’s worth considering how the writer’s use of character in a fictional story gives us a greater understanding of people than empathy can because they give us more information about a character than empathy ever will.

It’s possible that empathy is a modifying behaviour. Because you believe you understand someone you are more inclined to accept them or co-operate with them. You’re creating an acceptable other by projecting yourself onto them and so making them like you, making them “likeable”. It’s not necessary to understand someone to co-operate with them, its necessary only that you believe you can work together, or that you may gain something.

Does anyone really empathise with someone who is arrogant, rude, cynical, just plain dislikable. Very rarely I would think.

All imagination consists in/of thought/belief.
True.

Some thought/belief is true.
True. But you don’t yet know which one.

Some imagination is true.
True. But you don’t know which parts.

Some true thought/belief is well grounded.
When it’s been tested against certain knowledge.

Some true imagination(s) is(are) well grounded.
Ditto.

All well grounded true belief is knowledge.
After it’s been tested against certain knowledge.

Is there a valid refutation in the midst of that? A valid criticism? An argument of your own perhaps? — creativesoul

Of course there is.

I'm not criticising someone like Einstein using imagination, he's doing that for inspiration and to explore possibilities which he will then confirm or investigate. — Judaka

I’m going to try and empathise with you, because you appear to want to win something here at all costs. I don’t know you so I’m going to use my imagination and what I can glean from your posts.

Sometimes you seem quite aggressive, almost like there’s issues of anger with those who disagree with you. I don’t know, I’m just using my imagination. Maybe you have some issues with your past that cause this aggressive nature. I imagine that those issues with people who disagree with you may have something to do with issues of authority. Could be teachers, parents, the boss, I’m not sure, but I do empathise with your situation. Authority is something we all have to live with. Maybe you might consider previous experiences with authority, was it you or was it them? I don’t know, I’m just using my imagination and my own experiences with authority when I was young.

If you’d like to share thoughts and feelings I’d be happy to listen.

Excellent analysis :lol:

Judaka,
You can't question your premise without yielding inferences already assumed to confirm it. But if not, how does a premise form to begin with? As you exchange posts with the other contributors here, your terms alter in ways you cannot keep track of. It is that untraceable growth in the meaning of terms and the ability to engage them that is the meaning we, partially, recognize in the concept of "empathy". Do you suppose you have a right to be understood? Where could such a supposition possibly come from but an inability to trace the source of your terms, either to your own Humpty-Dumpty dogma, or as a mystical gift from the community or from some divine or regulatory authority? Empathy, as I say, is a, partial, recognition of this untraceable source of the terms by which we suppose we understand and suppose we have a right to be understood. Synthesis is the ultimate term of an untenable supposition in the continuity of analysis. That is the enigma that got philosophy going to begin with and that still is yet to be resolved. Not really even kept sight of. I don't read posts carefully if they are not addressed to me, and if the thread is extensive, but from what I can see in a cursory browsing of this discussion it seems your "solution" is very far from being philosophically well-founded, and more like a kind of techno-babble folk psychology.

It is that untraceable growth in the meaning of terms and the ability to engage them that is the meaning we, partially, recognize in the concept of "empathy" — Gary M Washburn

What terms? What's that got to do with empathy?

Do you suppose you have a right to be understood? Where could such a supposition possibly come from but an inability to trace the source of your terms, either to your own Humpty-Dumpty dogma, or as a mystical gift from the community or from some divine or regulatory authority? — Gary M Washburn

....

Have I said I think I have a right to be understood? I have argued against the use of empathy as a tool for understanding people because I think it leads people towards falsehood, not because I felt it was giving me a bad shake. What terms are you referring to?

. Synthesis is the ultimate term of an untenable supposition in the continuity of analysis. That is the enigma that got philosophy going to begin with and that still is yet to be resolved — Gary M Washburn

What?

but from what I can see in a cursory browsing of this discussion it seems your "solution" is very far from being philosophically well-founded, and more like a kind of techno-babble folk psychology. — Gary M Washburn

I'm not going to answer this for you, I completely expect you to run away. I want you to construct for me some semblance of what you think my solution is. I am not asking for the whole thing, just enough to prove your point.

It’s worth considering how the writer’s use of character in a fictional story gives us a greater understanding of people than empathy can because they give us more information about a character than empathy ever will. — Brett

Imagination doesn't lead to understanding though... so you say.

:smirk:

You two are contradicting yourselves at every turn now...

Empathy can lead to understanding. It does not always. But it can.

I'm out.

Your quote doesn't even mention using imagination. I'm sure he's talking about the expressed views of the characters, knowledge about their history provided in the book and other things of that nature.

I disagree strongly with your position but I know of a lot of smart people who agree with you, no hard feelings.

I don't read posts carefully if they are not addressed to me, and if the thread is extensive, but from what I can see in a cursory browsing of this discussion it seems your "solution" is very far from being philosophically well-founded, and more like a kind of techno-babble folk psychology. — Gary M Washburn

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as Judaka’s “solution”. Solution to what?

He wanted to test the idea of empathy being worthless for understanding.