Hi, everyone, it's Edwin Rutsch, Director of the Center for building a culture of empathy. And we're here to talk about empathy. And I'm here with Mark, five Giano. Thanks for joining me, Mark.
Hey, thanks, Edwin. Thanks for having me.
And I just wanted to give a little quick intro to you. And you can add to it. You're a professor of philosophy professor of Washington State, and you're specializing in American pragmatism and ethics. And you're also the founder of empathy, vision, you're doing empathy, and I got a phone call in the back empathy activation solution through seminars, workshops and online courses. And you were just mentioning that you're doing a lot of work with empathy and VR at the moment.
Yes, it is the course in London on empathy in the workplace. So trying to, you know, make practical on the things we learned about empathy, and see if it changes or helpful changes behavior, or it's helpful for anybody to take the course. We'll find out it just got released, though.
Oh, great. And then we want to really talk about what is your book, you're the queen us? Yeah, I can hold it up, just like there's all these hands holding up a mirror. So I'll be kind of like the mirror. So you're the author of practicing empathy, pragmatism and the value of relations, which is what we want to talk about today is, you know, your book, and I thought maybe we could, you know, go through the different chapters and discuss the different, you know, topics in each chapter, you know, go any direction. From from from that as a start. Does that does that work for you?
That sounds great. That sounds excellent. I had to reread it myself. I haven't read it yet. So I have my copy. I forget what I
wrote. Let's both hold him up. But he's have two copies here. There we go. There we go. That would be that would be the screenshot that we use. Here. It's
a type of mirror neuron but book. Exactly.
I used to have a mirror in the background here. But then you'd see in mirroring it was so the mirror neurons. Now I cover it just That's awesome. Well, great. So yeah, practicing empathy. You know, maybe we can you've got how many chapters here? eight chapters, and you start off the book? Like how why did you write the book me we just start off like, what got you to to write this book to begin with?
Well, number one, I'd say that the subjects important. I think it's empathy is a very strong power we have and we can develop that power. That's that skill, to connect with people connect with things in the world. And I also found as a, as a pragmatist that there was a lot of confusion, or at least there was maybe not confusion for each individual author that wrote about empathy, but that in different disciplines, people spoke of empathy differently. And this is something and when you and I have discussed in the past about definitional issues, right? How do we define empathy, so it started there. And as philosopher, you know, philosophers love that. Whether that's good for the world is another thing. But philosophers love to define and think about definitions and trying to bring clarity to different definitions. And I'm, again, a pragmatist. So I'm very much, very much been I've been very much influenced by William James and William James came up with this theory of relations. Like most people talk about William James, they talk about the principles of psychology or the religious experience works. And I focus more on the end of James's life when he talks about relations. So philosophically, if we think of anything or activity in the world, right, we can isolate that thing. And we have an idea of it as some abstraction. Right. But in contexts, the thing that the idea that we have of it can be very different in a context. So a context could show another, unveil another dimension, and often does unveil different dimensions to the experience. So that's what James focused on is experience and the relations as being the first ultimate phenomenological starting point for understanding reality. So then I thought from there, how great it would be to have James helped me chart through these different definitions. And then as I was doing that, I started to notice that you know, is it really are we really talking about different definitions as things are actions? Are we talking about the way we're connecting? And that's what relations are, they're really the modes or manners by which we connect with things or persons. So that's how I came up with the three different relations. So really inspired by James, you know, and then again, the reason I wrote But the book is, is because I found that I could maybe say something to to bring some clarity to all the different definitions that were out there.
Oh, that is great. I mean, it really resonates with me. I mean, I get excited, you know, hearing about that, because especially it was how you you are describing, you know, there's this thing there. And you see, and I think that empathy often gets defined as this thing, kind of just by itself or in service individualistic way. And it doesn't. It's not about the relationship with and that really stuck. I just see that as really important. And I think that yeah, I really get excited hearing about that model.
Yeah, thank you so much, you know, so again, I have to say thanks to you, because so many of the things I know some of the past that I was led down after starting this was because of you, you know, some of the things you said online and all the great things you post online. So thank you for that. And yeah, so, you know, it's also there's also a sort of a fluid fluidity, right? to thinking about the experience of empathy, then, because if we think about it as ease, instead of like an isolate, here it is, right? Because most scholars will say, Okay, let me go ahead and define empathy. That's important, then you start off, and you do a scientific investigation, or you talk about right different relationships in relation to that definition. And that's a very important thing to do. Because, you know, sometimes you read people talking about a subject, and they never really clearly defined it in the first place. This happens a lot with with those concepts, and those ideas that are a little bit more ambiguous, like happiness. So from that point of view, yeah, you need to do that right away, and just, you know, banish all ambiguity, and then you go on your merry way. And that's fine. But I thought to myself, is that to my own, in my own mind, that that wasn't satisfactory? When I read the history of it. Right? When I read the history of it, I was like, huh, where did this word come from? That was my first real question. Like, where did it start? So people like Nietzsche, and Foucault and those sorts of people that do these genealogies were very inspirational, and that I looked historically, right, and I go back to the Greeks, because right, pathos, is a Greek notion. And but the word empathy, there's only mentioned a few times, little, and Scott habita, just mentioned a few times and Aristotle, and it was very different, nothing like we talked about it today. But going back and doing the history was really fun to unveil. And then just like trying to make some connections, and seeing if I can get away with being creative. When that like distorting the history, that was the thing. You know, it's like, sometimes you see the vision, and you want everything to fit the history to fit with your thought. You know, and so luckily, I didn't have to do that too much, at least. But you know, going back and thinking about it to begin as the relation and thinking about the relation of right between a person's culture, and another culture, this is what we see in herder. And that's where we get that first relation of feeling into, like, so that's a movement, from a state to the object or to a person to understand or the culture to grasp. And then the second relation, of course, is the actual sense, whether it's right or wrong, of grasping, of being unified, or in sync with. And then thirdly, we see in the, you know, in the 20th century, this change of the narrative of what Empathy means to more of care, caring. And we see this with, you know, really with hurt George Herbert Mead, after George Herbert means work, but also in early childhood psychology. And we also see it later in the later of Rogers work, it is a change and pinker mentions this in his book, are the battle better angels. It's called. Anyway, pinker mentions that how that shift happened in the 20th century. So there could be again, like the way I thought about it, and the way I define it, there could be other ways. It's like, as I mentioned, in the book, it's like this is it's ridiculous to think that anyone is found the final version, because it's a social construct, right? We're constructing we're trying to grasp our, our senses, right? You're trying to understand our senses in relation to others. And so there's no final word that the big James Ian thing to there's no final word about what Empathy means. But I think this could be useful. I hope it's useful to some people.
Yeah, the word empathy is just a symbol, right? And we're sort of imbuing it with some kind of meaning. And so, you know, it's just, I guess that's one way I've sort of looked at it. You know, you can have any symbol in another culture, they see the word and theory would mean nothing to them, right? There's no meaning. So how do we attribute meaning to it? And your first your, I think your first chapter was in the book is empathy and pluralism. And I think and that's where you're sort of tracking a lot of the history. perspective taking self other distinction.
Yeah, that just
taking perspective taking, so I don't know if you want to go into it a little bit.
Sure. Yeah. Thanks. So yeah, it's I felt like, you know, just started to really, hopefully, the reader can realize what I'm trying to do is to say, look, here's a whole bunch of ways people define empathy. And what do we do? So the beginning of the book is just trying to cause some doubt. And to raise up the ambiguity before trying to make some bring some clarity. And so that's why I start with that story. And then let the reader think, okay, which Where did you experience empathy, and depending upon how one defines it, it could be in these nine different parts of the story. And so that's nice, because I think it brings the reader in to think okay, so there are these multiple ways. Now what, and then with that, chapter two, you know, bringing in the pragmatic and pluralistic perspective. So that first chapter is really trying to raise up the ambiguity first, and then say, hey, if we're going to be pragmatic about this, what would that mean? Because when most people talk about being pragmatic, it's very sad for pragmatist philosophers. Because when how most people use the word pragmatic in the world, is simply to mean that you get things done efficiently. In pragmatism, it's much like it's deeply philosophical American pragmatism, the philosophical tradition is thinking, like, there are many ways to get things done, right. And there are many relations in which we understand how things operate. Right? So we have to recognize that plurality first, when they when it comes to the meaning or value of any way of thinking about an idea, we find that we find the value in what how it functions, what it does in the world, right? And what sort of consequences it brings. Right? So those all go together, right? The multiplicity of different relations and ways of connecting, right, and then the actual plurality of different notions, whether it's empathy or something else. And then thinking in terms of, well, if I think about it, so most people when they write again, like I said, when they write papers, they have they define their terms in order to show truth. And so my goal was to show the multiplicity of different definitions to show a different way of thinking, which was relational and pragmatic.
Yeah, the, you're going into the philosophy, like there's all these different philosophical trends, there's pragmatism trend. So you kind of give that background. And in terms of the practicality, what what comes to me is, I'm very big on the empathy circle process, which is using mutual empathic listening in small groups, you know, sort of a starting point. And in terms of practicality, it actually, it's doing something that actually kind of helps people or supports people and understanding each other. So that's one part. So I'm very practical, more of that first definition is that everybody says that, how do we get things done? So the empathy circle is something that you actually do that, you know, helps you understand each other that, you know, create space to feel heard creates a sense of equality to it. And that, you know, there's that mutual empathy and listening there. So that's when I think of the practicality and it's also brings in the relationality that you're talking about? Because it's like people together, empathizing, and how do we create the level of empathy within the group, not just one person off on their own? Yes, being empathic or unknown, empathic. So those, that's kind of how I tie in some of my thoughts.
Yeah, and that's fantastic. You know, that's that whole process, and then really talking about a process, we're all in the process, whether we know it or not, but it's good when we bring it like you bringing it together the empathy circle. So two things on that one of the things entering that process can be a very, you can have it be very feel very vulnerable, right? And that's not necessarily a bad thing, because you can break down your all the things you think are correct. And you engage. So in the act of engagement, you the second thing is you become transformed. Right so many people might not want to enter that because of the mix and fear of feel vulnerable. What if I'm wrong? What if someone says Something in me causes me to empathize with their position and I change that can be difficult for some people. But the great thing about what you're doing is that it's focusing on the process, which is, what everything is, is transformation. This is just essential waiting this part, like, let's enter into different transformations, and come out on the other end different, you know, and I think that's the whole goal of life. I think it was
a positive way to come out different than a more health well being some in a way that fosters more well being.
Yes, yes. Yeah. So that's, that's always the goal. And then whether we reach it or not depends upon the perspective and the attitude and the person's willingness to to be transformed in that way. But you know, if you think of the whole of life who co said, like, the whole goal of life is to be something you're not, you know, and that is, that is really, it's facilitated by empathy, right to in a positive way. Now, however, we talk about that that's a whole nother thing to think about, or what wellbeing actually means. But the goal is to become something you always hope that there's growth, as like in the last one, the last chapter is on development. Absolutely, empathy can be developed. And, you know, if you, if someone just joins one of your empathy circles, they'll see it, and they'll feel it. It's not an abstraction anymore. It's not just a thought out there, it is real. And one feels that,
oh, maybe I could just for anyone listening, if they did not forget the empathy circle, it's based on active listening, which is based on the work of Carl Rogers, who used it in a therapeutic context. But it said, when one person speaks, they speak in the empathy circle, or small groups, four or five, six people, one person selects who they're going to speak to, they talk on the topic or whatever is alive. And they pause and the listener reflects back their understanding of what they heard, checking, do they feel heard and understood to their satisfaction, they speak some more, they get a reflection, we have a time limit, five, six minutes, then the listener who is doing the listening becomes the speaker, they select someone to listen to, they get a reflection, kind of back and forth like that. And then once they've their time is up, or they feel heard it. It rotates all the time. There's a speaker and a listener, and then silent listeners in this process. So that's the key, I just wanted to be sure we understand that that's the context that that's the process we're talking about.
Yes, and I did a few with you. And it was difficult. Here I am the empathy expert, blah, blah, but like, Here am I actually doing is very difficult. Because, you know, we have, in our own minds, when someone's talking a whole bunch of significations that arise, maybe not even intentionally, and you need to quiet that part and really focus in and, you know, be able to grasp and listen. It's very difficult, you know, it's more, it may sound like an easy process, but it was very challenging for me that and I learned a lot from it. And that's just that's the goal that too is instilling the habit, right? When we do these things over and over and from Aristotle to James, we know that habits are the key habits are what leads to excellent habits leads to building a character, right. And today, so many people are worried about what people say with words, now words are important. But actions doing right really produces that sort of positive transformation to my mind. You know, a lot of again, like today in society, people are so worried about that person says, or this person says and with words, but the actions and the habits are really, first of all, build character, right? Consistent character, however it may be built, and also give it give one an opportunity to become develop that skill or become excellent. At some particular activity. That's all Aristotle stuff, you know, that's what you're doing there. So at the end,
well, the empathy circle is you're practicing listening to others, you're it's like, you set everything aside all the thoughts that might arise in you, or even when you're first starting off, there's some anxiety I'm not going to be judged, like, How well am I listening? And yeah, just all kinds of different things to come up. Or maybe someone says something, and another thought comes, do you want to say it, but you got to set it aside to just be present with the other person and listen to them until they feel heard to their satisfaction. And that is an exercise like you're saying, Your prac your mind is sort of rewiring itself to be more sensitive to others and listen to them. And I hear over and over again, people do the empathy circle and say, Oh, now I go home and I actually listen to my family members. is a little bit better because they've sort of practice that listening sort of mindset. So I think he just ties in that's, that's just the model. I mean, kind of builds on what you were saying. Building. Yeah, absolutely.
And in our society, too, with everything flashing all the phones and the cameras and everything, it's tough to just sit and that active listening is going away. Right? It's really it's the skill is, is becoming threatened. Right. So doing this, these sorts of practices are important. Active listening, I'd say I would just have to say in our society like ours, where there's so much so many distractions, it's so important to learn how to do that.
Yeah, there's almost, when you're doing the empathy circle, sometimes there's like a feeling like I shouldn't be doing more things, doing tasks and stuff you can just feel that draw to do instead of just be present. Listen to the other person, you have those internal sort of conflicts.
I'm listening to you, but let me check my email. Okay. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, we
are going to check your email, you have a draw? It's like almost like an addiction or drawing you to do that emotional kind of drawing. Sure, sure. Yeah. Okay, well, that was it. That was the first chapter empathy and pluralism. And then you had chapter two is pathos and the death of dualism. So in pathos, there, I think you're sort of going through the history of the term pathos are feeling and starting back from the Greeks, I think, or So following the definition there, I guess, because you were seeing empathy is sort of being based on on the quality of feeling and you are to sort of track that aspect to its roots.
Yes, I mean, yeah, that's absolutely correct. So I thought, Okay, so we're, it goes back to that question where the word empathy come from. And we know, and may I'm sure most of the audience knows that, right? Empathy, the word empathy was translated by Ticknor, to meet to from the German einfuhrung. That's not till 1907 or so. But then my thought was, what about pathos, that's the root word. And we go back, and that opened up all forms. But it was important because I was wondering, How did people think of that root word. And when we look at with the Greeks, we see pathos arising out of two traditions. On the one hand, there's the Hippocratic tradition of medicine, right. And that gave us the words like pathological psychopath pathogen. And then there was another one that was aligned, was focused on different sorts of cure. And I'll get to that in a second. And that was in stoicism. So for, for the tradition of Hippocrates. That was the pathos is a negative thing, right? It's a movement, that's, that's putting the body out of order. That's where these words come from pathogen and pathos, you know, in the in the medical field. But then the other tradition was from stoicism. And from that tradition, pathos was equally problematic in a certain extent, because it moves you and moves your soul in a way, which isn't rational. Now, I have a big beef with that, as you can see in the chapter, because I think we're all very much deluded if we think that reason, and emotion or passion and pathos are separate inexperience, in the same way as we see them to be or imagine them to be separate, as abstractions. And that's the main part of that second chapter. So I go through and trace these different usages and the transformations of pathos into the word passion, into other words, such as well, in the Latin, it was Passio, and affect us as we get the word affection, and is tracing that and trying to be creative, but also loyal to the history to show how that happened. And then again, the main goal of that chapter is to say, as, as illustrated in the first story, is that passion, and emotion and reason are not separate and experienced as we, we think they are. Another big example, I always tell my students is something like this. If anybody ever comes up to you and say, Stop acting, so emotional, be more rational, you know, all you have to do is say, is that request for me? Is that a rational request or emotional request? So right in that experience, right, whereas the separated the person probably thinks they're being rational, right? But if we look at experience we see like, obviously, there can be cases where we're more emotional or we can recognize emotion but to imagine there's that's devoid of reason is ridiculous, as the examples I showed in the book, and likewise to you You know, a lot of people who are very logical or rational, think that emotion doesn't affect them, you know, but if you've ever written a paper, or did a project, you're very tuned in using reason. But you're typing. That's wrong, right? Oh, you know, a feeling that goes with it. James called this sort of thing, the sentiment of rationality, when you have a feeling of when it's sufficiently rational. So every student and every person's ever wrote, wrote a paper realizes that you have to have a feeling of the rationality. And that's when you say, Okay, time to turn it in to the professor or whomever. So again, the whole idea here is just to challenge that separation. Now, why does that really matter? Well, because you know, I see it kind of resurfacing here in a lot of the scientific studies, with the cognitive empathy, and effective empathy. Now, I've written on this as well. And you see, you know, there are great studies to show from neuroscience, that they talk about different processes. And I understand that, but we have to be very careful about this the rigidity of this distinction, if it serves as a distinction to elucidate something and experience, that's fine. But when made too rigid, and people say, That's cognitive empathy, because now they're pointing to an experience, not the process. So I'm just gonna pick itself by reading and I just, I really have a problem with that. And I needed to dispel it in order to make room as I saw it, to make room for this different relational model.
Yeah, I love that chapter get another thing I got excited about the dualism. So you're taking on the dualism, the model, because I'd say 90% of the model of empathy out there is framed within an effective cognitive, yes. Model and I kind of disagree with it all. And you're like putting together the arguments, you know, some of the the arguments for you know, why that model what the problems are with that model, which is, yeah, which, which I think is really important.
Probably, oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. That was it? Oh, no, you know, probably based on evolution and lebay Strauss, you know, let a stress anthropologist talks about binary opposition as being a cultural universal and ensure we do think of things in terms of the world in terms of it they're opposites, right, like hot and cold. And we think of things like raw, uncooked, let's let a stress, right, instead of this binary opposition, it seems to be properties of the mind think that way. But, you know, it can lead to a point of where we distort experience. And that's the problem. And so that person, whoever uses pragmatist would say, when you see a dualism, this is from my mentor, John store, he wrote in his one of his great books, on on pragmatism, when you see a dualism reject it, that's like the pragmatist model, because you realize that there's something missing, it's robbing experience of its plurality. And you understand the experience according to this very simplistic dualism. Now, a distinction is a little bit different than a dualism, a dualism is considered to be by philosophers much more rigid, right? Much more set in stone, like there's good and there's evil, and there's that's it. So that's the thing that the actual object of the of my disdain Is that is that, you know, throughout the history of philosophy, body mind, right? All of these dualism are thought to be made rigid, like Descartes is the one who introduced all of this with his notion of substances, right? The body is a substance, but the soul or the mind is another substance that's discrete. So it's this idea of the opposite concepts, the opposite experiences as being discreet and rigid. That is not only dangerous, but it just it's distorting experience. And the context, it distorts the context. Well, it happens from our brains quite readily, probably because we evolved, and it was probably probably served us very well, to survive, right to be able to make those judgments. But we know that's coming from the human right to into the world, and really mutilating experience by thinking of opposition's opposite notions to rigidly it really mutilates experience. And then it denies context, and it ignores plurality. And so that's why I took an issue with that and the second chapter,
yes, because the model, in a sense, it doesn't map onto reality of at least my experience of reality, like it's a model that's so rigid that it doesn't allow for what I would see as a more accurate depiction. explanation of what's happening in the phenomena and the experience around me. And and so I did a, an empathy circle, actually with John Vapiano, who is a professor at Toronto University. And we and the topic was What does reason feel like? So he did an empathy circle. And it was so interesting because you start going into the thought process, and you start unpacking the thought process. And you see that the whole thought process has a felt experience to it. Right, right. It's like people are saying, Oh, the emotional that are meaning like, you know, grief, or anger or something, being an emotion. But the thought process has just the same visceral felt experience to it. And within that thought process, you can open it up, and there's little sub feelings, you know, that make up a thought to? And then you Yeah, and then so it it just so the, so it's like you can't not feel, right, it's like you you're what you're calling cognitive, is sort of tying in to what I just like it's tying into this. It's almost like enlightenment reasoning, that this reasoning is like God, it's supernatural force that floats out there beyond our experience, and it's turned reason into the supernatural God force. Yeah, this, I think gives us it gives us it's a power. It's almost like a power ploy for academics. It's like, it tells academics that they're the high priests closer to God,
it is a substitute for many people, right? With the loss of God in their lives. It's a substitute Well, at least I have reason they can hold on to. And you know, in that second chapter, I mean, what do you exactly said, that is the stoic notion of God, I mean, its nature, God, but logos, where we get the word logical, right, that the logos governs all, and even the material world is produced by the god, the nature logos, reason, the material world produced by it, and then logos guides it. So any pathos in the material world is moving away from logos. So for the stoic, that whole goal of life is apathy. Don't have any pathos. And what that meant to them is, don't be stirred about things you can't control, let's tap into the ultimate God of the universe, the logos, and realize that whatever happening, it's temporal, and that you can't make judgments about things that are yet to come in life, when you don't know if they're good or bad. For the stoic, there's only thing that's good is virtue. The only thing that's bad is vice. Everything else is indifferent. But exactly what you said, right, the idea from the start, and that's what got us into this whole history of thinking of pathos and passion and emotions as forms of weakness is that ultimately reason isn't just a great thing to have. But it is God. It really is the Logos is God is nature, it governs all. And that goes back, of course, before to the pre Socratics. And then with the stoics. And I understand what they're trying to say it's like, imagine, if something happens to me, like I lose my job, which I've done that before. You start thinking, Oh, no, this is terrible. My life's going to be over what's going to happen. You don't know that. So you're making so pathos in that situation, those situations, we're actually judgments and feelings about, about what might happen, but you don't have knowledge of it. So for the stoic, that sort of that sort of judgment, those false judgments are, are not react part of reality, you don't know. So that's that those two histories from the Hippocratic tradition and from the stoic tradition really set us on a course. Right. And it's, I guess, like, the next thing would be kind of cool is to see like different words that are similar to empathy, or pathos and different traditions. And you did this a little bit in the book. And you see it just quite different because it didn't have the sources. But I felt if we're going to be accurate, we need to stay in that same tradition where the word came out of, and that's the best we can do is look at that in the tradition.
Yeah, it'd be interesting to look at the tradition of Philo, the German word in the same way as pathos. So wonder what the three of the word is maybe some insights there.
That might be a next project? Yeah, I mean, yes, yeah. Yeah, we know that I'm fooling that you know, Murder. And this is another contrast between Kant and herder right? Around 1780 7090 with the you know herder focus on einfuhrung, which eventually became empathy, and Kant and others not. And you know, a lot of the people of that time of the Enlightenment had this uni linear theory of development, which was just horrible caused so many problems in the world, and heard her saying, Look, you don't know what other cultures are like. And the Enlightenment mentality was like, of course, we do. Look, we are, we have didn't have this weird voice. But we have this understanding of, we've used our reason, look at the civilization, we created, what are all those other cultures doing? They haven't developed like us, there must be something wrong. That's a whole nother story. But like, you know, so herder came in and said, This is terrible. You know, you need to actually go live with a culture, you don't know what other people are like. And so he dismantled that whole uni linear theory that says, like, you start as a primitive and a barbarian, and you're civilized, he destroyed it. And that would say, also, this isn't too bold of a statement is that herder really is the father of anthropology, I would think because those sorts of movements and say, Hey, want to look outside of our try to get out of our own cultural frames, and try to enter in to the world or the culture or the history of another group. So herder was very critical against the historians of his time to because they Bell follow that European Union linear theory.
Well, that's very much what I would see as the empathic approach, right? That you're, you're you're reaching out from your own worldview, your own thoughts, trying to hear where others are, you know, individually within your community, but also in other countries. So that's sort of a more what I'm considering to be empathic to sense into others versus that sort of a domination approach. The first one you're describing is like, where are we got it? We don't need, you know, you're like, we don't need the sense who you are, because we're superior kind of. Yeah.
Yeah. And that's, that's a good segue into the third chapter. Because what you just said, there is exactly what herder said, Right? Is that kept talking about feeling into different cultures. And what happens is interesting with that is, is that, you know, after herder, we really see that German aesthetics, and the traditions of Germans aesthetics, take up this notion in the 1800s. And with that, now, the object of our empathizing, I'll say empathy for I infilling are the object of our empathizing. Now, our works of art, right? We see this with, with
different different philosophers in the 1800s. And this is where the word I'm fooling as a noun came out of out of that tradition, of aesthetics, right. And, and then it wasn't until lips at the turn of that century 1890, where we see, you know, he's talking about it, and he gets charged with these crazy titles like psychologism, and all of that. And then we have Ticknor, Titchener, enter in and take lips, his notion of iPhone, and use it in psychology. So the rise of psychology is indebted to this tradition of aesthetics, which came out of herder, which is interesting. You know, that those are all connected. It's one of those things I know, we, we probably both had this joy, you know, when you when you see something like that, and oh, that's how it came. That's where it came from. Right. That's how it happened. So it went from counter enlightenment, herder. Aesthetics, how do we feel into works of art? To how do I feel into a patient mind of a patient with psychology?
Yeah, and it's even, you know, going back to the dualism, you know, I mean, that. I mean, there's a lot I read almost have a whole thing on this dualism, empathy sort of topic, because if you're saying that, you're saying the stoics were saying apathy is sort of a virtue, right? In a sense, absolutely. You can feel into apathy. Right? There's a felt sense of, of apathy. And the empathic approach is, oh, you're feeling apathetic? And you sense into the apathy and tell me more about it. And you can sort of unpack the feelings around apathy. Or it's like, oh, I, I did interview people before about what was what did reason feel like to them? And one person said, Do it When I was growing up, you know, I just didn't know how to navigate in the world, I was just kind of confused. And then I found reason kind of working my way through logically. And I felt a sense of groundedness I felt safety, I felt clarity, I felt that you know, so it was like all these things that that approach to had given him. And so I guess I do want to just be, you know, that that's a big thing, this whole dualism and just the mess that it's kind of, I don't know where we're, where this is going, because it still seems to have a real Hold on, on the discussion. And if we could get rid of, you know, just move into a more of an empathic view that feeling into right, because you're feeling into people's experience, instead of just naming their experiences an emotion, or reason or something. Yeah,
that's great. Everything you said is all James and Dewey, right, the pragmatist. And their thought I for Dewey's thought, it's the whole philosophy has just been this quest for certainty. And James talks about what what happens is, when someone has a feeling of certainty, they also have a rationality to have a feeling of ease, right? And that goes right back to what you were saying, but also goes back to the paper example, right? That is a sentiment of rationality, you have to have says James, certain subjective marks that you you ascribe to, say, we're writing a paper or to some process of organizing an argument, you have to have certain subjective marks, which you have, you've got the rationality, and James says, along with that, is a feeling of ease. And that is absolutely what you just said with this person who said they found reason and it's like, it does give these and that's wonderful, it's I'm glad someone can have the psychological comfort that rationality brings, it does bring a lot of brings me a lot of comfort. But then we have to recognize that for what it is, and that, if not just simply reason, in some silo, I'm not rationally using reason, separate from all the feeling that being embodied. Right, so the feeling, the sentiment of rationality, is noted, when we ascribe subjective marks to something and say, there it is, we've got the rationality. And then along with that, I mean, you can imagine at the end of it, you're writing a paper, and you're like, I gotta finish it, I got it, and then ah, done, right? Because you have the rationality, or at least, whatever your subjective marks tell you, is rational.
Well, with the so if we bring this into the empathic mindset, way of being, or even the empathy circle, so the inner an empathy circle could be like, Oh, I'm rational, you know, and you're not. Whereas the empathic approach is sensing into where the other person is. And in person in the sense of that reason that that person is feeling ease, I feel ease in the empathy circle. Because I know that there's a sense of equality, everyone will get heard in the empathy circle, there's a sort of an exploration of going into, and sort of unpacking kind of life, you know, in a way that's not chaotic, somebody's trying to dominate someone else, per se. So that same ease that that person has in sort of controlling, I have that same ease enjoyment in terms of the sensing into experience, and to the newness that sort of pops up because kind of new ideas, new insights sort of pop up, and that feels really good.
Sure, yeah. And the ease in each situation is fine. The problem is, is when people don't recognize that the ease is coming with the rationality that's the denying that we have to bring to light and you know, the sound of the sound of the rationality in one's head when they see it might cover up and don't want to, maybe they would think in their minds to be little it as a feeling, because this is again, a problem that philosophy brought into the world. That feeling is relegated to be below. This is percept perception senses, feeling philosophers always relegated to a lower position.
And you want to suppress it to to a large extent it's slower and you got to suppress it and control it. Sure.
You guys a president. You have to control it, you're relegate and then okay, we can get on to the real business of philosophy. And so that's again, what I've always I've always felt something and just wrong with that. And I think people can just simply based on what we've just said, anybody can turn to their experience and say, Oh, that's absolutely correct. But still there, there's people who will hold on to it, right. So like, it's also it's not just talking about how reason and emotion often mingle inexperience even though we separate it. But it's also talking about the ideas that we're thinking about here is like, outside of a particular context and a reason, there's no way of thinking there's no reason to think that reason is superior, outside of it been proven in experience to be and the same thing, but even like talking about them as separate, right, it's already getting on the road to thinking about it too. rigidly. Yeah. But
there needs to be other theories, other models that are kind of more inclusive versus this simplistic model. Yes, the model, that model is inhibiting a clearer, more articulated explanation of what's actually happening.
Right, and the relational way, you know, you can empathize and have reason, join along for the ride. Right. When you feel into and you're being mindful interpreting, you're using reason, and it's not your reasons, con. And same thing when you connect with people and you feel when you feel you're using reason all the time. I mean, that's part of it. You know, that's as far as like, even just spatial, it's not just something in terms of reaching some conclusion. But yeah, so it's, again, like one of the things I think, with the relational way of thinking is, is this focus on context, right. And again, the problem so so often what we have, and philosophers are the ones that contributed to the most is that somehow we think of things as abstractions, they become rigid, or set in stone sort of right. And James always talks about this as read descending, right? When you have your understanding of the world or your, your abstractions, which makes sense, you then are moving through time, and you need to read descend, to see the practical value of the way you're abstracting. So it's a continual process. I mean, William James, is he's, when I read William James, it just changed my life, because I always read the early stuff on Principles of Psychology. And I read the great book on Varieties of Religious Experience. And I never read his later work. And then when I read his later work, I said, Ah, okay, here's something that really, it really gels with the way I see the world, you know, I'm
saying that if you go into abstractions, you're creating sort of a rigid model. And to continue growth, continued movement, you got to go below that model, again, to bring up the new is that
well, in part A, that could be in a context, but more that the problem that James saw is that when we cling to those rigid abstractions, and we think there's no more work to be done, right, and we don't see how certain experiences as life unfolds, challenges them, but we cling to them. That's when there's a problem.
Okay, so it's holding on clinging to it and not letting go and that that's the problem that can happen around that there's going to be a feeling of constriction around constricting that not let the new in
that yeah, definitely could be. And that goes back to the thing of ease, right? Because many people in the rigid abstractions, there's a safety there, there's a security there to know there's the truth, and it's not going to change. Right. And so James would say, you know, your abstractions, we absolutely need them. This isn't like an anti abstraction talk. It actually happens. It functions it's so important for us to survive, and so many other things. But when we hold on to them, when they don't serve certain means, right when they become the problem is when they don't become sense when they become illogical. And they are they become dysfunctional, and we don't challenge them. That's when James says, Okay, this is a problem, right? And this happens a lot. And this happens a lot in the history of philosophy, right? It's just like, so it's tough in philosophy, because it's like when I I really believe that philosophies, different philosophies are really just representative of different temperaments, different ways of feeling the whole, as James would say, the whole push, right, different ways of feeling. There one's own existence and everything around it. And so if some people may not be able to cottoned on, it may be the case because of people's habits. They can't cottoned on to what we're saying, and that's fine. Because they might have a certain temperament which just allows them it's The temperaments can give you a starting point. I mean, maybe you've met somebody in the empathy circle that just couldn't do it, or didn't want to participate. Because there it has hadn't been inclined, or they haven't created the habits to desire that. But their temperament maybe didn't disallow them from even trying. And that's a very real thing.
Yeah, so that's bringing it to the empathy circle, is that's one aspect, like in the empathy circle, one person is speaking, and the listener is reflecting back their understanding. So to be able to reflect it back, you have to set aside your own views about the topic to listen and really understand where the person is, and reflect that back. And there's something about that, that lets you lets that into your consciousness more there's, you sort of have to be open to let that in, even if you disagree with it. It's, it's not a total wall, right? It can be a total wall. And just a quick story, we had done an empty setup an empathy tent in Sacramento, where there was a political right wing rally, and there was five people that came to our empathy tent, who were from the identity Eropa group, they're the group that is that we're at Charlottesville, for example. And, you know, had the khakis and shirt and polo shirts type of dress. But they came to the empathy tent, and we were talking about the Holocaust. And we set we did an empathy circle. And the topic was, you know, what is the Holocaust mean to you, and, you know, there were sort of Holocaust deniers, and, and just, we're just did not want to accept that that happened. So there's a wall up, and one of our members was Jewish. And when he came to be his turn to speak, he said, The Holocaust means half my family were killed in Austria and the other half for spread around the world. And this person could not reflect it back. It's like, he kept arguing, you know, trying to rationalize, but he did not want to say back those simple words. And he did it like four times, my friend repeated it. And then then one of his friends, the guy had done an empathy circle and kind of got it, you just reflect back what you heard. He said, Just tell him back what you heard. And he said, Yeah, half your family were killed and the other half for you know. And then he, my friend could just feel how that was taken in by him. He just said, it felt really good for him, just to say that. So I guess my point was, is there's an EC that and religious groups to kind of extreme or whatever, that they don't want to let anything through their consciousness, right, that doesn't fit with their picture, or rigid vision of truth. But just being able to open reflect that back kind of opens the door to that more empathic way of being. So anyway, that was just an example. I think that kind of fits with what you're saying. Sure, absolutely.
Right. And that's the big problem today, right. And that goes back to the whole goal, you have to teach people how to do active listening. But then again, if there's a barrier there already, and the barrier isn't going to be broken down. Today, we live in a very last 10 years has been very strange, because you have all these ideas of alternative facts and these notions of doing my own research, which is cute. It's like, usually, when you see someone say something like that, they're just trying to justify their pre existing biases, right? So I think maybe one of the most important things to teach as an educator is to teach students to recognize their own biases. For so long. It's been let's teach everyone knowledge. Okay, that's important. Now, with the debate of what that consists of, how about we try to do it a different way and think about what our biases are? I mean, I mentioned in the book a few times, like, look, I'm very biased. I know I am because I reflect into my own mind and reflect into my own senses. And I've seen how I've changed, you know, my idea of the world and different subjects. But recognizing bias is again, one of those things that is that one of the things we really want to do. We want to hide the biases because it almost would then delegitimize anything we say, if we say like, look how biased I am, like, Okay, I'm not gonna walk out the door who's gonna listen to me anymore, you know? So it's a big challenge. Like, I think, you know, educators today have a big challenge, you know, because people get information from different locations and line, and how to one of the things to teach as an educator, you're trying to teach people how to make judgments about information they find online. Right? But then all of that is skewed, depending upon where someone lives and their sometimes their past history, the history of their searches. So it's a real challenge. I don't know if I have any answers yet, or ever will. But it's a big challenge. It's probably the biggest challenge nowadays.
Yeah, I'm not sure about the term bias, I feel sort of uncomfortable with that term. So the way it's used, it's almost like a club who uses a club a lot. Because it's not saying what you're wanting is having this term, saying, This is a bad thing somehow, and you have to get rid of it. And it doesn't really explain how you do it. It's like, are you supposed to analyze, it's almost like you're supposed to analyze your, your bias, and somehow that will get rid of it. Because I would say, you know, empathy is my bias. It's like, Yeah, in fact, I would say the thing that if you are saying not biased, that it's you're trying to create an empathic space where you're listening to everything that's coming in, you may not agree with it, but you're open to it. So instead of a focus on bias, I would put a focus on on the empathy sensing into what's coming at you first. And then trying to develop an empathic relationship with whoever you're in, in this relationship with it. It's more of a constructive positive steps, I've never seen people really that a lot of constructive stuff come out of, you know, just feeling bad about all your biases,
or whatnot. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I maybe just a different sense of the word, I tend to think that we're stuck. You know, we have all of our experiences, we're stuck in our minds, we're stuck in our body, we're stuck in our experiences. We're so limited, you know, how we think, you know, if I were born in another country, I might have adopted that religion of that country. And so, so much seems to be just just some sort of, you know, like, I think it was Santiana, a chance VISTA and a cosmic labyrinth. That's what he said, a chance Vista in a cosmic laugh. Because I'm in this position, I'm in a place, so maybe place would be better, you know, to to admit place, that I am in this place, here and now. And so much of how I see the world is not just from my own coming out of my own volition, and my own strength of character in my intelligence. That, so either one of those work for me, so yeah, when I think of biases, I think of recognizing, having those moments when you recognize that you are someone and everyone has hypocritical trends to them, you know, so, like James talks about this, gonna talk about William James, you can see is my favorite, Socrates and William James are my two favorite. So William James is driving down in North Carolina, and he comes down, he goes over a hill, and he looks far off in the distance. And he sees this place in the valley where everyone just clear cutting, cutting all the trees down. And he's horrified. He's driving from Harvard. He's like, Oh, these people, what are they doing? They're cutting all these down. And then when he get he says, it's terrible, this is immoral. And then he gets closer. He just he gets closer to the people. And he started seeing their face and the sweat off their brow and realize they're, they're working to survive. And it just it just how he describes them not doing as well as he did. They just sort of just kind of made him recognize like, Okay, I mean, this judgment from far away. It's kind of neat how they do it with distance, but and now I'm there. And now I see my perspective changing a little bit. Now, some people may call that like wishy washy, and not strong enough, like with your stick to your guns or whatever. But I think that's more I think those sorts of experiences happen more. And we'd like to admit, yeah, that's the sort of thing maybe we're getting that.
So it's those judgments, those initial judgments and being willing to sense into and pass those judgments. You see that within politics or that person's Republican, that person is a Democrat. There's an immediate stereotype judgment that happens there versus, you know, sensing more deeply into each side and seeing the deeper humanity that is there.
Yes. And then I think maybe you can resonate with this and like to hear what you have to say about this. You know, when I think about that as an ideal, then I started thinking, Oh, well, I don't want to talk with like, Magga Republicans. I mean, I'm just, that's my bias. Part of it's like so Some other things that have been said like with Marjorie Taylor or something, I don't know what her name is. She said, if she was at January 6, she would have won, you know, things like this. And so I'm trying to think like, is this person just saying this for political power? Does she really believe it or, you know, these sorts of things, but like, trying to empathize with somebody who's incredibly violent and hates people, you know, and it's like anti semitic. I mean, it's very difficult for me to do that. But I think like, ultimately, you have to, you have to try. But then there's, there's a limit, right? There's a limit. And the question is, does anybody ever change by opening up empathically to another person's perspective? When is that far apart? Is that far apart? And if the answer's no, pragmatically, what can be done? I mean, I know that there's not going to be a Charlottesville towards caring person, I have a discussion with him, I'm not gonna say at the end, you know, gosh, you know, your whole slogan about they will not replace us or whatever it was, that's starting to really resonate with me, there's just no way that's going to happen. You know, there's no way there's, it's built on so many false ideas is built on so much hatred. So, I don't know, what do you think about that? And in the sense is, in those moments, when it's the separation, the difference is so far apart? And then I guess like for every person who might be different distance, but do you ever have you ever felt like that before? Yeah, I'm
pretty much I'm very optimistic that if I was in an empathy circle with any of those people long enough, we'd start seeing each other's humanity, it becomes a function of the time available and the willingness for the other participants I'm willing to take part in an empathic dialogue with anyone and and the the process itself of listening is sort of the healing part of it. It's like those people who are so extreme they don't feel heard often by the other side. So they feel like they have to they're in a battle and they got to escalate and so the the empathy itself become sort of the healing space that all those extreme things that kind of dropped them once they kind of start feeling heard, you know, this is like, let's do this really extreme thing so that so if somebody will listen to me like you know, it's obviously made an impression on you right? They felt heard because you're like upset you know about it. So it's had it had it sort of effect and it sort of ties in with I did an interview with Darrell Davis aren't you know him, but he's African American musician. And he was like, wondering, like, why do we have, you know, the the Ku Klux Klan or they hate black people, you know, they don't even know me, how can they hate me? So he sent it got it got in contact with some Ku Klux Klan members. And he sort of like befriended them and had dialogues with them. And he became actually like, personal friends with a lot of Ku Klux Klan members. And there's, you know, like, New York Times wrote about him and so forth. He's a good person to check Darrell Davis. Okay. And what would happen is that when people would when they started feeling heard by him, because he, he wouldn't like, you know, they would say some crazy thing. And he didn't, like start condemning, and we said, Okay, you're just kind of do active listening, listen to them. And then once they felt heard, you know, when people start feeling heard, they they're usually like, Oh, I'm willing to listen to you. Now, I did all this speaking. So they kind of open up. And then he starts using that more, you know, rational argument dialogue to counteract what they were saying. And he befriended like the grand dragon of, you know, Tennessee or something and, and became friends with him. And that person just started seeing his own misunderstandings or judgments. And you know, how he was wrong. You know, he's there, David's befriend him. And he left the clan gave his robe to Darrell Davis. And I hate that happened a bunch and he has 200 Ku Klux Klan robes of people that gave him Wow, robes. So, yeah, it's like a perfect example of what you're what you're talking about. It's like extreme people, they hate you. They do damage, you know, like to harm you. But by listening and befriending the people and then having giving them space to feel heard, but then that they would, yeah,
that's powerful. I definitely want to look into that. Oh, yeah, stronger than I could
do. Well, that's my hope. That's my thing is that with empathy, that that is what's possible. And you know, the empathy circle is like this, you know, minimal viable process for holding those kind of discussions that can retainer for holding those even though he's pretty well grounded and can just do it, you know, sort of on the fly on his own just interacting with people.
Sure, sure. That's fantastic. Okay.
And that's all what you're talking about Chapter Three empathic feeling into, right, it's like this is the essence of. So he's feeling into sensing into their experience. And, and that's what that chapter is really about, like, instead of having these these, you know, you can have your theories and so forth would be willing to sense into others and sort of have that empathic sort of growth. And that feeling into is one of the facets of that empathic way of being is camp. Right.
Yeah, that's wonderful. So on the second part, the second relation of the one of the things that I wanted to make clear what that second relation is that sense of connecting, right? Because oftentimes, we talk about empathy as perspective taking, as I mentioned in the book, like there can be different types of perspective taking, I can say, I am taking your perspective as if I were you, or I'm taking your perspective, as I imagined that I was you This is Daniel Bazzi, Daniel Batson distinction I took in the book. So even with perspective taking, there's some confusion. But you know, the one thing that's ignored is connection, empathic connection that I write about in the book, and that can be different sorts of things. It doesn't mean that we agree, right, I used Cynthia Willits notion of solidarity, empathy, I think it was, is that I can understand and grasp where you're coming from, without a green. I think sometimes in the empathy literature is too much of okay, let's the goal is to now i perspect, take your perspective, and there's agreement, right, but you can understand somebody and not agree, right. And that's really important. So difference is not cut out. There still can be, you can still uphold difference between without saying that we're in total agreement. But it's grasping what is actually happening happening, that second relation is a grasping of what's actually happening. And that can come just from, you know, dancing, as you dance with somebody, and you're in sync. So it can just be something as simple as something bodily, or can be where, you know, people laugh together something funny, they find funny, at the same time, there's just connection just there. And, but that solidarity, empathy, that's simply what Cynthia Willett discusses is really good. I think. And I think that's one of the things that has been said here with the example of Darrell Davis is that is that I get you, I understand, I grasp where you're coming from, right, I feel a unity with what you're saying, and I understand it. But I don't necessarily have to agree. Or even good. And so I think that's a really important way to think. And again, that can be a multi the reason why these have to be general these three relations are general because if they're general, then every every particular can be understood underneath, or subsumed under it, right. So different types of feeling in one's way in, that can be observation, it can be a direct perception that happens immediately. And same thing too with connecting. It can be something where you really feel a warmth being connected, or it can mean something where you, you grasp you get it I get what I do grasp what you're saying. And then so that's the second one, I think that second relation is the one that's probably the most popular when it comes to to empathy, at least how it's talked about. You know, and then the third relation having a sense, eight, let
me explore that one first. Yeah, yeah. So that's your Chapter Four is feeling with, right? Would you say that's what you're describing? Now? The feeling with Yes, that's what I'm describing now. Yeah. And then when you feel with someone, that there's a sense of connection that happens, there's, there's something about when we resonate with others, you know, it could be mirror neurons, like with mirror neurons, you know, we mirror each other and there's something about being mirrored that creates this feeling of connection, safety, etc. So I think that's what you're describing, is that sort of that process of feeling with someone so Darrell Davis is feeling with, you know, those people in what they're what's up for them? And then when they feel oh, he's feeling with me, he's there instead of like, attacking, criticizing, what have you that that, that they feel better, right? There's a sense of connection. I'm kind of connecting with this person that starts developing a relationship. So and the same thing with the empathy circle, right? When one person is speaking, the other is reflecting back, that that can help with that sense of feeling with because you, you're seeing your words, checking what did selected back to you. And so that's another aspect of that quality. And I find that in a circle, a feeling of connection really happens, because people are really listening to. And in your saying with dance, there's so many ways that that can happen. The Empathy circle is just one structured way to support that.
The Empathy circle is great example, because you have so many, I hope people don't think that this is like an order of operations, like first your feeling, then you feel with then you could it's all mingling in different contexts, it depends like you can have care for somebody then try to feel with, right, or you can feel with and then try to feel one's way more are you really grasping, so it's always right, very general, not in order, it can be in any type of order. But with the empathy circle, it's basically whoever's listening to the speaker is doing the feeling and right through active listening. And then the grasp is the thought that when they try to repeat it, and then the other person can confirm if there's a connection, I mean, that's the two relations working together exactly in the empathy circle. And all of this is funded with the sense of care. Because like, as Roger said, you know, you're not going to want to grasp or understand someone unless you somewhat care, and have to be really strong care, like compassion, but you're have interest, you know, and what the person is saying. But that's great, that I never even thought of that, because I knew about the empathy circle before, maybe I was influenced by it when I wrote it, you know, this idea of the of the back and forth, right? And the way we're doing it right now, and guess what everybody is doing this, to certain levels in different different degrees, and for different purposes. Right, but that the empathy circle is perfect, because it really is when the person is listening to the other. It's that act, and even the person who speaking maybe they might adjust the way they say something by how they're perceiving, right, and then the sense of grasping, and then as more things go on, maybe that the Grasp goes away, you know, and that's this is huge interplay of those two relations. And I think the empathy circle process shows those two relations at work.
Yeah, and then there's the chapter. So you've got chapter three is feeling into Chapter Four is feeling with so empathic connections. And Chapter Five is empathic care feeling for which you start you're starting to talk about now is sort of that quality of care, maybe you don't care about the person, but then you start developing care, or maybe you come with care, and then you develop, you know, the feeling into, and so it's not, they, they kind of all merged together, or flow together, in and out. And so there's that dynamic.
Absolutely. It's a dynamic process. And they flow in and out. And I think the reason why this is, again, like, the whole point, this was a whole thing about this book here is that look, for me, it doesn't function in anyone's experience and help someone elucidate experience and it's throw it in the garbage, I don't care. It only is valuable if it functions to help people realize things. And one of the things that you I think people can all see is that there is that interplay, right. But also, what it does is a lot of theories of empathy kind of disappear, because they're too rigid in the sense of like, when people talk about, like psycho psychopathy, they always talk about, well, the person can take a perspective, but they can screw you over, you know, and then not care for you. Well, in the book, I talked a little bit about that. But right, I mean, when you think about you break it down in different contexts, we know that's just not the case. And so I think one of the things thinking relationally is thinking more about those dynamics and experience, then again, saying like, this is a type of empathy, cognitive empathy, and this emotional empathy, and never the two shall meet, and they're separate. Oh, now you're using that. And again, if that functions in someone's experience, because I'm sure it does, I've read on LinkedIn and other places, it helps people get to understand it and helps them like you said before, reach a consequence, words greater well being. But, you know, the question is, is it's is it really expressing the dynamic, right? Because if there's the dynamic Can you can't get it with just the different types. You can't express the dynamic. So I think the Relational Approach, express that dynamic process and the again, I guess, I never thought about this, but the end of the circle is a perfect example. It's all of these dynamics happening right there. And So, you know, I do have a little bit of problems with people that talk about a talk about people having empathy, and it being a bad thing, because people don't care. And so again, that's just so abstract to me it just so it's so abstract or people who are against empathy in the next chapter talking about, well, here's a lot of people who are say, empathy is great. It's the the cement of the moral universe. And then this other chap, there's other people are saying, it's terrible. People grab your grasp your perspective, and they try to, you know, control you. So which is it? And so the answer is, these are different stories and narratives. And these have different contexts of focusing on 123, or all of the relations, right.
Yeah, somehow, the theories, the models aren't clear enough to explain all these different phenomenon, somehow, the definitions are not robust enough to really model what's happening. And that's what I've tried to do to, you know, everybody creates their own model of empathy. So I'm creating a model, it's, I'm calling it the way of being empathy is really your way of being. So it's built on Rogers, you know, one of his papers, empathic and unappreciated way of being. So starting with that, is it it's not just this, this, this, you know, process, it's not just this, you know, component, it's not this feeling, it's really more of a way of being of how we are as a human being. And it has a lot of different facets to it. So the first facet would be sort of other oriented empathy, which is more of a direct, empathic listening, where you're kind of directly with the person, you know, seeing the other sensing into them. And then the other aspect, that's one facet, and then the other facet would be sensing into yourself sort of a self empathy, you know, feeling into what's happening arising in myself. And I think you talked about self empathy at some point in that book, too. And then the other is, are calling it an imaginative empathy, which is more of those role plays, that you're talking about feeling. Imagining the other is yourself or imagining the other is them, which is sort of an imaginative quality to it. And then there's sort of the the facet of relational empathy, not just seeing empathy, as you know, me as an individual empathizing with the world, but hey, we're in relationship, and there's a, there's a level of empathy, and the relationship between you and I, right now, you know, the level and it fluctuates, there's things we can do to strengthen it as well, as well as the empathy circle is relational, there's no four or five, six people, and what's the level of empathy, you know, within the group, not just one individual in the group. And then there's all these different things that can sort of block empathy. And I think that rigid rigidity that you were talking about is sort of a block. And then the, the modeling of other models, the cognitive and affective model, and you're talking about Paul Bloom, so he's just taking one little aspect of, you know, like, Oh, if I'm angry, and then you get that you see me and you become angry because of it, that that's empathy. And I don't even see that as empathy I see is actually a block to empathy, again, the empathy circle, right? Somebody says, I'm really angry with you. And then you instead of reflecting back, oh, I hear you're really angry. And, you know, tell me more, you know, I'm here to listen to you, that you become angry and kind of do a state matching or a contagion. And he's calling that, you know, empathy. And I actually agree with all the criticisms he has of that, of that relationship. But the problem with that relationship is it blocks empathy, it's not that it's empathy, and it's bad. It's what he is describing is actually I would consider a block empathy. So yeah,
yeah, I learned I didn't say his name, but I learned a lot from his book. I really appreciated how clear he was at the beginning by saying like, Look, if this is the type of empathy you're talking about, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about this specific one. And he says a lot of great things about psychopathy and sociopath, sociopath and challenging those categories I thought was brilliant. At the end, though, again, I think that it just kind of falls back into another dualism because he talks about rational compassion and sounds like Okay, and again, like for any of these, I mean, like, you know, we've read all in the book is is great. I just, I, you know, there's different sorts of approaches and different sorts of senses. And again, Like, for me the value of any model or any sensor, any writing on this is just really in the results, you know. And if I get a book that says against empathy, and I think about, okay, this is the problem, because you know, he's really worried about how people can be manipulated, right? Or they can problem with them or moral action. And I understand that. But then the question is like, if I finished reading the book, what do I do? And his answer is rational compassion. So I understand what he's saying. But I still think it falls into an somewhat of an unhealthy duelist dualistic way of thinking, right? Because as we started this conversation, I think you and I both were decided to call it a lot about look how reason mingles with feeling. And even to have them we talk about them as a distinction only. So we can make sense, right? But we talk with them as distinctions, not dualisms. We talk to them as distinctions, we can understand the complexity and the plurality of an experience, but not holding them rigid, to be rigid. And so I feel like he ended with that. With that notion of towards rational compassion. So yeah,
well, I have another microcosm is maybe that practicality that you're talking about? Is he wrote his very first paper in the New Yorker. And I immediately I sent him an email and I said, Oh, great. I'm interested in empathy. I've done these hundreds of interviews, can we have an empathy circle to discuss it? So I want to emphasize, I said, I would like to emphasize with you with your concerns about MPC, and he just brought it back. I don't have time. Okay, so he was like, just dismissive of it. And I sent him invite after invite. Finally, he did say, Well, I'm willing to, and I want it recorded, you know, recorded dialogue, and to do an empathy circle. And he was just really hesitant. He just would not do it. And then eventually, he was willing to do he said, Okay, well, let's have an email exchange, I said, you always have an email exchange, and then let's do an empathy circle afterwards. And he would not do an empathy circle or an empathic dialogue. And then I then I said something about, you know, psychopath, II, and, and, and empathy or the lack of empathy. And he sent me that he, I hurt his feelings. So it's, I would never talk. Anyway, if that's what you do is what you're, if rational compassion is a hey, I'm not going to talk to you is, you know, I see that as a problem, versus Hey, I'm willing to talk to everybody. And I see that the empathic approach so yeah,
I've always enjoyed my conversation with you. And I watched a lot of those videos I mean, you interviewed see Daniel Batson, Franz Deval, those are big, heavy hitters that I mean, their work and your work, I'll really help me, you know, and we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. And that's how it is, you know, we're all in this thing together. And it's I don't know, when I, I feel like if I speak to anyone about the subject, I don't have to agree, cuz I'm going to come out of it just with a different perspective, every time. And even though you know, you have this happens book done. And it's like, okay, it's really stuck in stone. Now, though, what if I changed my mind, that's always been the problem with publishing, you know, people always want to publish, so they don't perish or whatever. But you know, maybe Socrates was right, maybe it was Jesus, too. They didn't write anything, however, they were on to something. Because something when you write it down, that is the end of the process, but I just hope I don't encounter any conversations that destroy it.
And even willing to dialogue about it. And I think that's what the empathic approach is like, hey, let's talk, you know, and especially if it's in an empathy circle, so you're sort of doing the process of Paul Bloom, if you're watching this, let's let's have an empathy circle. Yeah, it's an open invitation to you, I'd love to talk to you. I'm just really disappointed that we didn't have an empathy circle. But I didn't want to, you know, kind of go through the, that you had an empathic care feeling for we sort of touched on that. Yeah. What do I think you're talking about there is that there's a sense of warmth and care that happens? Yeah, that the you're willing to listen to someone. And you know, and I would think that the compassionate approach is, hey, I care about you, and I'm willing to kind of be present with you. So, but that they that so for me, like in the empathy circle, there's this aspect of I trust the process so much, that I might hate you. You know, I might think that you're an asshole or whatever. But I'm willing to have an empathic dialogue with you. And it's almost like the care gets developed through the empathy versus another thing approach or hey, I have a lot of care for you. Let's have this and I'm here to listen to you and so forth. So there is that aspect of sort of the the empathic approach and care that I think you can. You can also say that the empathic approach is a caring approach in a sense of itself. It represents a sense of care. Right?
Well, that's great. Yeah, exactly. And that's two things to say about that. The first thing is about the last thing you just said. And, you know, most people when they quote, Rogers, they quote, the early definition of, of, of Rogers, his definition of empathy early on, I think, in the 50s 59. Got the book here, I'm gonna check. But they quote that early one, and they totally ignore the later the latter one when he talks about care, you know, so, so, so yeah, he defines this. And this is really fun to do when you read people's work. And they define empathy differently over their lifespan. And he talks about you, there's no way to be empathic unless you care, right, and how care is so important. He's really speaking a lot with the psychologists approach to the patient that that psychologist must care about the patient's well being. And that's how he defines that you can't have empathy, psychologists without caring about the patient's well being. So when I saw that I'm like, Okay, this is because I've always felt like, what am I going to put care into this? Right? So then I saw that Rogers, and that was an ad or 70s, you know, and so I go back. And I found, like, where the transition happened, where the change, and it was so lovely to find it, you know, because I wanted to create this, this, these three, this Tripoli relational model, but then I didn't want to like not have the evidence. And so because I felt that was the case and according to contemporary literature, so then I go back, and I look at what happened after lips. And what happened after after Titchener, translated einfuhrung into empathy. And what happened was, is you start seeing the rise of social psychology, and the social psychology with a study specifically, specifically of children, right? And then the story is like, Okay, let's try to see if children have empathy for each other early on, after all, we're going to talk about empathy as a real thing, we should see it somehow as something developmental. Let's see what age it actually happens, because you know, a one year old can't perspective take, right at least what most of most of the evidence shows. So let's look at it. This is like the 20s 30s and 40s. Let's look at childhood play. And then they start talking about empathy as caring. Why did little Johnny hit Sally doesn't have empathy. He doesn't have enough feeling to care. And so that's where part of the narrative changed again. And as I mentioned before, Steven Pinker, in his book talks about this change, in his section on empathy is one of his better angels. So this really arises from George Herbert Mead, right, who's a pragmatist, but also right, on the first social psychologists, you have Meads influence of, you know, childhood or development and how we can have perspective taking he speaks mostly his perspective taking at a certain age. And from me, you see this this flurry of Childhood Studies. And then, you know, if you look, with a lot of, again, a greater expansion of the meaning with I think, friends, devolves has a very broad definition, understanding, as we do as well, I mean, his he and he his definition and his model, right, involving many of the things many of the relations we discussed, but then there are just many different people after Rogers I spoke of empathy is caring, right? So then, you know, and then if you listen to contemporary culture, if you hear how people talk about it, you don't have enough empathy for me. In other words, why don't you care more? It's not saying you're not taking my perspective a lot in these situations. So just hearing that some of the contemporary ways how people use it, I said, Okay, this is justify to do this. And again, I don't think necessarily that it was always just in these different historical time periods that they developed. I think there's evidence of all three of these relations and each time, but it was interesting to see those shifts because, you know, in philosophy, some philosophers like Nietzsche and Foucault talk about how concepts or ideas over time shift, or they, they break, there's a break, like so Foucault is famous for this talking about madness. He says, let's look at madness in the Renaissance, the Mad were considered to be connected with the Divine, you know, and just don't care about this silly world. And then it's shifted, and the Mad then became the unproductive and then you send them down the Ship of Fools. So he goes through and looks at the concept of madness. I think it was, it's a really good method. It's, it's very creative. It's not as scientific but it's it's it's very creative method of reading history, and the changes of different language games, or whatnot, and how that happens. So most of the book is that that's that party's three of the chapters of that story, those changes. And for all those changes, the reason why is because there's some outstanding problem to address. And so the meaning of empathy isn't always important as the problem. And that's why would the expansion of the mean of empathy into the future I have no problem, whatever it can mean, as long as it relates back to a problem, it's not showing what empathy absolutely is. And now I know what reality is. It's how the model or how the idea, or the definition focuses in on a problem.
Uh, huh. Yeah. Yeah. So and that was the the caring of one part was the caring bring in the caring into the model? As an important part of it? I mean, yes, out of the dressing some problem of Sure. Yeah, the
problems arose like in childhood and study of children, right? And how children's eyes. So in that, in that issue, then the notion of empathy took on different meaning now, it probably wasn't really conscious, it's just something that happens. And that's fine. And whatever empathy, the future of empathy is, it's great, as long as it's addressing something, and as long as people don't think that they've got the final thing, and here I now nah, okay.
But it was the problem was the problem would be disconnection, people are disconnected with each other. And, and, you know, how do we have a definition of empathy, so people feel more connected, because if you feel connected, you have a greater sense of well being your health is better, and so forth, or exam, right?
Yeah, that's why I've kind of like, you know, with this with this book, it's like, okay, is it going to serve problem but doesn't trash, I don't care, it just matters that it serves a problem is addressing a problem. And so it's just interesting to see the history of the idea how it the meaning changed, in relation to a problem, and also the discipline that was talking about it. So and phenomenology, as they say, in the book, they talked about it with great deal of skepticism, because of lips and psychologism. Right, and other traditions in psychology is talking about really bringing healing or understanding the patient, bringing healing to or understanding the patient. And this is how it is, this is how it is, you know, so definitions and creativity, I think, is a very, very important thing. This notion is long as it's it's focused on addressing some issue, and then the best ones will contribute to either a dissolution or resolution of the problem.
So the problem I would see is, is confusion, like, confusion is a huge one. And a lot of these writings are to create some clarity is one of the things like hey, we need some clarity to be able to take steps and so forth. It's nice to have clarity about what we're talking about what what our model of the world is, is it functional model. And right now the empathy, I see a lot of confusion in there. So that Yeah, so the practical aspects, your
Yeah, that's another that's like a meta problem, right? So one problem can be like people aren't connected. Well, another problem can be like, we're defining empathy in a way that's, it's confusing. So that's the second problem, because we're not addressing the problem of disconnection. Yeah, I get that. So there's multiple, there's just a multitude of problems. Yeah. And that's why it's always great to have you know, multiple people come from different perspectives and bring in different insights. Right, and that's ultimately, you know, this notion of democracy is as as a way of living life.
I'm going a little bit slower you've got that as chapter eight that I didn't want to have before we moved on to that the final a final thought on the care chapter five is one problem I do see is the confusion of empathy and then sympathy and care. So the sympathy feeling sorry for people I actually see as can be a block you know, it's turning people into victims or I feel sorry for you sort of a becomes a bit of a can become sort of narcissistic, instead of being present listening, sensing into the other person. It's like, oh, you've got pain. You know, this causing pain for me and I you know, I feel sorry for you and I want to resolve my pain because I feel Sorry for you, and you're creating solutions that aren't really empathic solutions for the other. And I think that that care and sympathy gets mixed in with each other. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that.
Yes, you know, and going back to we're talking about before about the history of these words, sympathy actually had a great history all from the Greeks. And it starts with this notion of cosmic sympathy, which is, most people probably think it's kind of a crazy idea. But it might relate to some contemporary physics, because the idea is that things on the other part of the universe can affect things in the other part of the verse, and then the whole universe is an animal, I'm not kidding, of cosmic zoom. That's what they say. And, and that, you know, everything affects each other. So as as great vast interconnectedness of the cosmos, and things from one point, sort of like a spooky action at a distance, right, can affect another party. Other side, it's a really interesting idea. Kind of crazy, too, because they've had a lot of divination and stuff with that. So anyway, sympathy was had a huge history, and all the way through the medieval on to the modern, and really took root with Adam Smith and David Hume. And with them, they're just talking about what we would call empathy. I mean, it's basically Adam Smith, what we're talking about relational empathy, when Adam Smith says about sympathy is almost exact. But what happened after the modern era, is that in psychology, sympathy did, like you said, start to me, really, I pity you. And a lot of people will try and say the difference between empathy and sympathy is that empathy is I really feel with from a perspective inside of you, I grasp you, and then sympathy is I feel for you, but it's not really I mean, it's fine. And I want to be the language police. I turned in my badge a long time ago, and I don't do that anymore. But, but you know, the history tells a story. And the story is that sympathy, usually in contemporary times, being something close to pity, right? I pity you. And it's kind of like a pity without action. I sympathize for you. But you know, we hear those sorts of things. And I think that's why empathy, railroad rose in popularity, you know, they both have pathos. Sympathy also means Sin means same or unity, right, saying pathos where Empathy means within write in or, you know, feeling in the beyond those prefixes, you know, their idea of sympathy really, I think it lost popularity, because it just didn't have enough of a history that was really functional. And so that's in chapter five, I wanted to get rid of sympathy quickly, because you know, it was going to come up. Her party already always talks about it, and I just loathe all the I love Brene Brown, I just, I just think she's so awesome. But I just don't like her distinction between sympathy and empathy. But again, I don't care if it functions and man, she has done so much thing, so many things to help people and you know, people love what she says and really help people get through things and, and live their best lives or whatever that means. But, yeah, so just getting rid of the notion of sympathy there in chapter five and saying, like, you know, if we're gonna think about feeling for, let's look at look at look at the history of empathy. And that's when I go into the Childhood Studies need, and up to the the present and neuroscience and primatology. More, more as feeling for Yeah.
So then number six is, the question is empathy moral? I remember when I say a few words about,
oh, yeah, this is why they're always gonna hate. I think that's the chapter people won't like. Now, I just want to be clear, I do take a relativistic position. And what I mean by that, you know, relativism in American philosophy has seemed to be the boogeyman, and just the antithesis of rational, clear thought, or any sort of claim, right? So if you think of relativism, it's like, this ridiculous thing that anything goes. The problem is with that type of relativism, that no one believes that, if I have a student that like, you know, it's all good for you, whatever you think is fine, whatever, I think it's fine. It's all relative. I say go stand in the middle of a bonfire for me. I'll never say that again. So by relativism, I mean, relational, that there's a series of relations in the context of different experiences, and that produces different goods and produces different Bad's, and somehow when we talk about good and bad is situational. A lot of people get angry because they want to universalize there's definitely absolute truth about good and badness, perhaps, but let's be empirical. The empirical fact is that there are different sorts of experiences and there are senses that deem things to be good or bad. And that's how it is that's the if you're going to be the most radical empiricist, you'd have to go from that position. So I just look at different understandings of empathy in that chapter and say, Hey, here's some people who think empathy is moral, let's look at them. And I go through all those. And here's some people that think empathy is immoral, right? Or who are against empathy. And with each case, what you see is that it's the relations of experience that they choose, that determine whether it's moral or immoral, and the consequences of what happens of those different contexts. Now, I believe, like, you know, in the empathy circle, you know, for the most part, people are ending up in a good way at the end, right? You're the goal is because you've you structured it in such a way to make the consequence, have someone come out of it and say, Wow, I learned something, and that's good. And now I can go on and apply active listening to different parts of my life. Without that structure, without that order, you know, in different contexts, you might have different sorts of consequences. Right. So in the case, I can't remember the exact case. But there were these cases from an anthropologist talks about how people would be empathic as perspective to hate feeling with, and then you know, going back to we said before, then manipulate the person. And that's why empathy is, is is bad. And Paul Bloom takes something similar to them. But then the people that take it to be something good, it's a different sort of focus on relations. And it's a different sort of consequence. So I just, I'm just trying to bring some clarity that because I think that people can be a bit too triumphant with saying empathy, A, it's moral. And then I think they can be likewise a little bit short sighted, by saying that there should be against empathy, or that empathy is immoral, I think it depends upon the contexts, which is the particular relations of experiences, and then what is produced, and that can vary. So that's what I was trying to do there. And I don't know, if people are gonna get it because people have, you know, when it comes to good and bad, or pretty goodness and badness, good and evil, whatever, they have pretty strong feelings and senses. But I'm just trying to say, like, look, in these relations and contexts, it's clear that people think that this is bad, you know, and most people probably would. And then in other cases, when it's something good, right, it's because it's not because it's good as an abstraction, right? Again, a lot of times they're morality ideas, like, let's think about what's universally good, or what's good for all people, or what we can figure out what the categorical imperative is, or, and follow that. But it's just not that easy. Life is much more slippery, and muddy, and right, different relations have in different contexts. And different experiences can produce different senses, and have an you have the experience of something good or experience something bad. So I'll just try to be as pluralistic because I could in that chapter, by showing by showing those different contexts.
Yeah, for me within that, that is, instead of good and bad, I would say relationally, empathic, and relationally, and empathic. And I think Simon Baron Cohen tried to make that case with the science of evil, saying that evil instead of using words like evil, say empathy, erosion. So he's basically trying to define it. It's taking this good and evil, the binary sort of out of it. And, and it's more this quality of relationships. And we, you know, with the empathy circle, it's really good process for conflict resolution. So you bring people who are angry with each other thing, you're a bad person, or you're the bad person, or whatever, and they kind of worked through, they listen to each other. And they see sort of the backstory of why the person did what they did is like, Oh, wow, if that was my background, my context, I would probably do the same thing as well. And they, they kind of have more understanding for each other. And it creates a sense of connection and understanding. And then they can also use the empathy circle to negotiate the next steps together. So it's like a conflict mediation, next step, negotiation, that happens, and then they have some sort of agreement, what next steps to try?
Yeah, would you explain there is the process of coming to something first of all, right, instead of just seeing a situation naming it, you're talking about a process that has again, like I said, it has a certain structure to aim towards some sort of awareness. Whereas I think like most people that think about empathy and abstraction again, even with Simon Baron Cohen, he's defining it again, like I said, before a certain way. So the relations of how he defines it depends is As is, makes whether something is good or bad, or what he calls evil, contingent upon the way in which the experiences and I think he associates mostly evil or whatever lack of empathy, right with, with understanding empathy in a certain way. So that was,
I wasn't too happy with his definition, I saw some of his definitions of empathy. I did see it, it wasn't a broader, it was more of a cognitive affective model. And also risk. Also the the affective is also your response to empathy, right? When you sense into someone's experience, the effect of empathy is often described as your emotional response to what is happening versus just the process of feeling into the other person. So yeah, I know you mean, with with his definition.
And with all these people, again, like I just have to say is like, you know, just repeat, it's like a broken record, although no one out there who's under 40 knows what a record is. But if they did, you know, be a broken record, it's like, it really just depends upon what sort of context one's looking at, and what comes from that context, what sort of consequences arise? And that's my main point there. With with that chapter, chapter six,
okay, so chapter seven is can empathy be developed? Any kind of quick comment about that?
Sure. So, you know, started off with this notion of, from the Greeks about, you know, the possibility of developing virtue, which is formed of different excellence, right, virtue is excellence in an activity. And so I come down on that side, it's like, okay, well, if we're going to talk about developing empathy, the question is, okay, let's talk about nature and nurture first, and get rid of that do and then move into the notion of habits and habit formation, which again, I mentioned before, but I think it's so vital, it's very pragmatic approach as well. But right, the idea if someone says, Well, empathy can't be developed, well, you're not even going to try. So to say that is strange. What you do is you use in particular ways you produce habits, and then the habits relate to the different relations or different types, or you can say, different experiences of empathy. So the, the answer to can empathy be developed is, let's contextualize it, if you're talking about when I call him, Pathak contagion, which goes back slow talks about this, but he gets it from David Hume. The idea is that, you know, that feeling with it's sort of instantaneous and automatic, can that be developed? Maybe not as much, you know, maybe there can be some things that can be developed with that to be more sensitive. But that seems to be something that's a little bit probably more genetic. People talk about being in an empath, and that seems to be more dispositional. But so it really depends upon which experience we're discussing. But with other ones, right, so that you definitely can become more empathic. You think about taking someone's perspective how much you care about the perspective, and you can have certain habits of awareness that make you right, like, for instance, participate in the empathy circle, the whole thing, that whole thing is, the process of developing it in whatever way it's developed. And whatever particular relation it's it funds. So, you know, I just, I did this thing, as a person who thinks like, you never know, when you step into something you're trying to write, if you're like an athlete, you're trying to become something you don't know yet, but you have to do it, you have to have the belief and the faith in the possibility. And then you have to have the right habits and the will to be able to pour to produce that transformation, just like the empathy circle is producing a type of transformation. So the answer candidate be developed is, well, let's look at the contexts. And then you know, it can be developed. Good luck. And then there might be different ways, different habits that you can, can learn, and who knows how it's going to come out. But, you know, I just don't think that when someone says that can't be developed, or it's too natural, they're denying the possibility, what habits can do, you know, there's that great contemporary work, which is a good, a good read. It's by Charles Duhigg Duhigg. I think on the Power of Habit, he tells a lot of these stories about how people just all of a sudden one day like okay, I'm going to run a marathon, and then everything changes their food, eating habits change everything. And so how much the will know how strong the will is, is really important to think about whether any sort of development can occur. And so I don't go into like notions of freewill or anything like that it just like the the, the use of will to produce habits that's founded on the belief that change is possible. Right is the path is the path of developing. And sometimes people can develop it without that conscious effort. And I understand that. But you know, I basically the, that chapter in the last one was just, you know, two of the biggest Google search words, I thought, okay, let's attack it here with the relational empathy notion, and any given answer, but again, like, if you don't try to help it, you're not going to, but you don't know for sure how it's going to, it's all part of being on the precipice of existence as you're moving out into the world. And I think you should try
having the motivation you got the motivation also means what it is, we're talking about the specific aspects, so kind of going deeper into the, you know, what does it mean to develop empathy and, and how to develop habits? How do you create those habits of it?
Sure. And there might be people who come up with different ways. And, and that's part of being inventive, too, as far as what sort of habits could actually function to produce those ends. And, but again, without the will, the will to believe, but also the will to act is not going to be much of anything. So it's one of those things like, oh, sometimes people say, well, that person is not empathic, because they're just not that type of person. Now, there could be, you know, obviously, we talked about before about different temperamental and inclinations of temperament. Right? But you know, there's nothing that says someone has to stick to their general temperament, they can have it altered if they really have the will. And that has to do what you say with motivation, right? What sort of motivation, you know, if someone's gonna get dumped in a relationship, because they're not empathic that might be enough to create the hats big? Yeah. Yeah,
the motivation for me that the empathy is I was defining it is, is more of like a muscle that we can, you know, can atrophied, or you can strengthen it. And the empathy circle is like just one exercise that's helpful for strengthening those muscles. It's kind of the best, easiest that I've sort of found. I mean, there's plenty of different ways of doing it, but it's Yeah, so
we have with your with your real quickly, I mean, I know that for a fact because when I did the empathy circle, I'm telling you, I did feel uncomfortable. But then I came out and I felt like, you know, when I was talking to other people, and I felt like I had learned a habit of maybe slowing down although, you know, and then I was like that slowing down and becoming more patient because of doing that. So you can imagine doing it again, it's the doing that we become right we are habits James says we're a bundle of habits right? And we become something other The goal is to become something better for those who strive for that and habits can get you there. And yeah, from your experience empathy circle I just had that I felt it you know, with the list
it wasn't reports like that, you know, even empathy experts are usually out there promoting empathy in a in a conceptual sort of a way basically that big list of why it's so good we should all be exhortation we should all be but when they get into the empathy circle, it's like oh my god, I'm not that great of a listener.
That was me that was be as hard that was me and fart. It really shook me up in a good way I liked so true it's like I was gonna say at the end is like I know all about this. I mean, I know how to do it right?
It's different it's just like exercise or sport or dance right? You can just analyze the dance it but getting out there and dancing are two different things so maybe a good to be able to do really both really well here Sophia for any issues. Yeah. Okay, well, we're coming to the last chapter, which was that was an empathy and democracy that's as a way of life yeah, like I really the way of life I see it as a way of being so I really resonated with got excited about that one, too.
Yeah. Yeah, that comes again from pragmatists. No, no surprise, and Sidney hook, Jon Stewart and John Dewey, this notion of empathy as our sorry, democracy first as a way of life. Right. So we usually think of democracy as a system of government or ruling but in this chapter, I'm trash. Oh, that's, that's fine. But you know, all this talk today about the death of democracy which is Important right after Trump, you see the sorts of things he's trying to give you the Constitution, right? It's democracy is under threat there has been in the last 10 years or so a lot of places they've experienced coos, or there's all this talk now about the death of democracy. Well, guess what if you have the habits of democracy, if you're a democratic minded person, if you practice democracy, it can't die, as you're practicing it. And so maybe the fault of like, democracy as a system that's been under siege or threatened is because we're not teaching people to educate, we're not educating people how to be democratic. And that means not just voting, and so cute, and everything and Voting is important. But we're just parliamentary, we're just having representatives. I mean, it's not the real meat of democracy is the lived life where you empower, right? So democracy, people power to the people or rule, and most people think of Kratos, Democritus, as rule, let's elect the officials to make the decisions. We don't have a direct democracy. But another part of it is a way of living life. And Dewey talks about it again, as in our daily habits. But you can imagine someone going to vote, getting a sticker and everything, and then going out into the world, and being very undemocratic. Right? And it's not that democracy is always the best option as a way of life. Because clearly, if you're a parent, you know, and you've kid wants candy, and you want to have them vote on it, you're not going to do that, it might not be the best thing. But I think there is this part of democracy as a way of life is that it's part of your existence, you think towards just to be how power is distributed, you think about different power relations. And that's a sentiment and that's also something that leads to habit, or you just call it a way of being like with empathy. And same thing with democracy. It's a way of being in the world. And when that's not threatened, democracy can never die within the person or in a community. And I think like one of the cures to the problem of the death of democracy is a refocus on what does democracy mean? Is it just this election of electing officials that are going to Washington with all their red tape? And with all the the the lobbyists filling their pockets? With all the special interest, that's the most democracy's gonna be? And be very sad? Are you gonna live democratically in your life just by how you empower other people towards flourishing, right? The whole greatness of democracy is the idea that maybe everybody in our society can flourish, and everybody can do well. And maybe we need to protect people from abusive, abusive power, and through rights or whatever, right? Establishment of rights or right. And so that sort of sense is at the heart of democracy beyond just voting. And it's also a way of living life. So that's coming from the Dewey. And in that, in that, first that in that last chapter, one of my main points is like, I want to talk about what the basic I call relational structure social existence is, and that that we are fundamentally all connected, right? Everything is connected. And it's not just a wishy washy way of talking about the cosmos. But then the question is, among those connections, what sort of power relations are. And that's where we start talking about democracy. Now, we know for a fact that some people just don't have as good luck. As far as flourishing. Democracy is supposed to create the opportunity for people to do well in life to flourish. And the question is, if you focus on something, the point is, if you focus on some people flourishing and ignore others, you're not very democratic, because you're not thinking about the whole. And Aristotle talked about this notion of moral luck a long time ago. He never uses it. It wasn't a title of a notion until Williams and other people talked about it. But for Aristotle was like, Look, I'm going to talk about ethics. I'm not talking about doing well and flourishing because ethics just means habits and character that leads towards doing well. And aerosol is like, you know, I It's great. But you know, there's sometimes things just happen to people that disallow them from doing well, no matter what, even if they tried to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They're just things against them. And it's more luck. So aerosol use an example of private premium, right? But you can you can see this anywhere in the world where some people in our country, talk about the United States. I just don't have the same opportunities, right. And the power relations are so bad, it doesn't allow people to flourish. Well, that's the fundamental, that notion of flourishing, and ethics. And doing well is the foundation of democratic thought, not just the system that's electing these people to go make these decisions. Right. So that's where I was going there. And then starting off, again, with understanding the basic relational structure of social existence, bringing in notions of moral luck, and then discussing a bit about this notion of democracy as a way of life. And I think in the future, you know, we think about, I think this is what you're doing, again, like that is empathic democracy as a way of life, because you're going out there and you're and DeRose approach as well, going out there and actually doing it. That's the real democracy to me. I see what Darryl did and what you did, you have done. And I see that as the real meat of democracy, right. It's that process of empowering, but it's also the process of bringing together. Right. And so I think so much of that is lost today. So hopefully, you know, I think like, if we're thinking about how to save democracy, we better start thinking about what it means. And we better start thinking about these different power relations and how people outside of a system of government can be can live democratically.
Yeah, at the core, it's listening, listening to others, and bringing people together to listen to each other is and that's what, that's what I see is, again, I always kind of bring it back to the empathy circle is something is a practice to can be done quickly, is if families were all doing empathy circles, in a democracy, it would be teaching that listening skills that inclusion, that sense of equality. And I've almost I've been thinking about some of these democracy movements, that if they were built on empathy, instead of, hey, we're just gonna go protest, we want democracy is like going on to the streets and actually doing empathy circles. And having dialogue and actually inviting the powers that be into a dialogue. I just see that what this what we're doing with empathy is sort of the core of maintaining democracy and spreading it. So yeah, absolutely.
What it is, is that, you know, in America especially, is too much of a focus on the individual and the individual wanting to express his or her own reality, and getting more power. I think that's gone, it goes a little bit astray. Understand that, and there's a need for that. But, you know, I think we have to have re envision, like what it means to be a person or an individual in society, and the relational nature of being an individual that we are connected. You know, what, when Walt Whitman was in New Orleans, he was, he was down there, and he was looking at this, the slaves that are on these blocks, and he's like, he had this crazy sense, he couldn't get over it. He's like, that could have been me. Why is mme, that person there, I could have been that person. Now, that is like a mystical sort of sense of like, your, your, your life is kind of accidental, you know, in terms of like how you just happened to be thrown into the universe just sort of happened. You didn't choose it. And there are certain things that happened. Sometimes people look back and they're laughing and look what I did as an individual and to make myself Great. Well, things happen in the world and and situations arise. And so I think that the future of democracy is also a future read, understanding the individual and the individuals role. And also relating that, you know, the individual is not really an individual, I don't even sense of individual outside of relation, right. Anything that I've had in success, I know other people have helped me, but also defense, like I am this person, if I could have been someone else, I could have been born, right, an orphan and it could have been something that just changed my life or could have been me in a different situation. So that's the point of like, having different sorts of perspectives. Of of that just because people are born into a certain way doesn't mean that they're stuck with anything, any sort of bad or good thing, but it's just a realization like Whitman had. And he said, that could have been me. Why am I me? And so that's, it's a very mystical breakthrough, I think and I think it's important for redefining and reshaping what it means to be a person or an individual on democracy. And a lot of that is, you know, strengthened with a feeling of real care and compassion, but also wonder, and about, about the nature of existence. And also, you a certain sort of sense of responsibility, right? Because the things that have gone for me haven't been gone well, for me or bad for me hasn't been all my doing. You know. And so that calls again, for us to participate right? In the empowerment of others, and also addressing abuses of power. That's mostly what is going on last chapter.
Yeah. So that, that awareness that you're talking about has been really big for me to just sort of that awareness of, hey, I could have been born here in this country and that, so? Yeah, so and then also the aspect, I think what you're talking about moving towards a relational empathy, kind of a view of empathy is really, I think there is a trend, you know, that that's sort of where the discussion is slowly moving from this individualistic definition of empathy, which is, I would say, the primary view right now, towards this awareness of, of the relationality. And you're kind of contributing to that movement to that awareness of the relationality of empathy.
That's great, it's great to hear that it's, it's other people were singing that song. And I hope again, like it could know that focus could lead to is like the goal, right, is to lead to some sort of awareness, a greater awareness, greater flourishing in the world. And that's always the hope. And, you know, it's like, if you lose the hope, you know, you know, how much I mean, this is a very mysterious is to be alive, you know, and it's, it's hard to live through this life, you know, with all of its troubles and all of its uncertainties. And I think a lot of those worries are left behind when people throw themselves into action, right for in these sorts of things like what you're doing the empathy circle, it allows for, it allows for the all that absurdity, the left behind, in favor of action towards reimagining oneself in the world, and also connecting in ways that are going to lead to flourishing. And I know, that's vague and a little bit abstract. But that is the case. You know, flourishing is fundamentally an Aristotelian concept is doing well, like you mentioned before. And I think if democracy is thought in that and this along these lines, then it would be we'd have a quite different society. I think that no focus on the individual is just ruined us, especially in 1920s 1930s. Like I mentioned last chapter, with this notion of to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you know, and it's called the myth of rugged individualism. It is a myth, it's a total myth. But so many people believe it, you know, they don't see like, when they have success, they don't see like, Wow, all these people contributed. No, it's me. I did it. Everybody else should, like I did. And I think that's a distortion of reality. But I don't know exactly how to awaken that. But
well, that part about empathy and democracy, Gloria Steinem has written and talked about that topic. And she's saying that, that dialogue groups, you know, small group dialogue groups are like the core of democracy. We she learned about it in India, where there are these community, women's groups, and then she started when she got into feminism, it was all about women's groups in small groups dialoguing about their issues. And she was just seeing that small group dialogues, you know, everyone kind of can kind of voice, you know, their views be heard by others was sort of the core of, of democracy. And, and again, I keep tying things back to the empathy circle, because that's what the empathy circle is. It's sort of a process for sort of supporting that those dialogues to happen in sort of a fair way where one person can't dominate, for example. Yeah, that's phenomenal. That's awesome. Well, okay. Wow, what a great discussion. I think, for a whole two hours, I asked you beforehand, hey, yeah, just holler if you can't get tired, because I can talk for hours on Yeah,
it's awesome for our folks for our next six hours.
Yeah, I think for our next I think there's we can go in deep on each of those for a whole two hours at each subject. So
now we come to the reading the audio section, well read the book.
And thank you
so much. It was a great conversation. I always appreciate always, I'm always learning from you every time we talk. And I wish you the best of the empathy circle because I know that that is the process and the greatest problem with it is this is how do you get people to do it? Because if they if they do it, they will come out different right? By participating And that's the biggest
thing. Yeah, it is. It's how to get people motivated and get people involved is the channel people get on? It's too much work for me or whatever. But I appreciate all the work you put into it. I mean, it's a lot of work, you know, creating this articulating this thing. It's a real contribution, you know, the different aspects that you laid out the histories of the terms. So appreciate all the work that you did and glad to follow up at any other point to to continue the dialogues. I think it's part of a ongoing dialogue here. How do we oh, yeah, they'll just ethics society.
Yes, definitely. Well, thank you so much for your work. Again, like I said, some of the things I figured out in the book were because of all the work you've done. So thank you for all of your contributions and help and I really enjoyed this and let's keep pushing forward. It's trying to make this happen. This try to make this vision become realized in the world. I think it can really do a lot of good
