Has Compassion Been Thrown in the Rubbish Bin?
Karen Armstrong, in ' Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life,' asks: 'can compassion heal the seemingly intractable problems of our time? Is this even feasible in the technological age?' She suggests that the idea has often been met with hostility in speaks of how positivist philosophers claimed that 'compassion is skin deep.'
In any consideration of compassion, we don't need to view it as opposed to self interest. I would suggest that meeting the needs of oneself and others go together, and that compassion for oneself is the starting point for wider compassion for others. As Chogyam Trungpa said in an anthology, 'Radical Compassion' (ed, J Lief, 2014):
"having made friends with yourself, you cannot contain that friendship within you; it must have some outlet, which is your relationship with the world. So compassion becomes a bridge to the world outside.'
Schopenhauer considered compassion as central to morality, but this is in contrast to pessimistic views of human nature. So, I am asking how relevant is for us to consider now? I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever.
In any consideration of compassion, we don't need to view it as opposed to self interest. I would suggest that meeting the needs of oneself and others go together, and that compassion for oneself is the starting point for wider compassion for others. As Chogyam Trungpa said in an anthology, 'Radical Compassion' (ed, J Lief, 2014):
"having made friends with yourself, you cannot contain that friendship within you; it must have some outlet, which is your relationship with the world. So compassion becomes a bridge to the world outside.'
Schopenhauer considered compassion as central to morality, but this is in contrast to pessimistic views of human nature. So, I am asking how relevant is for us to consider now? I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever.
Comments (80)
However one thinks about compassion, or however one comes to act compassionately, the critical part is to DO compassion. Dig a little: find out what needs exist in your community; find out about the severity of need; find out who is addressing the issues; find out what you--an individual--can effectively do.
I don't think it is at all difficult to identify bleeding, open wounds in the body politic. Really, one has to avoid information to not know what it is that people are suffering from.
In Matthew 25, Jesus states the terms of Judgement: 35 'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
These are examples not an exhaustive list, but any one of them is a good starting point.
Compassion takes practice -- not just to do well, but to develop the desire to be compassionate. Compassion needs to be planted and cultivated.
I can offer you the following quote from Judith Lief, in 'Radical Compassion',
'Compassion is based on empathy, being touched by the suffering of others. There are many levels of empathy Someone who is greatly compassionate is so touched by the suffering of others that it cuts him deeply.' In my own personal understanding empathy, involving feeling along with the person rather than looking down on them, is central. It involves being able to step inside the perspective of that person and connect with the experience. It could apply to the person who is homeless, abandoned by a lover, grieving after a death or a multitude of other different experiences.
You are quite right to point to the way in which compassion is central to the Gospels. I would say that both Jesus and the Buddha are ultimate examples of people who lived their lives based on compassion. Perhaps you are right to put the idea of compassion in the context of the Christian tradition, rather than in philosophy. But I do see it as independent of religious contexts because its importance is not based on any necessary belief in God or particular set of spiritual beliefs. I see it as a perspective which is central to life, for anyone, including atheists too, so that is why I frame it as a philosophy idea. When I say it has been thrown in the bin, I am probably referring to the way in which it is not given as much attention as it should in philosophy while it is an underlying basis of the emotional nature of moral values.
Out of the list you give I think that the one that springs to my mind is passion, but I don't wish to generalise. I am not saying that compassion has been thrown away, and perhaps many people, including philosophers do value it. It could be that in some philosophy circles it is discussed, or perhaps it seen as a rather boring topic. I just feel that it should be on the agenda because there is so much suffering in the world. It just doesn't seem to appear much in current discussions I have been reading, so I am wondering why it is being left out of the picture.
It can be independent of religious context, certainly. But there are far more people whose ethical direction comes from religious teaching than there are people who get ethical direction from philosophy, per se. Combining Bhuddist, Abrahamic, and Hindu totals around 75% of the world population.
Philosophy seems to be more suited for defining what a good society is like, than is religion (in my opinion). Religion may be better for motivating virtuous individual behavior than philosophy might be, but philosophy can (presumably) perform that task as well. The difference between the two is that religions fund teaching and philosophy as such does not. Pragmatists, Stoics, Epicureans, Existentialists, Nihilists et al are not offering regular instruction, as far as I know.
By the CCP and putin it has, yes.
The more human "being" descends into fragmentation at the expense of wholeness, compassion becomes less relevant.
"The whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all these living beings, which are all part of one another, and all involved in one another." Thomas Merton
Becoming enchanted with individual trees, our psych loses the conception of the value of the forest and our capacity to have compassion for the value of life itself.
The feeling of compassion and 50¢ will not get you a cup of coffee. It won't advance your admission into heaven, either. Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol) did not even feel compassion for the unfortunate. "Are there no prisons? Are the work houses full?" he snarled.
Enacting compassion is what is important. Actually doing something to assist those you recognize as victims of significant misfortune is what is important.
Do compassionate acts need to be affiliated with compassionate feelings? I say no. If you feed the hungry and house the homeless you have acted compassionately, even if it was done to improve your reputation. If good PR was your motivation, then you have received your reward, as Jesus put it. In the larger ethical tradition in which Jesus stood, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is still important--whatever the motivation. (Jesus being God had inside information about motivation; The rest of us should not worry about motivation. We should just ask whether the hungry were fed, or not.)
Some people are motivated to act compassionately because they do not want to go to hell. Some people worry about the purity of their motivation. They feel guilty if they feel pleasure in helping other people (See: No good deed goes unpunished).
Why should atheists act compassionately? For the same reason that believers should: Because they can imagine what suffering is, and can understand that if not saved by good fortune, it could be them lying in a ditch. It could be them starving. It could be them with metastatic cancer, etc.
We don't talk a lot about mercy or forgiveness either. We could, but we generally don't. Those topics are much more the province of religion. Maybe lots of philosophers are writing about mercy--I wouldn't know.
A lot of religion is a cluster of emotions and memories which add up to what the believer experiences internally. Some of it is sweet, some of it is bitter, some of it good stuff and some of it is baloney. All of this 'religious affect' is inside the head. It's one piece of religion.
Another part of religion is action -- enacting the commandments or principles, or teachings. Praying is an action. Eating the Eucharist is an action. Giving alms to the poor is an action. Shoveling the snow off the old people's walk next door is an action. They are both real -- the affective and the effective. Personally, I give an edge to the effective--the stuff that people DO. The comforts of religion are affective, but the works of mercy are effective. Never mind about faith vs. works -- that's another can of worms.
In my humble opinion, people are in the habit of looking for reasons to be anything and that includes to be compassionate and that, again in my humble opinion, is a dead end because there are just too many differences between humans, between humans and animals for there to be a strong enough foundation for universal compassion, the compassion of the kind recommended by religious and secular institutions. Thus, I suggest, we stop the futile search and simply be compassionate for no rhyme or reason.
I would agree that compassion should extend to all sentient beings and not just human beings, but yes, it is harder to find the same connection with animals, although I know some people who prefer animals to people.
I think that your part of the problem is how we allow cruelty to animals. I would say that the same applies to people. Even if we feel compassion, do we act on it? Having created this thread, I was thinking of this in the night. I would say that I do 'feel' compassion but don't always know what to do about it. In particular, I would say that I feel compassion for the homeless but don't know what to do to help them.
So, the question is whether if compassion is just a feeling and nothing more is does it count for anything? I would say that it is a level of awareness but ideally it should translate into action, and this is where the difficulty lies. I would say that it is an approach to life in general, but I am not sure whether this is enough.
I would agree that we are becoming fragmented and perhaps this does create a problem for becoming compassionate. I know that the more broken apart I am feeling, the less able I am to feel compassion towards others. That is where healing oneself first comes in because that and compassion are like twins, or the yin and the yang, and both need working upon.
I can see that your point about how compassion can be seen as a rather fuzzy, abstract concept. Of course, other ones such as justice, equality and even beauty are also abstract. Are they measurable at all? Perhaps none of these should be considered within philosophy because they are abstract. Of course, to some extent philosophy is dealing with the abstract because it is not just about facts.
I remember reading a book at some point by Paul Gilbert, 'The Compassionate Mind', which was concerned with psychological techniques for enabling compassion. Perhaps compassion fits more comfortably in the field of psychology and it is about a mindset rather than anything else.
However, when people use the term they often mean much more than this. In particular, in health care, there is a whole emphasis upon delivering compassionate care, and when I have worked in mental healthcare, I don't remember anyone actually querying what does compassion mean? I think that it is easier to point to lack of compassion than the presence of it. Here, I would say that if a person is admitted to hospital, say for an operation, they have some expectation that staff will treat them well and act in their best interest. However, if they did not feel that they were listened to it would be easy to say that the staff lacked compassion.
So, I can see why it is not a key focus because it is not measurable, but at the same time, compassion is a concept used in everyday life, which is more philosophical than anything else. I don't think that it should be relegated to religious thinking because it is about human living and not dependent upon religious or spiritual beliefs. Personally, I do see it as a way of seeing more than anything but it is one which has big implications for human behaviour towards others and animals. I do believe that the translation of compassion into practice is complex, but I would say that the same is true for other ideas, such as equality. It may be that others have a different understanding of compassion. My question of whether the idea has been thrown into the rubbish bin is related to the way in which I feel that compassion needs attention. But, this is bound up with the question of what is compassion? So, I am interested to know how others perceive the idea, and what others think that this entails.
I think Schopenhauer is pretty consistent here. Consider for example the Karma theory; if everyone gets what they deserved then there is no evil because there would be evil only if people suffer unjustly. However if there is no injustice then to explain what is the karma theory invoked? It amounts to a blatant denial of evil or the irrational in the world; it does not explain why there is evil in the world. Mind you the question is not about suffering but evil (or tragedy) - people getting what they do not deserve. If there is no evil then there is no point in being compassionate and having sympathy for another but if you are sympathetic then you accept the existence of the tragic. If there is no wound, there is no healing. But instead we try to rationalize away evil in order to retain belief in a rational and moral world, that whatever happens, happens for good, that whatever is, is right and people always get what they deserve.
All actions loose their moral worth if they are based on the denial of tragic and hence the existence of the tragic makes morality possible. Even when it comes to dealing with a personal tragedy covering up the exterior is of no help if the inner wound is not treated or ignored. That only increases suffering because the pain is not understood and its removal is not effected. Suppression and control offers no solution in this regard. What is needed is understanding and what is needed for understanding is compassion. Morality too is concerned with the inner spirit of the action and hence its locus is not within social rules and regulations; but then for social morality its the external that matters.
The best attitude towards someone else’s suffering and towards one’s own is to develop empathy and understanding towards it. Even if someone else’s suffering is due to their own mistakes even then one should realize that human beings are fallible and everyone makes some mistake at some point of time or other. This way one can also be more forgiving towards one’s own mistakes. The world would be a better place if people who suffer less can understand and share the suffering of someone less fortunate than themselves. I also feel we are quick to give moral lessons and instructions to those suffering. A good word is always helpful but to listen is a great merit. Sometimes people just want someone else to listen and just listen and do nothing else. It is a great quality to be able to listen to someone else. Again that way one also is able to open oneself to oneself and can better understand oneself and alleviate one’s own suffering. This I believe is morally and practically the best way.
I see your point about the 6 bind men, but, of course, you could say that this applies to many threads. Do all the other threads go beyond abstract ideas and feelings? When we start threads do we need clear goals? I create work for myself when I write threads but I do think that worthwhile discussion does take place.
But I like the poem and I do believe that creative writing takes us into places beyond philosophy. Also, perhaps philosophy is full of jumbled. When I tire of my new hobby of creating philosophy threads I would really like to write a novel, but, in the meantime, I do believe that the topic of compassion is as worthy of discussion as many others.
I would say that compassion needs to go beyond the idea of karma for it to be genuine. If someone is only responding and seeking to help another with a view to some future reward, in this life or another one, that is purely self reward. If responding to the suffering of another is done with a more generalised understanding of the way in which we are part of the cosmos, acting in line with the flow of cause and effect, it is slightly different because it is about wishing to contribute in the grand scheme of things which may have repercussions for us personally, it is a little different because it is not such a direct focus upon giving support to others with a view to positive gain. In other words, the principle that you reap what you sow is more in the background rather than in the front, for a specific personal reward.
I do believe that the tragic is part of the spur in the ability to enter into the spirit of compassion. The awareness of physical, emotional and mental pain is a key aspect. We could say that empathy needs to be based on a certain amount of experience of suffering of some kind. How can we be moved by the pain of another if we have no experience of pain. It would be empty rhetoric. But, of course it does not mean that we would necessarily disclose our experiences of suffering to the person who we meet in our empathy. That would only burden the other with our personal pain. But, experience of pain and tragedy is probably central to being able to reach out to another who is suffering.
I do believe that listening and understanding are central towards empathy and compassion. This is recognised in most schools of thought within counselling. Listening is so much more important than advice. I would say that we have so many people who like giving advice. Many people like to perceive what a person in a given situation should do and this is through inability to step into the world of the other. When we are listening to the person who is suffering, in the spirit of compassion, it may be about listening and not just trying to formulate specific answers. The person who is suffering may need the psychological space, to view and reflect. In being compassionate, we may need to stand back and enter into the suffering of the other to enable someone to find their own way forward.
You may appreciate how Jacob Needleman described an experiment pertaining to listening. Is listening the beginning of morality? If it is, then compassion is impossible without the ability to listen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0
I have just played the video, thanks. Strangely, only a couple of weeks ago I wrote a thread about how people are determined to be right and your video seems to be suggesting the importance of listening to others views.
I believe that listening to others is of supreme importance and it is central to compassionate because this involves being moved to step into the predicament of another. We may not be able to know what the person we encounter should do but listening may be the one thing which we can do. I would say that listening is an essential skill for living and it may be one that is undervalued within philosophy.
I'm a great admirer of Simone Weil. Listening seems to be as difficult as it is necessary She wrote.
[i]“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil
"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him." ~ Simone weil[/i]
Sometimes it does feel difficult to give another the full attention of listening, without attention when really it is probably easier than trying to come up with the right thing to say. It may be that we are so accustomed to speaking, almost like an automatic response and it involves slowing down, reflectively.
I have never read any writing by Simone Weii but I would like to.
Simone can have an effect on a person. When Julia Haslett was living in depressing times she discovred Simone and it saved her life. She wrote a documentary trying to understand it.
Simone cannot be classified. she was seeker of truth who had the mind of scientist and the heart of mystic. She couldn't be put into a collective. She is a woman who embarrasses me as a man. I do not have her total dedication to truth which is what a real man has. This is the trailor to Julia's documentary. She raises the whole question of attention. How does a seeker of truth respond to the question of attention? It is both philosophical and religious question a person can come to when they tire of arguing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw
I watched the trailer and I do think that Weil's idea of being the witness of someone's pain is of supreme importance. This can also be seen as connected to the experience of personal pain. Christopher Gerber, in, 'The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion', stressed that ' Instead of greeting difficult emotions by fighting hard against them, we can bear witness to our own pain and respond with kindness and understanding.' I believe that this is about not beating ourselves up, or feeling guilty for our negative emotions but being mindful, observing the emotions rather than fighting them.
Perhaps when we need to witness the darkest emotions, including despair which Kierkergaard spoke of as, 'Sickness Unto Death,' which he defines: 'Despair at Not Being Conscious of Having a Self ( Despair Improperly So Called); in Despair at Not Willing to Be Oneself; in Despair at Willing to Be Oneself.' When I have been working in mental health care, with suicidal and despairing individuals, I found that connection to my own innermost feelings of despair was important. Of course, I did not explain this to them, but when I was engaging with them I believe that they were aware of genuine empathy, spoken or unspoken, and appreciated this, rather than only exploring the changes which could be made in life to make it better.
So, compassion may be about being able to enter into the spirit of another's suffering rather than just attempting to fix it. Of course, compassion involves elimination of cruelty and oppression in the world, but at a deeper level it is about being able to help others to bear the weight of suffering, through being willing to share and partake in the experience of another person. This would involve the whole spectrum of emotions, including the positive and negative ones.
I believe the Buddhists got it right when they suggested that compassion and wisdom are intimately intertwined.
Without wisdom (the ability to see with clarity), compassion cannot properly manifest (instead replaced by feelings of sorrow). Feeling sorry so someone is about ourselves and does not aid (and many times hinders) the person we are trying to help.
...the manifestation of that wisdom.
I think we have plenty compassion going around. There is no shortage of people publicly signalling their compassion about this or that group. But compassion, as a feeling, is nothing if it isn’t followed by good deeds.
The key to everything in life is clarity (seeing things for what they really are).
I do think that compassion needs to lead to deeds of kindness. Even though I may have emphasised how it is about witnessing the pain of others, I would not wish to suggest that it ends there. In thinking about that, I have been focusing more upon emotional pain, and probably the reason I have done so is because my own background is mental health care.
However, I am not suggesting that compassion is just about that. It involves all dimensions of life, including responding to the physical pain of humans and animals, as well as poverty and starvation, homelessness and areas of need. I think that the problem is partly that there is a danger of telling people what they should do and that it needs to come from the heart. One complexity here is when people help others from a sense of guilt. Obviously, the fact of people being helped is still reached, but where I would suggest that the 'feeling' is important is that it is more genuine and should be on a deeper level.I do believe that empathetic understanding is central to all true compassion.
I do believe that there is a clear link between wisdom and compassion.
I also think agree that wisdom is about 'seeing clearly.'
So, we could say that compassion is a whole way of perceiving need correctly. The vision of needs is perhaps central and is one which goes beyond superficialities and identifies the root concerns, such as poverty, or emotional suffering. These form the basis for action but the perceptual vision is the foundation for all else. Perhaps, we could say that it is more than a feeling, and more a feeling toned evaluation of suffering and need.
Compassion really isn't about feelings or need (although it can be). It's about clarity that brings about wisdom that tells one what (if anything) is needed. Most times, people just need to talk it out and thereby solve the issue themselves. Allowing this process to play-out is true compassion as it avoids creating/sustaining the cycle of unrelenting dependency.
I would agree that clarity and determination of action, where necessary, are central in the outcome for compassion. This is based on reason. However, what I would add is that there has to be an emotional element to motivate the concern in the first place. For example, if someone sees a queue beside a food bank while shopping. In order to make the connection that these people needing to have food provided, there needs to be an emotional connection with the suffering. Similarly, say that someone has sat down for the evening, and a friend phones, saying how low in mood, it has to be the emotions which spur the person to, perhaps, spend an hour on the phone. I don't believe that it is simply based on the belief that it is the right thing to do.
I think it is a mistake if people get into the emotional side of compassion in a gushy sense. That would be mere sentimentality and probably not very helpful. But I do believe that there needs to be an emotional connection for compassion. I would argue that is probably what is lacking when people act in the complete opposite of compassion, such as in the case of cruelty towards another. It is the lack of empathy which leads the person to act in a hurtful or malicious way.
Emotion is about self and only serves to confuse interests. Compassion is only about other. It is clarity that will guide you, not emotion (which tends towards projection).
I think that it is a mistake to divide care for self and for others into two separate categories, because they are interrelated. The ideas of the sociobiology of Edward O Wilson have influenced the way in which I see this. He sees us starting from the self and family, into an increasingly circle of others in our altruistic concern.
I believe it hasn't been thrown away. But compassion is often done in silence -- not broadcasted. It also very often, if not always, starts on a personal (individual) level.
The anti-dote for compassion is abuse or others taking advantage of this notion to get what they want. Sometimes, you hear someone utters "I feel used" or taken for a ride.
I don't understand why philosophy is mentioned here as something to criticize.
To me, compassion is a virtue. It is a feeling, quality, or a kind of state of mind. As others have mentioned, I believe compassion is synonymous with the expression of empathy. Although, that may not be the only conception of compassion.
Whether or not compassion by itself can bring about tangible remedies to suffering without action to back it up is in question. NOS4A2 sums it up well:
Quoting NOS4A2
A less extreme version of the point indicated by the quote is well-taken on my end. Feelings by themselves do not solve the "seemingly intractable problems of our times". Those may be too large-scale to solve without collective action.
Yet, I do not think compassion is worth "nothing" without good deeds to follow it. I think good intentions normally (but certainly not always) are prior to good action. If compassion is in the philosophical trash bin as you worry, then I do not think it deserves to be there. After all, since compassion can motivate someone to palliate the suffering of another, then compassion is a harbinger of goodness in the world in at least a minimal sense. But as NOS4A2 brought up, someone who feels empathy may nevertheless not act upon that feeling, often because they do not have the means to do so effectively. In cases like that, while compassion may be helpful ( and perhaps necessary) to develop the kinds of human beings who wish to alleviate suffering, compassion alone may not be enough to solve the "world's problems". Perhaps all that is why compassion might appear rather underrated in philosophical communities.
On another level, what exactly the "intractable" problems in need of solving are seems up for debate. Such problems do not seem delineated in the original post. Yet this is an important clarification to make: what counts as "goodness" or a "problem" in the contexts of actions and people might be totally relative to your audience.
In my opinion, in the final analysis, the solution to the intractable problems of our times, whatever they are, must take place due to tangible, noticeable, and positive change in rules and institutional structures. That is a feat achieved by - but not only by - a change of heart.
I would agree that compassion may happen quietly rather than be broadcast around. I am not really criticising philosophy or any philosophers but just think that the idea of compassion may not be getting the attention it deserves. I just wished to raise the whole idea for consideration. What appears to be emerging is some conflict as to whether it more of a feeling based attitude or a basis for addressing, or action.
I actually thought that the debate would be more about whether people are actually able to rise beyond self interest. But, so far no one has challenged that but just queried the whole question of whether it is just a feeling. However, I do see that the whole issue of compassion is more one which is perhaps acted upon on more of a personal level.
I think that you make some very good points. It is highly likely that compassion is not enough to solve the world's problems and I see it more as a starting point. Perhaps that is why it is not discussed that much in philosophy communities, although when I did do a web search it does seem that this has been explored more from writing based on Eastern philosophy.Even Shopenhauer was influenced by Eastern thought.
Apart from compassion focused actions, it could be that what we need is philosophers who write from a compassionate point of view. This would involve a complex blend of emotion and reasoning in developing ideas, but I am not suggesting that this is not happening at all. Many recent books which I see do seem to go beyond the dry logic of much of the academic philosophy tradition of the last century, so perhaps it will be the direction forwards.I am not saying that the matter of compassion is just a dichotomy between feeling or reasoning but a whole approach of genuine concern, or to go back to the idea @Nikolas mentioned to me, from Simone Weil, of being witnesses to another's pain. Perhaps writing which comes from that perspective will embody the idea of compassion in a true philosophical way.
Ps. I edited this after writing it because I felt it was not finished.
Talks of compassion is not one for debate. As the replies here show and perhaps in your own personal experiences prove. No one argues against compassion -- but compassion, first and foremost, arises out of empathy -- so feelings here is important. If you could expand your understanding of action to go with compassion, you must include not doing something, in some cases. Not giving up, not performing harmful acts, not changing anything in the current situation because the current situation works., etc.
If could please explain how self-interest go against compassion, that would be helpful.
I actually think that compassion is not something which we can achieve easily because it is often hard enough to help ourselves, let alone others. I started the discussion because I thought that it is an esteemed principle, but not simple to translate it into practice. Personally, I do not see it as being opposed to self interest, because if we cannot even serve our own interests we cannot even begin to meet those of other people. I am not attacking ethical egoism, but wishing to see fulfilling one's own desires to be superseded by that of reaching out to others to offer whatever support we can. However, I do believe that it is not simple to achieve in practice because we can get stuck in the rut of focusing on our own goals and desires.
As far as giving things up, surely this would only be about giving up that which involves harming others. It may involve more cooperation and sharing but certainly not just ideas about self sacrifice. I would not recommend the striving for compassion for the sake of feeling righteous, because that is not genuine compassion at all. I am speaking about the need for understanding of suffering and responding through responsible actions.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Does the usefulness of compassion consist in “giving up that which involves harming others”, as you suggest? Or am I misunderstanding what “this” is referring to?
If you mean that compassion entails the prevention of harm, are you referring to harm of all kinds? If compassion, to you, is linked to empathy and a desire to palliate the suffering felt by human beings and/or animals (it might not be, correct me if I’m wrong), do you think all harm is unjust and so should not be tolerated by compassionate beings?
One might argue that wrongdoers do not deserve compassion, but justice. Might those people deserve the pain they experience and might compassion not apply to them? Is anybody unworthy of compassion to you? Or should all people be entitled to the freedom from pain? So who deserves compassion is a question to answer.
On top of that, harm is often warranted (indeed, sometimes necessary) to mitigate social ills. Perhaps ironically, the kind of effective and large-scale action that can solve the social ills of the world, those driven by compassion, may only be effective by way of coercion and force, things which do often cause harm and suffering in their wake. As it so happens, though not always, to cure social ills (a useful way to act on one’s compassion) requires causing harm. To defeat the forces of evil that bring forth the pain caused by social ills, a feat often motivated by compassion and no shortage of bravery, may nevertheless require much suffering on the behalf of wrongdoers. Compassion may not be synonymous with “giving up that which harms others” if social change for the better cannot happen without suffering and some kind of loss.
I hope you will address these questions, as they go a ways to determining how effective compassion is as a means to improve the world.
Empathy is what prevents indifference, the root cause of virtually all suffering man will ever face.
The questions which you raise are useful for thinking about effective compassion, or we could say going beyond it as a feeling to the nitty gritty of life. What you are really looking at is where there are conflicts of interest.
One example, would be the whole idea of 'just' war, where people take action to fight against injustice. An obvious that would be how people actively fought against the Nazi's in Germany out of compassion for the those suffering the atrocities in concentration camps. Many movements, including the whole anti-apartheid movement and animal rights are fueled by compassion and prevention of harm.
Even the complexities of the current pandemic are about compassion concerns and the competing harms which need to be addressed. There is compassionate concern to prevent the vulnerable people from getting extremely ill or dying and it is with this ending of harm that the extreme sanctions are being placed on everyone. However, this is not without problems because many people are experiencing extreme harm by the long periods of lockdown restrictions. Here, we are talking about extreme poverty, homelessness, many people not having routine health checks, in addition to an extreme rise in serious mental health problems. So, here we can see that compassionate concern to stop the harm of the virus is creating a whole load of other problems for large numbers of the population and this also needs to be addressed with compassion. Concern for one side of prevention of harm has to see it in the widest way here rather than a narrow one, because we are talking about competing harms.
This is probably where the philosophy of compassion comes in because we all probably have our own sympathies, in the concerns we have and this needs to be looked at as an ethical framework rather than just about empathy. In particular, we may feel the most compassionate for our family and friends. However, if we just fight for the concerns of our loved ones this can be to the exclusion of the needs of those outside of our immediate concern. It may be easier to see and respond to the need to protect an elderly relative rather than the needs of strangers who are living as homeless on the streets. It is at this wider level of prevention of harm that empathy requires consideration of more universal and objective measures.
I would agree that,for some, compassion is 'self appeasement' and that is why the topic needs philosophical discussion. I think that indifferent is a problem that is real in many aspects of human life today and does need to be faced. I would say that many people simply follow rules and regulations and do close their eyes to many injustices, especially homelessness.
What's odd and equally if not more lamentable is that Christianity is a relatively newer religion than either Buddhism and Jainism but Jesus failed to recognize animals as, at the very least, deserving of some moral consideration. Nevertheless, it's possible that animals could be, as Descartes believed, simply automatons although that would be astonishing if true but then there's Solipsism to contend with.
It is hard to know what Jesus would have thought about animals and compassion. I cannot see why animals should be excluded from the picture. I didn't know that Descartes saw them as empty autonoms. Of course, they are different from humans but Descartes' picture seems a bit limited.
What I have noticed when I did a Google search on the philosophy of compassion, it does seem that the idea has been looked at more from an Eastern perspective. Perhaps this is connected to the way in which Western civilisation and Christianity has been more inclined to the idea of the battle between good and evil and the whole dominance of control of nature, in general. I believe that this is more about the way Christianity developed rather than the actual teachings of Christ, because I see a lot of overlap between his whole approach to life and that of the Buddha.
I think that knowing the ideas of the original teachings goes beyond translations of texts. It is also about looking at what became included in accepted teachings. In thinking of Christianity there was so much tension in the early Church, especially with the whole wish to suppress Gnostic thought. So, it is also about what got included in The New Testament and what got excluded. I have briefly looked at some of the Gnostic gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hamadi, and my thoughts when I read them was how they seemed more consistent with Eastern thought.
Is it recyclable?
Yes, compassion is recyclable if you wash it thoroughly and remember to put it in an orange back and tie it up properly. Perhaps the part that will be useful is if you chop off the initial prefix and keep 'passion' as something which can be used to keep us going when life and all the philosophies seem to lead us to a flat picture of everything.
Maybe you could get a compass out of it for your great sailing adventures.
Remember, Schopenhauer was a determinist. He saw compassion as springing naturally when you realize the sinner was bound to sin.
Even though we are talking in jest, you have made a valid point in raising the idea of determinism in connection with compassion. That is to what extent does our biological nature program us towards compassion or against it, and the whole role is nurture in cultivating it.
I remember writing an essay question in sixth form: Are criminals born or made? I remember one aspect which I found in research was some evidence that men born with XYY chromosomes are more likely to commit crimes and end up in prisons. Here, the idea seems as if the extra Y chromosomes would give an additional tendency to aggression. I am not sure that compassion is simply about absence of aggression but it could be part of it. I know that many people believe that women are more nurturing than men and this could involve the whole role of biology and hormones. Of course, I am not wishing to perpetuate stereotypes and I am sure that men can be caring and compassionate. I am sure that history provides many examples of compassionate men, such as Ghandi.
Perhaps the way we are taught to a act plays an important role. Families which value compassion probably try to encourage this. I am sure that cultural valuing of compassion is important and perhaps the recent notion of the importance of 'emotional intelligence' is also one which helps cultivate it too.
You might enjoy The Reign of Wolf 21
Please explain further.
Compassion can take on any face.
You can't have compassion for yourself?
I agree that sometimes people confuse emotionality with compassion because compassion is more than emotions. However, I am not sure at all about the way you divide emotion as being all about self and compassion as all about other. Okay, in some ways we can be restricted by virtue of emotion realm experience and perspective of the self, but I would say that our approach to others is connected to that towards others. The link is that our feelings towards others' needs stems from our understanding of our own individual ones.
I don't know. Is masturbation having sex with yourself?
Sort of.
And that's exactly the problem. We are projecting our stuff instead of seeing what they need (as each individual/situation is unique).
Compassion is doing just this. Applying this to self would be like having a self and other in the mix. Seems unnecessary. Doing the appropriate thing is just doing the appropriate thing. Need more be said?
Perhaps any genuine understanding of others needs to overcome this projection of self onto others. I have experienced so much of this projection from others and it can be extremely toxic. People always seem to be giving advice and I think that I am allergic to advice It is always based on others' own experiences and ignores the whole way in which we are unique individuals.
I have done some training in counselling and the basic principle of most forms of counselling is the need to listen and not give advice. This makes sense to me, but I know that some people are put off counselling because the counsellor or therapist doesn't offer solutions. Personally, I see it as far more problematic if some one tries to guide another too directly because it is not possible to step inside another's own personal perspective truly.
I would say that understanding of others needs to overcome the attempt to know what the other needs entirely, and keep an open mind, allowing for unique individuality.
Let's call that Compassion A. It has to do with awareness and doing the right thing relative to correctly perceived issues.
This is not the Dalai Lama's mode of compassion. He tells a story about passing a lame child who seemed to be orphaned and alone. He felt compassion, but he did nothing for the kid. He didn't even stop to say, ”Hey, keep your chin up ya loser!". Instead he comments that having compassion helped him cope with a gastric issue he was having. No, really. It's in his book.
The Dalai Lama is supposed to be some sort of manifestation of the god of compassion or some such. Let's call it Compassion D.
Schopenhauer's compassion, call it Compassion S is particularly meaningful to me because it doesn't show up so much regarding people you like, but with reference to monsters and devils. Sinners. Compassion S is in that saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". This is the the type of compassion that judgmental assholes avoid, because they would have to put their judgements aside and stop being so freaking sadistic for a minute. Not that I have any strong feelings about sadistic assholes (I do).
The idea of awareness is that the person is going to tell you what they need (even though they cannot see it themselves).
As well, I believe the only thing you can tell somebody is that they need to figure it out themselves (because they are the only one who actually knows their stuff). The skill then becomes how to get that message across.
That wasn't very compassionate of you.
Just kidding
It was quite interesting to read some of the thoughts of the Dalai Lama on the subject because I haven't read any of his writings, and I don't know why really.
What you said about Schopenhauer and sinners led me to think of how I learned of compassion initially in the context of being brought up as a Catholic. It involved going to regular confessions of sins. It used to be quite scary going into a little confession box and speaking to a priest, who was hidden behind a curtain. I was introduced to this practice at age 7 and even though it used to make me feel anxious, there was always the relief of having been absolved of sin, or forgiven.
The whole emphasis in Catholicism was upon being forgiven and of forgiving others, and I think this did involve a whole sense of compassion towards others, a sense of non-judgementalness towards fellow sinners. Of course, I am not saying that all the Catholics I met were non judgemental. Far from it, and I found the Catholic teachings gave me a lot of conflict. However, I was taught a basis of compassion, especially in the idea of Jesus being compassionate towards prostitutes and other sinners.
Yep. Treat others as you want to be treated.
To explore if compassion has been "thrown in the rubbish bin" we would need to know the most presumed definition of compassion.
Compassion I always presumed to be an innate reaction to protect those or that we love selflessly.
For example to your child you would compassionate.
As for in this society, financial aspects and the lure of wealth and 'getting up the ranks' in society seems to have overcast the basic human reactions. In an More Economically developed country i would say compassion as taken a backseat as more focus is expressed in materialistic desires.
Whereas in poorer countries they do say a village raises a child. Whilst this is not accurate in all less economically developed places due to the current wars and civil wars, in places untouched by corruption and wealth. compassion is much easier found.
I began this thread from the starting point of how compassion has taken a backseat in Western materialistic society, and in Western philosophy. I do believe that different writers have used the term differently. During this thread the whole tension in the use of the term has been whether it is about empathy or a focus for acting and I would say that it is a mixture of both. It could be described as a way of valuing and was more predominant in traditional societies and it was more central within Eastern thinking, and it may have been driven out of focus in Western thought amidst a focus upon rationality and technological progress.