Amaros
Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: darkinshadows
I am a bit confused by the whole thread. I can see people mentioning that they are 'empathic'... and talking about having sympathy for ones feelings or others. Empathetics sympathise. Empathics sense. Big Difference. One who does not have empathic abilities is not a socipath - because it is an ability that not everyone has. One who is empathetic, is a learned behaviour. And I agree people do confuse empathy with compassion. Peace and Rapture
You nailed my first thought, which is tha empthic and empathetic are two very different things.
Ok, I'm like half plastered and the usual numbingly objective viewpoint, so those of you with short attention spans, go ahead and scroll:
First, to defien terms, both empathic and empathetic are "correct", insofar as you subscribe to the general rule that ideoms are always correct - words are concepts however, and empathetic is more often used to describe relation: i.e., one car wrrech victim can relate to another in a broad sense, theyve goenm through the same experience (similiarity of experience), experienced the same emotions and similar memories (it happened so fast) - there is a a relationship of experience there that can be imagined, but not necessarily empathised with in the sense of sharing, if not the identical, exact same experience, but common enough to be familiar with the pathology (exaggeration of normality - what makes it different) of that particular experience.
Empathy, as it is colloquially used, is the ability to imagine so profoundly that it's as if you are experiencing anothers emotions as if you were undergoing the very experience - empaths (think counciller Troy, oh wait, that makes me a nerd - whatever) and is a gift (Adelphus) that some possess.
I could go off on a long exposition here about autism, and why autistics probobly ought to be worshipped, but I'll stick to the topic at hand: sympathy, differs from empathy, in that it implies action - empathy is passive, sympathy is defined by the show of sympathy - both verbs but somebody else will have to explain the dfference to me - but, as such, sympathy can be feigned, whereas empathy cannot be.
To refer to the underlying concerns expresses in the original post, psychopathy, as clinically defined, is described as an inability to empathize - and yet a psycopath may be able to read emotional response like an open book, which implies at least some, if not an enhanced empathic ability. Numerous psychopaths, both violent and nonviolent have demonstated superior empathic ability, quite simply, the ability to read emotion, but not feel it - here's where empathy becomes a double edged sword, to wit: to complicate things further, as defined by Hare, there is such a thing as psychopathic talent - which is, in short, all the advantages of psychopathy without (or woithout the most profound) accompanying anti-social pathologies.
Now here, I'm gonna have to pick on Popeye - I hate to do it, but he made the mistake of bringing up republican politics around me.
Bill Clinton is neither a psychopath, or a sociopath - in fact he is highly empathetic, or fakes it real well, which is almost the same thing, i.e., I believe he does identify - what is certian, is tha he has psychopathic talent, which is the possession of a number of traits that human culture finds valuable: physical courage (reduced ability to feel pain), and lack of fear (reduced or controlled adrenal response to stress) are notable - a trait he shares with test pilots, extreme athletes,and a lot of other people who work or play in extremely stessful environments (hmmm...) - I'm not sure you can be a good president, or leader without at least some of it.
He had to order bombing the crap out of targets in Iraq (based on best available CIA and military intelligence, google it), and bomb the crap out of Yugoslavia - (a first in the annels of military campaigns, BTW - no country in modern history has submitted to a bombing campaign without ground troops following up), one would have to possess psychopathic talent to do this, but human empathy to do it for the right reasons.
On the other hand, objectively speaking, his detractors required him to, on national television, confess to being romantically/sexually involved with a woman not his wife, at a time when his wife and pubescent child were presumably unaware of it.
Jeez, you have to have soem psychopathic talent to ask such a thing, and you pretty much have to have an utter lack of empathy to demand it, and not expect sombody to lie, if he has the tiniest bit of empathy for his wife and child.
So, so far as psychopathy goes, the guilty dog barks, in my estimation - not only was he accused of being a psychopath in the National Review on the gounda that his cheating constituted an indifference ot public (the public that counts, on paper anyway) opinion, but another article in the same magazine called for ethnic cleansing of the entire clan, beginning with his daughter - and not in an entirely joking manner (like a lot of republican 'humor', not lmao funny, but 'haha' funny http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshireprint021501.html - remarkable, the article is still online) - one can only surmise the intended audience for this kind of illness is a receptive one.
What is lacking here of course, is the talent - they have not one brain between them.
Still, it illustrates the the intended principle: psychopaths don't appear to lack empathy, if they can judge a broader audience, who cannot all possibly be psychopaths, to be receptive to such suggestions.
I think the much maligned sympathy may hold the key, though it is easily feigned - sympathy requires follow ups, genuine indicatins of sincerity - if wone says on thing , and does another, the presence of genuine sympathy is questionable.
To address those who hate and detest sympathy, and even maligned pity, I hear you, but if genuine, the purest purpose is to simply assure you that you are not alone in the dark, if they ask you for money, be suspicious.
Susan of O, the question is a sound, if difficult one - There are things such as galvanic skin tests, and STD profiles, but no such thing as gurantees. I wasn't sure what I was getting into when I started getting into this, and I'm still not entirely sure at all times, but have discovered such hopeless romantics and dreamers as to make me weep. So I have to fall back on an old aquaintences "Box Theory": everybody needs one to put their personal shit in - its the key to social harmony according to him - and I require it: it can be anything you want, mementos, or maybe a trusted friend who knows where you are, and the latter is not a bad idea.
|
RE: How important is empathy to you in a bdsm partner? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread