I've offered an argumentative refutation of the OP's title. I've argued that imagination can be knowledge. None of this has been given due subsequent attention.

Sometimes...

Imagination is useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Not always. I'm granting some of the things you've argued. Sometimes, that is the case.

However. at other times, it is clearly not the case. That is what you're failing to grasp here.

One can remember previous times. One can remember previous difficulties. One can recognize when another is going through the same sort of thing. All of this consists of thought/belief. One's recollection can match another's experience. One's account of a shared event can be similar enough to another's actual current experience in the same event/situation.

One can use empathy as a means for better understanding an other. Sometimes, it is a successful endeavor without much effort. Other times the success is impeded a bit, and it takes a bit more...

I understand what you're saying creativesoul, I've met many who've argued the same things. I am willing to grant you that you may be able to add to your pool of theories with empathy in a manner which is useful, in contexts where you have experience. My title is hyperbole.

I think we may also disagree on what empathy is and what it isn't, here's an example. I am introvert and for the life of me sometimes, I can't fathom how an extrovert thinks. Intellectually I understand but I'd feel much more comfortable trying to understand an introvert than an extrovert because I have my own experience as an introvert. So when an extrovert talks about their experiences, I got no idea what they're talking about emotionally.

This doesn't mean I will try to empathise with any introverts I see but I can relate to their experiences. Is that empathy? I would argue it's not but we may disagree on this? I think it would be very difficult for me to understand an alien than another human for these reasons but I still I will at best use empathy to create theories. I don't agree with how others have said that they would use empathy and if everyone used empathy in the way I'm describing, this thread wouldn't exist.

I don't think that we will agree on what empathy can accomplish, how useful it is and how harmful it is as a tool for understanding people. You've provided mostly examples of where empathy is not only useless but harmful, such as understand people you've never met, who went through experiences very different from yourself.

I think what you'll find is that people will appreciate that you've made an effort to empathise with them and gloss over inaccuracies or specifics to show appreciation. The shallow understanding achieved through empathy is not something entirely required by empathy and the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more we see important differences which will probably never show up in anything but a very deep conversation.

People accuse me in this thread of not being capable of empathy but this is unfair, I am a keen observer of people and I have the natural ability like anybody else. If we're talking about lower level examples, I think where I disagree with people is at the level of specificity. I also disagree that empathy is needed to understand anything at the surface level and it's conflated with other tools like reading body language, listening and understanding contexts.

If we're talking about understanding complicated issues using empathy, understanding groups or understanding people outside of a specific context, forget it.

You've provided mostly examples of where empathy is not only useless but harmful, such as understand people you've never met, who went through experiences very different from yourself. — Judaka

I understand what you're saying creativesoul.. — Judaka

The first statement above false. As a result, the second is as well.

Introvert/extrovert?

Those are useless for understanding an other...

Hmm, this isn't going anywhere, my response would lead us back to where we started.

Thx for chat but I'm done here.

You could always address the arguments.

Judaka,
The difference between analysis and synthesis is philosophy 101. The terms I refer to are every word you type at us. Yes, you have stated a belief you have a right to be understood. You have stated, quite explicitly, empathy plays no worthwhile part in your understanding others or, presumably, in your expectation of our understanding you. Well, who could empathize with that? But the question remains, where the hell do you think the terms of your understanding come from? Our empathy for you seems a likely candidate! Rather more likely than whatever these "other ways of understanding" you may think you mean. But, I'm afraid that wrangling with dogmatists is futile.

Your response was much like I expected, lazy and pathetic. You didn't paraphrase any of my views but only continued to act as though you know me well enough to make the assertions you do.

I don't know where your ideas about me came from but you seem to think you understand me well. This thread was never about me whining about people misusing empathy to understand me, if you want to make assumptions and roll on with them then go ahead. I am here to learn and practice philosophy, continue to revel in your ignorance and only stop at your leisure. However, it is not possible to learn about anything when someone is off in their own little world is it?


What is the argument you made which has not been addressed?

Petulance? Obstreperousness? You do surprise me! Are you asking me for empathy? I've been saying all along that empathy is prerequisite, and that you continually conflate that with a claim it is conclusive, which you, petulantly, deny. It is indeed the case that empathy is not a recipe for comprehension. But recognition is indispensable to a process of learning, and empathy is its initiating moment. Now, while it is demonstrable (if you but allow the demonstration) that empathy, or something indisputably akin to it, is “originary” to the dynamic process comprehension is, this does not mean it is a priori to it. It is not like Wittgenstein's ladder that can be tossed away once climbed. It is the hidden origin to every word or thought. It is the energy of the dynamic between mind and world, and between interlocutors, that proceeds to perennially find ways to dispense with it, as if a ladder no longer of use or worth. As if mind were indeed the 'monad'. But you are not the monad, regardless of how lucidly self-contained you may believe your views and words to be. If you deny monadic separation between us, how do you explain our being a community of speakers? If you mean to pursue philosophy without a grounding even in the basics, you could do worse than to acquire a copy of the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.

The reality is that I could go through each post and find multiple lies in each one, the latest is that I asked for empathy, that I have conflated the claims of empathy as a pre-requisite to understanding with it being conclusive and that I deny both. Last post you made up a lot, I asked you to back up your words and not only do you fail to do that but you lie even more. You still haven't stopped misrepresenting me. There is a discussion going on between Gary and Gary's Judaka but I'm not involved and really, I don't care.

I think the mistake people make is assuming empathy can be used in a general sense. You brought up homelessness, and obviously it’s easy to say “I don’t want to be homeless, so homelessness is evil”. That isn’t empathy though, it’s just an opinion based on the sympathetic feelings caused by others circumstances. Empathy is considering beyond feelings, and considering the actions you would take in someone else’s circumstance. Then weigh your thoughts against the actions of those you’re trying to empathize with. Empathy is useful in individual cases, not generalizations. You know the framework of someone’s story, and you use assumptions and imagination to fill in the blanks. Too often people assume empathy means you must be kind to someone, when it could just as easily make you realize how wrong someone is when you know their side. The word (like many others) is almost relegated to nothing more than a political tool at this point. Definiations can change from party to party, or generation to generation. I’m sure people will disagree with my take on the word.

You've made a lot of good points Robson. I can see that if you see continuity between what you think you would do in a situation and what someone else is doing in that situation, you may gain insights into what they could be thinking, particularly if the reason seems obvious.

The question really becomes, just how many thoughts are capable of causing that action? The limitations of empathy as a tool for understanding in such a context are clear when you:
1. Apply it to groups.
2. Apply it to people you don't know

At least, it seems you understand the problems with doing that which mostly comes down to incomplete information and multiple possibilities of "why" with no way of eliminating any of them (with empathy). Even with people we do know, where we have some information, the problem becomes how specific we need to be. The greater the specificity needed, the greater the knowledge requirements are and mostly this can only come from that person specifically. Realistically if we have the ability to ask questions, we should just ask them how they feel and why rather than make assumptions.

I think that if you know someone well though, empathy is possibly not the best because you actually know them well enough to not use empathy. For example, I know my dad doesn't like criticism - even if I'm okay with criticism, I know how he will not like it if someone complains about something he has done.
As a result of my understanding, my predictions become more accurate than what they would be if I used empathy (at least your definition for it).

I do agree that the idea of empathy has become very politicised and people misuse it to mean "understanding people for the sake of viewing them more favourably" even though empathy doesn't mean that at all. The problem is that when you "put yourself in someone else's shoes" you have put a presumably reasonable, unemotional person in place of someone who is emotional and is not thinking logically. It makes people seem better than they are when you use empathy like "here's a possible reasonable explanation for why this person is acting this way". It's also true that you (as a person in their shoes) have nothing to do with what is happening to you. I think for those reasons it is such a popular word politically.

I think you are using empathy with your dad, you know him well enough to know what he does and doesn’t like, and you don’t do what he doesn’t like because you understand, and you don’t want to negatively affect him. I think empathizing is easier when you know someone. It doesn’t have to be what you would do, that’s just a helpful mindeset when you’re trying to empathize with strangers. The problem with words that need to be applied on an individual level is they need to be applied on an individual level. That means empathy is unique to every situation, which makes it difficult to pin point an exact definition.