FYI, I flip between a few perspectives in the span of this video. I suggest leaving a comment of disagreement or affirmation only after watching the whole thing (it might end up obvious if you haven’t). I will read all of the comments (as always). If I don’t respond with an extensive reply, that has to do with time, not a matter of the quality of what you write. I sometimes get inundated with exceptional comments and it’s tough to keep up (though they are always appreciated).
Hi Rubin, As readers, we exercise our empathy, and this exercise affects our relationships beyond reading. Reading about difficult characters enables me to deal with difficult people, so I see great utility in your reflections on developing some greater awareness of all kinds of people. As you described, family influences are impactful, and as an older adult, I still struggle to identify signals from family members. Keep up the great reading and discussions.
This is wonderful, you've packed so much into this that I'll probably have to watch it a few times to grasp it all. These are the kinds of questions that people have been asking since language came into being, and there aren't any simple answers. You've given me a lot to think about here, definitely. I've written and rewritten this comment, but nothing I've written seems to do these questions justice, so all I can say is thanks for another spectacular video. It's certainly given my mind a good workout.
This gentleman here has some of the most interesting and innovative themes for videos, while providing several thought provoking insights. Very unusual for TH-cam, very unusual, indeed. Keep up the good work, sir!
You are offering something on your channel that can be found nowhere else, and that alone is worth commending. Your authenticity is apparent and your endless curiosity about the world makes your videos so compelling . They cut through the crap that’s so abundant on BookTube, and on TH-cam generally. Not that there aren’t some great BookTubers out there, but they’re certainly in the minority, it seems.
Love seeing your exploratory process as you develop these complex thoughts throughout the video. So much to think about here that resonated with me. I too feel a lot of empathy for the "bad guys" of history and literature in a way that sometimes feels a bit messed up, although I prefer to think reflects a maturity in understanding that anyone can become a bad guy under the right (wrong?) circumstances. In particular, this brings to mind some of what I was feeling while considering the final chapters of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," the chapters about the Reich's decline. Naturally it's the traditional victims who I feel most sorry for in terms of their experiences and outcomes. Still, I can't help but feel pity for anyone whose worldview is so distorted, who's never had the opportunity to see things from different perspectives, so that they end up doing what many of us just view as lousy and downright cruel deeds, while sincerely believing this is the best course of action for them (such as the Nazi propagandist, Goebbels, whose final act, after all the other horrible crimes he's already committed or instigated, was to poison his seven children to spare them the disgrace of having to occupy a "fallen" Germany). You pose a good question though of whether it is worth our limited energy to empathize with such people. Without thinking too deeply about it, I'd have to go with yes, maybe because I just don't feel I'm qualified to judge who is or isn't worthy of empathy.
Works like The Rise and Fall are precisely the sort to inspire these thoughts in me. To avid believers-no matter how incorrect-their beliefs often feel fundamentally true to the point of death. It makes me think critically about my own beliefs, wondering about what I take for granted, to avoid aimless harms born of naive reasoning. In that sense, learning becomes a moral act, an avoidance of the dangers of one's potential ignorance. Your final point about judgments-on deciding who or who not to empathize with-is an important one: once we slip into disregarding empathy for some for the sake of others, we slip into our own biases (and all the shortcomings of sight therein). Even if we could judge rightly at the start, the ease of such judgment would seemingly condemn us to falling back on the whims of easy sympathy, and all those less-sympathetically-tinged become flattened labels for our eyes to gloss over. A tough challenge, this question. Thank you so much for watching and engaging seriously.
Loved your discussion! I wrote this whole comment at the halfway mark of your video, only to find we said the same thing, but here it is anyway: empathy is a wonderful aspect of reading, but it also needs to be said that most people read what they relate to, therefore a conservative or religious person may never read about LGBTQ struggles, or a white person may never read about a black person's struggles. When it comes to empathy, I think that is where the real value lies: reading outside our comfort zones. Which means that if you are a good person, you may emphasise with the bad because the good already have your sympathy. You can't prescribe everyone's reading journey though, and it is like life: people will only ever be as open/kind/compassionate/understanding as they choose to be and reading can only grow that of which the seed is already there. When it comes to the bad people though, I think the value is not in empathising with them, but in understanding how their environment got them there, how society shapes us, and what potential part all of us have to play in the creation of the bad things that happen. That's how I see those stories: how do we, as a society and as individuals avoid creating this again. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions, but also yes, we can change society and root causes to stop bad things from happening again. Only if we face them though. This is a much longer discussion, but the real value in reading IMO is not so much the empathy or sympathy we learn to have, but the understanding that everyone we meet comes to us from life with events stacked behind them - some long ago and some recent - and inner processes that we can never fully comprehend, just like no one can fully comprehend ours. So, can we understand that there is the potential for any one of us to have been any other person; can we understand that we have the potential to change the world with small ripples and even if we aren't aware of those ripples; can we understand that when we feel unacknowledged or misunderstood it is most often not malice but other people seeing the world from their own experiences and understanding? This should not become a way to bypass or avoid responsibility, actions or emotions, but it can soften our extreme knee-jerk reactions and give us more inner reflection about the stories we spin for ourselves, the people we meet, and the world at large. As a PS: I was asked once why I feel sorry for people with life sentences in prison when they did such horrible things. My answer was that I feel sorry for a life wasted; for a life where no one cares if you live or die and you aren't able to contribute to your loved ones or even the world (yes you can, and yes people are more complicated than the one action that lands then in jail, but also not); a life that becomes a traumatic struggle every day and where nothing will ever be soft again. And the difference is that most people will say they deserve it, while I look at the cycle that gets people there, think we can find better ways that don't waste life, and wonder what parts of yourself you must lock away in order to deal with what you did and where you ended up.
This is fantastic! Yes, we overlap in direction, but I find your phrasing and examples to be immensely clear and helpful beyond my own choice of words. Thank you for watching and taking the time to write this. You're always such a great commenter! 🙂
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that is such a compliment, thank you! I tend to comment less often because I am not a succinct person and these days no one wants to read lengthy paragraphs anymore...
@@talking_to_trees I've been trying to comment less often for precisely the same reason. Many have become used to a flippancy online, but I'm not. Unfortunately, there's now issues of time which have curtailed my commenting and replies, but I can't help but feel rude without saying something. Your comments are always appreciated! Long or short. And there's no pressure to comment unless you have something you're excited to say. Either way, I can't help but remember you because you're one of the best commenters!
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that I understand and it is likely that your channel may one day become to big for you to answer everyone. That is what happens to most channels. No matter how much the host says they love hearing from their tribe, there comes a point where I can see they are too big to really do it because everyone has limits. It is the paradox of online communities...
I think empathy is as individual as anything else. You refer to it as a disposition and I think that is a good way of describing it. We develop empathy over time and as a result of our individual experiences so we will all have differing levels of empathy and empathize differently. And that’s a good thing. Uniform empathy -an agreement on who deserved empathy and who didn’t and how much empathy each kind of person deserved - wouldn’t be empathy at all. That you might feel more empathy for the person who does terrible things than I is a good thing because it means that there are at least some of us to feel empathy for almost every individual. The limits of my own empathy are those who harm people I love (zero empathy) and those who have power and use it to harm multitudes (very little empathy).
Thank you, Brian, this is such a necessary point: diversity in this outlook is a gift. Each of us can contribute through our own perceptions and priorities, some prioritizing the practical, others the care, others the philosophizing-that is perhaps the essential gift of various perspectives in a society: we can organize attention based on our needs and dispositions, and that is okay for us to have differences in that regard, so long as those differences don't impose or overly neglect. I read what you write and find myself wishing I had made that point myself, but thank you for contributing it to the comments. This is really helpful (and just genuinely thoughtful on your part).
Deeply appreciate this, and relate on some levels. Something for consideration that I think pertains: By empathizing with the narcissistic psychopathic person/ character (whether overt, covert, toxic, malignant…..), you can only be harmed, hurt, abused, lied to, humiliated, dismissed, demeaned, manipulated, bullied, robbed……. Until your self-worth is in tatters and so much of your life is in ruins. Especially if it’s a family member. The only solution is to run as far as possible……. No contact. Start afresh…….. it takes time and patience with yourself. Miss Jenny
I think some people confuse empathy and sympathy. You can try to get inside the mind of someone bad, try to work out their motivations and why they do the things they do. You don't have to like or agree with them, but it can be worth it. Although I'm not drawn to badness (I don't even read crime fiction for example, and I find the obsession some people have with true crime repulsive), to reject empahy for wrong-doers (or at least those who society has deemed wrong-doers) completely seems unhelpful at best.
Hello Rubin. I don't have a story about empathy and books, but I do have a real-life story about transformative empathy. I had a Christian upbringing and some churches we attended had tendencies to be judgmental towards people in certain circumstances. I learned to put those harmful ideas aside when I met a young, homeless heroin addict named Jonathan. Some of my friends didn't think it was a good idea to help him. They said you can't change him. Nothing good will come of this. Where they saw trouble, I saw an eager young man with big problems who most needed shelter, food and a friend. I bought him a hot chocolate with marshmallows on Christmas Eve. Long story short: We became close friends. I was a father figure to him, lending him an ear, a shoulder and fed him as often as I could. He became like the son I never had. He eventually entered recovery, got a place to live, and went to work for a roofing company. As much as a mere mortal man is able, I loved him unconditionally and non-judgmentally. Twelve years ago, this month he lost his life in an on-the-job accident. We had to open three visitation rooms for all the friends who came to say goodbye. Empathy and caring can change the world around us, one person at a time. I feel privileged to have been his friend. I'll love him and miss him for the rest of my life.
Wow, Curt, that sounds like a resounding experience for a lifetime. As the homeless population has increased, so too have labels and detachment begun to foment among so many who drive by. Each individual becomes a "them," someone far away whose story remains unheard. You took the time to hear and care, and that is as great a gift as a stranger can offer another. It is no wonder your relationship with him became a stepping stone toward his recovery. I am so sorry to hear about the tragic turn of events, but you're right to say you experienced a great privilege in that friendship, and he must've felt the same. Just an incredible story. Thank you for sharing. You've done honor to his memory. 🙏
This is an interesting topic. The difficulty for some to understand empathy and sympathy, and tell them apart. The discussion of empathy vs pity: one being healthy the other being unhealthy, and the difficulty to tell them apart. Said many times that reading fiction does expand our interests, our experience, and our sympathies/ our emotional intelligence.
This video reminds me of the thoughts I had while reading The Tunnel by William Gass. The novel made me reach the following: we constantly draw conclusions from our experiences in order to make sense of the world; however, due to the amount of experiences we have, we filter out most of them, and because an infinite number of conclusions can be drawn from a finite set of data, we choose which conclusions to follow based on our subjective values. What literature and empathy does is give me an opportunity to explore different experiences and conclusions. The unfortunate fact about victims is that most of them are ‘normal people’: most of them hold similar values to the ones we hold, which makes their worldviews less ‘novel’. If you haven’t read that book yet, I highly recommend it. I personally find great value in empathizing with the worst of humanity, because-although we don’t like to think about it-the individuals who do the most harm are human too. By leaving out this part of our history, we are cutting out a significant portion of the human condition.
You have to receive some empathy to give empathy. I love listening to your videos, you're very well spoken and I can tell how your reading life informs how you speak. Really inspires me to read!
I believe it is better to try to empathize with the "worst of us". Empathy is NOT agreement or condoning their actions even though we are attempting to "share" their views. Share in understanding perhaps. For instance, a couple of BookTubers apologize as they read "Gone With the Wind". We can all agree that we do not want "the South to rise again" in the form of slavery. However, Mitchell portrays the inner thoughts and motivations of characters living through those times. Empathizing with those "worst" provides an understanding of how build a better society and reminds us what dangers lurk when people are not able to see each other as worthy and equally valuable. Much appreciation for your theorizing!
Thank you for this deeply felt and considered reflection on what empathy can mean to individuals and to society. You have really made me think about my own feelings, behaviours, and actions. I just read a book, The Spinning Heart by Donal Ryan, set during Ireland’s economic collapse and I was not at all empathetic with the majority of bad characters. Now I find I must reflect on why I reacted that way. A small trivial example compared to what others are sharing, but I so appreciate your many pearls knotted out for consideration.
Wow. I'm grateful for your rich exposition on empathy. I can't respond to all of it without going overboard on the amount of space here but I have a lot of experience in this realm. To summarize even before I begin, I believe I empathize with every being, human and non-human. I'm convinced we're all doing our best and my best bet is to understand. That does not mean that I have to do anything about the empathy I feel. That doesn't mean to me that we don't have to lock some people up for the protection of others. My preference is to lock them up in a lovely environment with lots of heartfelt empathy and nourishment, body and soul, offered. I have an exercise I devised and practice to reach my deepest state of empathy which is pretending I am everyone: I am the eagle in the sky, I am the farmer in the field, I am Mother Teresa, I am the super nice neighbour, I am the sex-crazed cannibal in prison, I am the apple on the tree, I am the mafiosa, I am the good, I am the bad, I am nobody....it goes on until I'm finished. I can empathize with all. That leads me to understanding the individual's plight and not trying to manipulate it unless by rare chance someone wants my support. Then, it's freely given with the proviso of never giving more than I freely want to. On another note, I think there's a category not presented in your talk: the person who isn't a perpetrator or a victim. There are lots of us who have not been victimized and have done no noticeable harm who are also candidates for empathy., for example the nerd. Why anyone felt compelled to make up an insulting label for someone who's serious about learning and harmless brings a tear to my eyes. Those who regard unthreatening, probably very interesting people as a target for derision must have an open wound somewhere. Fortunately, I suspect most of us nerds are too captivated by our interests to notice random insults. Yet, we are members of the species deserving of empathy of a kind that is not pity or sympathy but dignified inclusion. For some reason I don't quite grasp, a line from one of William Blake's poems, The Little Black Boy, comes to mind: And, we are put on earth a little space, That we may learn to bear the beams of love,
I had a similar question w/r to my toxic parents. At what point do I “cut them out” completely? On the one hand, I empathize with them because I understand the trauma that shaped who they are. *And* true empathy includes empathy for me and my wellbeing too. So, I don’t know if there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think it’s possible to have empathy for those who harm while also maintaining safe and healthy boundaries *from* them - whatever that may look like for each person.
Oh, yes, I think empathy does not preclude boundaries. You can fully attempt to understand or empathize with someone's different perspective, but that doesn't mean you need to have them be part of your life. You can-without vitriol or hate-recognize that some people make your life worse, and given you only have one life to live, you should allow yourself separation. Always take care of yourself (possibly, no one else will).
Maybe I should think on it more, but my ideas on the matter come down to this single sentence from the philosopher Baruch Spinoza; "I have tried, in observing human action, not to ridicule or to bewail, nor to detest, but the understand them. (Humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere). You can, in my opinion, feel great discontentment, repulsion, disagreement about someone's *actions*, but at the same time, because you have tried to understand them, still feel empathy for the person who does them, or is afflicted by them (which is the same person in this case), because of him being a person.
Excellent, thought-provoking video! I went through a very similar journey as a child. The fact that I could be worthy of empathy was an epiphany, and I’m sure that’d be the case for many who’ve been starved from that response. I believe there is a limit to empathy, but boundaries can shift over time. While you might be inclined to have empathy for the perpetrator, that might be too much for the victim or those close to the victim. That boundary may remain firm indefinitely, but maybe space for empathy opens in time. I make a distinction between empathy and compassion. Empathy is the ability or willingness “to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” Compassion is the additional step of wishing that person freedom from suffering. Compassion might be heartfelt, but you can practice compassion without actually feeling convinced you want that. The Loving Kindness Mediation is to mediatively wish compassion for yourself, someone you love, someone you’re neutral towards, someone you dislike, and then all beings. You don’t have to “feel” compassion, but the practice can elicit that. It’s also been studied that compassion is more powerful than empathy in producing altruism. It can also affect the brain over time. (I recommend the book “Altered Traits” for further research explanations) I agree that we don’t have much control over our perspectives, but I think we can ironically open our minds more when we acknowledge that. Thanks for this thoughtful video, and thank you if you read this super long comment! 😅
I remember I used to feel skeptical in reaction to kindness. It felt like they were messing with me in some way, that it must be false, because my prior experiences had been from those who were dismissive and at times cruel (there was also my own inner masculine distancing that wouldn't allow myself to feel gratitude, which I had to grow out of over the years). The meaningfulness of genuine, committed empathy can be life-changing. You bring up such a great point: empathy-in its continuous emotional weight-can sometimes diminish altruism. I believe I read about that in the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky, wherein he describes how sometimes an overabundance of empathic connection can lead to feeling overwhelmed by emotion and thus can lead to shutting down instead of helping. Like a doctor, for instance, if they don't allow themselves some distance might become consumed by their work to the point of breakdown; so many tragedies in that line of work; to persist requires allowing oneself to let go of some of that empathy, at least to an extent. I so very much appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your comment. 🙏
This was an interesting discussion Ruben. I have some muddled thoughts on it. I've been doing social work in a few different variations but all in an extremely rural and not affluent area and I've seen/learned things I sort of wish I had not. But my biggest takeaway regarding empathy I think is that the world is a very broken place and many "broken" people had been dealt hands that I likely would not have played any better than they did. In that sense, it helps me empathize to some extent so I understand why some people make certain decisions even if I wished them not to. The stigma around different groups of people is a weight around their necks in a lot of ways and a lot of that probably comes from a lack of empathy from the rest of us. I think to some extent too that you can theoretically (maybe?) still help people and try to lift people up even if someone doesn't empathize in any real sense. I can remember a distinct case where let's say I was misled as to the extent and degree of their previous felonies. I'd admit much of the empathy and whatnot was lost almost instantly, but the work continued. But reaching out to empathize in the hard or worst cases can still be valuable and having even just a few percent break the cycle can make the majority of other "wasted" efforts worth it. I know this was only one part of your discussion haha but I'll end with a quite I've always liked that kind of skirts the issue of empathy. "You don't need a reason to help people." - Zidane Tribal
Excellent topic. As an resigned employee of the school system in many capacities, I gravitated to children, such as how you described yourself. I hated the rules I had to follow of the school system, because the interactions on the playground weren't always black and white and held a lot of small nuances that needed to be dealt with. And telling the so called bad kid, who was frustrated and dealing with a lot in their life, that exploded in school, is not their fault. They don't know how to deal with all of the emotions. And then, when they experience empathy, there's a natural distrust. I loved those kids. I still think of them. And there were bad teachers. One in particular that comes to mind who, imo, abused her students. She hated me. I'm sure of it. I have zero sympathy for people who claim to be victims and it has nothing to do with having a moral high ground. It's because we're all given different experiences in life. Some have better lives than others and we must live with the decisions we make. Opportunities today far outweigh than in history. And it made them stronger for having struggled through it. My empathy is going to be greater for younger people than for older people who keep making the same mistakes and haven't learned life's lessons. And quite possibly, because they haven't faced accountability. There are victims of something horrible happening to them outside of their control. That I can empathize. But when someone plays the victim of their bad decision, I care less about and may have some sympathy, but not when they continue to make the bad decisions and don't learn and grow. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. There also needs to be an awareness of not being empathetic to narcissists who will play on/manipulate people's empathy. We also need to be aware of the "do-gooder" who is doing it for their own gratification. Yes, language is limited. The "Against Empathy" book sounds interesting. If we are faced with "that one hungry child" then feed that child. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other. The ONE child is in front of you, or me. It annoys me when a photographer will go to another country and profit off of photographing hungry children, but not do anything to feed the children. (Unless he's using the money he made from the photograph to send food, then that I can get on board with, but I've not heard that story and I have a skeptical mind set). Rewarded bad behaviour continues. Are victims always the true victims? My son and I enjoy talking about the mind of the people who are the "bad guy" the "enemy" and try to figure out the reasons they chose to do what they did. For instance Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Love your enemy: the greek word "love" means to: "to love, value, esteem, feel or manifest generous concern for, be faithful towards; to delight in, to set store upon". This disarms a lot of people. If you have street smarts, you have an intuition on this and who to trust and whom not to trust.
It's strange the memories I have of cruelty from some teachers. Yet I also remember those who, like you, took pause and attempted to notice me as a full, complex individual. Especially where I grew up, that was rare, but it did matter (in spite of, as you describe, my wariness to trust). There is a certain degree of moral prestige tied to proclaiming oneself a victim, if only because it sometimes works as a shortcut to sympathy. You're right to notice that there are some who abuse this. Unfortunately, this seems to hinder our ability to help those genuinely in need. Thank you for your thoughts, as always. I see you were expanding your comment as the video went along (I do that, too). It makes for a nice play-by-play of considerations.
Two examples come to mind of how this can work, both diametrically opposed. The first is the work of Hubert Selby, Jr., he who gave us LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and many other works. Many of his characters are not good people -- they're junkies, hoodlums, street trash of one kind or another -- but just as many are people left bad because they have no place to go with who and what they are (the prostitute Tralala, the homosexual crossdresser Georgette, the closeted union shop steward Harry Black). Selby once wrote about his experiences making BROOKLYN into a film, and how he broke down sobbing when they screened the scene where Black is beaten half to death near the end of the film. "That poor son of a bitch," Selby said, "he just wanted to be loved." The impulses themselves are not sophisticated, but the way Selby displays and examines them are. We're not invited to excuse bad people or overlook good ones, but to see the greater environment, to know they didn't come from nowhere. This goes a long way towards explaining the long final chapter, "Landsend", essentially a novella in itself, that details the lives of several residents of a Brooklyn housing project, none of whom have anything to do with the earlier parts of the book. This is the world that makes such people possible, and maybe inevitable. We empathize so that we might see better our own bigger circumstances that make the badness possible and the goodness difficult. The other is Akira Kurosawa's movie IKIRU (recently remade, and quite adroitly at that, as LIVING with Bill Nighy in the lead role). It gives us a dolorous city official, whose job is mainly to stamp pieces of paper and move them from one file to another, who has existed but not lived, and who discovers the thread of his life is about to be cut short before he has ever had a chance to actually do anything. This spurs him first to despair, and then to the kind of action that wouldn't be out of place in an Albert Camus story: he takes up the cause to help a local circle of housewives drain a swampy patch of land at an intersection in their neighborhood and turn it into a playground. Then, as Roger Ebert noted in his magisterial discussion, the movie uses a peculiar story construction device to make us go from a spectator or even cheerleader of this man's final fight to an evangelist for it in our own lives. We empathize so that we might be inclined to do more than just read or watch. The bigger purpose of fiction as an empathy machine is to show us what it is like when we do in fact give a damn about each other, or why it is some of us might not.
This is a remarkably cogent analysis. Fascinating through and through and expands on my thinking while directing it back toward literature itself and the merits therein. I don't have in me at the moment to write an equally long response (tough day, workwise), but I appreciate that you took the time and were so clear and thoughtful. I really, really appreciate it.
I believe there's a fine line between empathy and understanding, where with the latter we remain to a degree more separate from the person or persons than with empathy. I can understand the motivation for a Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, but that motivation is so foreign to my way of thinking that I can't in the least empathize with them. Maybe a better example is through Greek drama or epic poetry, where we the viewer/reader can understand the actions of an Orestes or Hamlet but not empathize with their motivations as being so beyond our own experiences. Perhaps the degree of separation also impacts empathy, as you say - our reactions are stronger relative to the actions of one person (which is why the commercials always show one starving child or Dorothea Lange's photos of Okie families) than large groups (thousands killed in an earthquake). And of course one's own history and experiences affect levels of empathy and understanding. Not an easy question to answer. My used copy of Europe Central arrived via Amazon the other day, and of course the next day my bookshop got a used copy also. Sigh. But it'll have to wait for me to finish Don Quixote, and I'm about halfway through. I definitely empathize a bit with poor Sancho Panza and have no empathy for all the beautiful and/or rich folk. Maybe that's also why I empathize with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rather than Hamlet? ;-)
Yes, the distinction is important. I think my internal life ends up steadily transitioning from understanding to empathy, likely because of my personal experiences having had destructive ways of thinking. I find calloused forms of my former self in others' sensibilities. That's fitting that you have Europe Central in the queue: it is a book with a lot of seething amidst the prose, and yet Vollmann (and he always does this) goes out of his way to not allow either victims or perpetrators to exist one-note. In fact, now that I think of it, I could have brought up a few examples from his Seven Dreams series, because he spends a lot of time entering the thinking of truly horrible people. That's somewhat his forte it seems.
Me again. In response to your question, "when do you stop empathizing?", I hope you don't. A person with firm boundaries, ie, knows what they want, what they have to give, what they don't have to give, where one ends and the other begins, doesn't need to worry. One who's comfortable with their own boundaries can feel empathy without any impulse to help, rescue, sermonize, fight, punish, reward or change the other. One doesn't have to do anything or not do anything about the empathy infusing the situation. But the fact that the empathy is genuinely felt within makes the world kinder in my opinion. I don't minimize the beauty of acts of kindness and generosity. but I value empathy in and of itself.
I think that is easier to have empathy to a historical figure because we avoid anachronisms, not judging them by our morals. It's hard to know where to draw a line, when people commit certain acts with the intention of being remembered and to inspire others, by having empathy aren't you helping to spread their message? like news avoid to say attackers names, there was a motive to Damnatio memoriae to exist back then. Those dilemmas take a life long effort to reflect on.
Hi Ruben. I have watched your entire video. I am responding now as a teacher, and I guess I do like to think that I was the kind of teacher who saw good in students who couldn't see it in themselves. My heart breaks (you will hear my talk about my breaking heart many times in this response, I think) to think that teachers made you feel like you were a "bad kid." I cannot fathom that. I rejoice to know that someone came along, or maybe a few "someones," to give you a different experience of yourself in the world--and the hope for a different kind of future than your brother's. My heart is broken once again--as are the hearts of many--in the aftermath of yet another school shooting that resulted in many fatalities. How many times do we have to relive this narrative? I join the throngs who want somebody "to do something about this." My heart is shattered for all of the families now destroyed by what has happened--families that will NEVER be the same. And then I see the perpetrator of these atrocities--and he's just a little kid himself--just 14 years old--and my heart breaks for him too. What must his life have been like leading up to this horrible decision to do what he did this week? We can see glimpses of it as the details begin to emerge about his parents. We can conclude that he could not have felt loved and nurtured, and he could not have been taught much of value at home. He was not taught that he was of value. He was given an assault rifle by his father as a gift, or so that is what is being reported in the news right now. Do I feel empathy for this child? I absolutely do. And I feel total despair because his life is beyond ruined too. Why wasn't there someone there to step in for him? To show him his worth as a human being? Before it came to this? And what will become of him now? I have no answers, Ruben, but your video tapped into what I have been grieving over these last few days...I hope that this does not seem like too much of a digression.
You demonstrate much of my own thought process in regards to these incidents-not too much of a digression at all-and I find myself feeling emotional reading your words. It hurts to think of the loss all around in situations such as those, the pains that compound, and it is all the worse knowing this will repeat and repeat and repeat... I feel your grief. And I wonder how much caring we have lacked, how much could have been otherwise. This is horrible to say, but I remember I was so, so angry growing up, and I remember how direct and cruel the teachers were to me-thankfully, not all of them, but the ones who were nice I had trouble knowing how to connect with, because it felt so different and like a trick they were playing on me-and I remember how true it felt in my heart that I was a bad person (my parents used to tell me "you've done bad things but that doesn't make you a bad person," and in repetition over years that perhaps saved me, alongside leaving that city and all the incentives to be vicious in a space of honor-bound violence), and in remembering the mindset I had it feels very much that circumstances could have escalated to a horrible extent. I feel so lucky to have escaped (that's what it feels like, an escape). I feel so, so lucky, and it hurts to think about those who never got that luck. It really does. You know, I teach now, and I can't imagine saying anything like what teachers used to tell me. It feels unbelievable to say such things to a child. Then I remember one teacher in particular who broke down in our class, and I think of the city I was in and the poverty and the spread of traumas, and she couldn't stop crying because she didn't know how to deal with us, and it helps me understand that so many of those teachers were struggling with their own traumas, too, and that hurt compounds and spreads-Thus, I guess, so much of my thinking in this video: everyone is striving amidst imperfection. There’s a video I found recently, a mini-documentary about my father’s work with gang youth (this was right around the time our lives were beginning to change), and it includes my older brother (you can see how young he was when he first served time in prison). I hope I’m able to share it with you here, as it may be of interest: th-cam.com/video/nF_YgVKH4hs/w-d-xo.html
@@ToReadersItMayConcern I just watched the entire documentary. Thank you for sharing this with me. I am almost speechless. I have so many questions, but I don’t want to ask them here…
Are you drawn to Paul Ricoeur & Martin Buber, & their phenomenological approach to experiencing the strangers we meet as subjects through their stories & memories?
Early point: Perhaps people who are slightly more empathetic than others are more drawn to books (it is a contributory factor as to why some people read). And perhaps English professors like to be dismissive of history in contrast to their own contribution to "the truth". Perhaps some of them prefer the pseudo-intellectual claims of the far-left (neo/marxists), Frankfurt School, post-modernists etc, one of which includes the idea that people - professors even - are not capable of being fair minded (objective) or even handed about a topic, and that they are not even aware or self-aware of the fact. That they have too much belief in a political-religion. That that will manifest at least in some way in all that they think and perceive, and therefore in all that they write. And that they are not even aware of the fact. And that it took people like Derrida to tell them so, professors, and everyone else. And yet... if we acquire a belief in something from literary theory, at the right age, it might tell us that: "It was entirely of your choosing. Sauron looked inside you and plucked the very song of your soul, note by note, making himself out to be exactly what you needed, a lost king who could ride you to victory. You gave him everything he wanted and then thanked him for it..."
Have you read Karl Popper's The Myth of the Framework? It's a slim volume that strongly critiques much of the Frankfurt school's reasoning. You may appreciate it (though, The Open Society and Its Enemies does a better and more extensive job, but much of that book is focused on other issues). You also may love the anthology A House Built on Sand, which tears into postmodernism from various directions. My early comments in the video are not dismissive of history or historians (so many historians are fantastically even-handed and strive for objectivity); I am recognizing aspects of narrative, not to say it falsifies by default but only that it is something to attend to otherwise one slips into a spell of compounding correlations. Having received an English degree, I can say with confidence that what is taught is not 'the truth.' And yes, you make a great point about how to interpret the results of those scientific findings, which reflects my point in the first section of the video: decisions get made in regard to how to interpret facts (but the facts persist nonetheless, don't they).
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Your early comments I agree are not dismissive, but they are prejudiced. The evidence for this as a fact can be found at 2:47mins where you make a statement as a matter of fact, that "there are overlapping waves of arcs... but as soon as it is put down in a book of history it suddenly becomes one over-arching storyline". Which history books might these be? _Tecumseh_ by John Sugden perhaps? Or _Edge of Empire_ by Maya Jasanoff? History is about evidence not storylines. No offense intended.
Prejudiced in what direction, do you think? FYI, I have read more history, science, and philosophy than literature in my life. Also, no offense taken. I blame myself. As stated later in the video, this conversation started because a viewer said I was sympathizing with a historical figure too strongly and thus naively consuming what I read, so my mindset at the start was to display my lack of naivety in that regard, to emphasize my critical bona fides, but here I am now trying to clarify in the opposite direction. My fault, not yours. You say "history is about evidence not storylines," but I wonder if we're not recognizing "story" in quite the same way. I can't think of a history book that does not take correlations of evidence and does not formulate relations between them. That seemingly must be the case. A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief" or severs by saying "the queen died coincidentally soon afterward." And there are facts that can support the link or the severance: maybe the queen cried a great deal, never leaving bed, then dying, hence it's reasonable to assume grief (but not certain); or maybe the queen cried-as is to be expected-stayed in bed out of sadness (again, to be expected), and died of an undiagnosed burst aneurysm, not because of grief itself (though grief is clearly correlated, but here you rightly noted in regards to the study on reading and empathy: correlation is not causation). Historians contend with these details always, and they are aware of needing to contend with this. I enjoy reading historiography-highly suggest the Routledge Companion to Historiography if you're interested-and this is a major aspect of work as a historian, discerning connections, recognizing the limits of facts-in-themselves to interpret themselves, and the importance of reading widely. For instance, an actual example from books I've appreciated: Stephen Kotkin's Stalin biography and Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Young Stalin (and a bit of Court of the Red Tsar). Both contend with Stalin's capacity for great harm later in life, with Simon Sebag-Montefiore emphasizing Stalin's abusive and eventually absent father, Beso (though, to be fair to Montefiore, he clearly only suggests that it matters, not outright insisting upon it), while Kotkin makes clear that such 'abuse' was common for the time and isn't likely enough to explain Stalin's propensities. And then the emphasis-the story-becomes obviously distinct between the two historians, one (Montefiore) spending a great deal of time on Stalin's exiles and swashbuckling and criminality, in the feel of almost an adventure tale (I finished Young Stalin like two months ago), and Kotkin taking a more technical (heavily endnoted), subdued, and/or neutral approach with branches of broader history alongside (which I much prefer). That is storytelling. It is not an insult to call it storytelling, and it is not a way to say either historian is disregarding the facts. It is just that, again, facts do not speak for themselves, we have to deal with them. The point of "arcs coalescing into one" in a book is to say that a single book grants a single experiencing of those facts. Not in itself inaccurate but filled with choices of presentation. For example, it is a fact I am sitting in front of my computer typing. If this were filmed, a camera could focus in on my face, the brief expressions hinting at thought, the light mouthing of words as I type, and could steadily zoom in further over time, understandably matching my focus with the focus of the camera. Those same facts could be filmed differently: straight-on to the computer screen, isolating the text itself as it appears, my fingers lapping in rhythm to the clicks. The referent is the same, the sense is distinctive; both reveal some facts and not others. Neither is a lie. But the choice of how to emphasize those facts are choices of storytelling. And that's okay. Again, it is not an insult; it is seemingly inevitable. Thus we have to read more than one history book on a subject. I'm a little surprised you say history isn't about storylines, because whenever I read more than one book on the same subject I'm struck by how distinctive the formulation is. I not too long ago read A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes, and it is entirely different in its presentation of the Russian Revolution and its consequences compared to something like Sean McMeekin's recent work, though they overlap plenty. A specific example that stands out: they both bring up German funding of the Bolsheviks, but McMeekin takes that detail much further, creating a far stronger relationship between those funds and Bolshevism's rise than Figes does (though, when I return to the Figes book, he absolutely brings up much of the same facts, but their relegation is to that of almost a footnote, which is super interesting, and again reinforces the importance of emphasis). With a different emphasis comes choices of the story being told. Imagine what it would take to give every single fact-that would require more than a single book could hold. Selection of facts is necessary, thus that selection emerges into the realm of story. We have to select facts as writers and make further decisions on how to present them; hence, "overlapping waves of arcs" coalescing into one. I'm sure you agree: "everyone, please, read more than one history book!" I'm sure you've felt that difference when reading of the same subject matter. Each book evokes an entirely different sense-but I should reiterate now: the facts are still true!! and I am not calling history a lie!! There just has to be decisions in writing history, much like there are choices in my translating my thoughts into writing right this instant: there is a truth of my thinking, and I am attempting to lay them out in a particular way, anticipating different understandings, adapting that, not merely constrained by truth in itself but now by presentation. When you write, too, you can likely feel the strain of choice to convey the truth. You have to edit your own words for that reason, and so do I. It has to be conveyed but you're still accounting for the impression of the reader and that has an effect. None of that makes it untrue. But it is a different arc of experience than would have been otherwise. This whole non-naive-attempted-argument-about-history that I laid out at the start of the video relates to empathy because with different emphasis also arises differences in who we empathize with. If I read The House of Government by Yuri Slezkine, my empathy is with many of the Bolsheviks themselves and their families; if I read Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, the timeframe is similar but my empathy is for an entirely different group of people. By the end of the video I end up stating that I do not know what to make of that fact, the fact of difference in emphasis leading to differences in empathy (again, facts don't include instructions on how to deal with them). By the way, I am just a nerd, not angry. If any of the above feels forceful or bothered or anything of that sort. Just, again, I am just a nerd, so I like going into minutiae like this. You're great, and I have been watching your videos since around the same time I started posting regularly on this channel half a year ago. Thank you for giving me something to nerd out about. I wouldn't write a lengthy comment like this to someone I didn't respect. I hope to have said at least one thing of interest amidst all of the above. (And the point I make a little later than the beginning in the video-about some truths being mixed in with untruths-that is just an obvious point about difficulty in testing one's interpretations, how "correlation is not causation" alongside many other challenges in knowing something with certainty when you can't go back and test each hypothesis individually.)
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Very interesting! Reply 1. You said at the beginning: "A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief"... but i have never come across a history book that says such a thing as... after the king died, the queen died of grief. And really where is the evidence of historians saying as much? And can you be so sure that professors haven't really thought about or looked into, how a queen might have died, whensoever, if she was known to have cried a lot, and taken to her bed out of sadness? Really. Do you have the knowledge and therefore the evidence to support and back up your statement. And sure you then talk about the two books about Stalin. And they are biographies, so will naturally have a start point and end point principally about one person - that will run a bit like a story we might say. And lots of history is chronological. But that history often and naturally involves topics and sub-topics, one chapter at a time. And then there is the issue of different kinds of history book. There is a version that might be understood as popular or public and not proper academic history. The history written by Sebag-Montifiore will surely be the popular kind, trying to be a bestseller! For example there is _In The Lion's Court, power, ambition and sudden death in the reign of Henry VIII_ by Derek Wilson, and then there is _Early Tudor Government 1485-1558_ by Gunn. The latter is a text quoted from and appears in endnotes of more general history books. The Wilson is not. The Gunn is on an under/postgrad reading list. The Wilson is on a shopping list.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Reply 2: You do say that the Figes and McMeekin diverge, and yet later in the paragraph you do say they have the same kinds of information (after all). Beyond that however, a scientific approach to the issue of emphasis might/could involve a survey or study, a focus group: 10 people read one, 10 people read the other; then incisive questions, to see if there is any difference in the reading. To discover if there really was a noticeably different impact due to emphasis/presentation. Perhaps certain things did end up a little buried, whereas via the other things are prominent and more significant. And then again perhaps not. There is ability in writing but there is also ability or capacity in reading.
The heart of what you are saying is good but I think what you are confusing is there are some people who do bad things but in themselves are not psychopaths and can be empathized with such as having an addiction or mental illness being a very good example. Then there are people who are psychopaths and I am sorry to say this but they are not people like everyone else. Having been a victim of multiple psychopaths in my life in very brutal ways to the point where I sometimes am surprised I am still alive I know for certain the world has many, many monsters. What do I want to do with them? I want them to never be able to harm me or anyone else again. Is that possible? No because we live in a corrupt society where people don't give a shit about victims. People don't give a shit about what I have experienced. So I find myself getting very angry about feeling empathy for people who do not deserve any empathy and it will benefit no one to have empathy for them. But I must insist that yes it is good to have empathy for people who do bad things because everyone does bad things and most of these people are not psychopaths and are just either in bad situations or things may of happened to them beyond their control. Once you get them out of that situation you can really feel they are sorry, their is real sorrow about their actions, and it is easy to understand them. But once you have met and dealt with real psychopaths you can easily notice the distinction and difference between them and someone who did some bad things but is later genuinely sorry about their actions. The psychopath will never feel sorry. There is no point in trying to get an apology. Some of them get really clever and good at faking being sorry which allows them to continue their abuse. I know I cannot understand and connect with a psychopath just as it is impossible for them to connect and understand me. I wish they could be reformed but I also know that it is not possible. That is as far as my empathy for them can go. I can wish that they were not the thing that they are. In the meantime I would rather place all my empathy with those who I know can be helped or reformed by my empathy. I am very easily moved by peoples stories. I love to understand people. I am very good at getting other people to open up and be vulnerable. Thats why psychopaths usually are attracted to me unfortunately because I make a great victim by being a very emotionally sensitive and vulnerable person. Empathy is really a fascinating thing and having too much empathy can be really painful sometimes.
You're bringing up many excellent points, a few of which I had in mind to discuss but didn't, such as psychopathy in particular and those who take advantage of empathy generally. I cut out my initial attempt from the video, because I felt like I could only communicate the exact points I had to make by getting very personal. Like yourself, I have known intimately psychopaths in my life and have suffered directly as a result. You're right to notice this gap in my video. It is a subject that I think is important, and so I will probably try to discuss it someday in a future video. Right now, the specifics feel too private, and I'm not yet comfortable sharing those details on the channel (because of the conditions I grew up in, some of these experiences compounded over a few years). This fact-the need to cut out my own story from the video-inspired the section of the video wherein I discuss how the stories of perpetrators will tend to be told more often than those of the victims', simply because not all victims will want to put their story out into the world. Victims shouldn't be expected to have to tell the worst parts of their stories. Of course, this leads to many not quite knowing how bad things can get. I'm going to think on this a while. It feels like a more complicated layer of this whole discussion, and so I won't discuss it until I feel I have something of worth to say. Thank you for adding your insights.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that makes total sense! I apologize for bringing up the part you didn't want to be said. And I am sorry for what you have been through. There is no need to explain anything. Privacy is very important and a precious thing. I am enjoying your thoughtful videos very much. I have been looking to expand my To Read list with books with lots of substance and depth and you have helped greatly! Thank you.
@@jennyjaybles Thank you, and no need to apologize. You have a keen eye to notice what was missing, and I invited the topic, so I take responsibility for what arises. I've reached a point of calm in regard to those memories, such that with those close to me in life, if they want to discuss those things, I can, and it feels fine. However, I sometimes have to remind myself when I film these that, though I end up feeling comfortable, I am still speaking to mostly strangers. That requires a bit more thought and care. Like you describe in your initial comment, I also love to understand people and am often easily moved. And just like you describe, that has led to my being too open. Over the years, I've found my way through such experiences, to set boundaries without becoming jaded (it can be easy to become cynical, distant, and defensive, and I've worked my way to avoiding that). Maybe I should discuss that someday, that internal sensitivity I have and my means through it toward a kind of equilibrium. The more I think about it, the harder it is to explain. It ends up being a kind of sensitivity-oriented logic, a strange center between how little I must know and the fact that I have actually learned something, to be both humble in curiosity but stable in reasoning. And that latter stability becomes a way through, has been a way through, a quiet hand to hold as tension builds (and a knowing that it will always build, and I'm okay because I've overcome this before). I'll have to think on this. Maybe some things aren't fit to be explained.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern I think I understand what you are describing. It's a struggle to keep one's self safe? To put it simply empathy and sensitivity is a double edged sword. It can be very powerful when interacting with others and lead to great connection and insight. It can also be devastating to the wielder of that power. It can really suck. Figuring out how to manage it is freaking hard. It is a day to day struggle. I hope all sensitive people can figure out how to suffer less. Though I think suffering might intrinsically be part of the deal. This a depressing way to end my reply. I assure you I am fine.
I believe you very much that you are just fine. You sound like you've reflected on and been experiencing the struggle for a while (the struggle of the incline toward suffering). That makes your final point not depressing: it sounds like genuine, thoughtful experience, and that to me is a good thing.
Sadhguru’s channel posted a video today of him speaking after the Nirbhaya case, in which he says that a society can’t be based on punishment. There were points in common between both your videos. th-cam.com/video/UoAD_upkEco/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qxfGNnMEb94oBFpF
FYI, I flip between a few perspectives in the span of this video. I suggest leaving a comment of disagreement or affirmation only after watching the whole thing (it might end up obvious if you haven’t).
I will read all of the comments (as always). If I don’t respond with an extensive reply, that has to do with time, not a matter of the quality of what you write. I sometimes get inundated with exceptional comments and it’s tough to keep up (though they are always appreciated).
Hi Rubin, As readers, we exercise our empathy, and this exercise affects our relationships beyond reading. Reading about difficult characters enables me to deal with difficult people, so I see great utility in your reflections on developing some greater awareness of all kinds of people. As you described, family influences are impactful, and as an older adult, I still struggle to identify signals from family members. Keep up the great reading and discussions.
This is wonderful, you've packed so much into this that I'll probably have to watch it a few times to grasp it all. These are the kinds of questions that people have been asking since language came into being, and there aren't any simple answers. You've given me a lot to think about here, definitely. I've written and rewritten this comment, but nothing I've written seems to do these questions justice, so all I can say is thanks for another spectacular video. It's certainly given my mind a good workout.
This gentleman here has some of the most interesting and innovative themes for videos, while providing several thought provoking insights. Very unusual for TH-cam, very unusual, indeed. Keep up the good work, sir!
You are offering something on your channel that can be found nowhere else, and that alone is worth commending. Your authenticity is apparent and your endless curiosity about the world makes your videos so compelling . They cut through the crap that’s so abundant on BookTube, and on TH-cam generally.
Not that there aren’t some great BookTubers out there, but they’re certainly in the minority, it seems.
I don't know how to say a big enough thank you for the kindness of your words. Just, thank you immensely, thank you.
Love seeing your exploratory process as you develop these complex thoughts throughout the video. So much to think about here that resonated with me. I too feel a lot of empathy for the "bad guys" of history and literature in a way that sometimes feels a bit messed up, although I prefer to think reflects a maturity in understanding that anyone can become a bad guy under the right (wrong?) circumstances. In particular, this brings to mind some of what I was feeling while considering the final chapters of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," the chapters about the Reich's decline. Naturally it's the traditional victims who I feel most sorry for in terms of their experiences and outcomes. Still, I can't help but feel pity for anyone whose worldview is so distorted, who's never had the opportunity to see things from different perspectives, so that they end up doing what many of us just view as lousy and downright cruel deeds, while sincerely believing this is the best course of action for them (such as the Nazi propagandist, Goebbels, whose final act, after all the other horrible crimes he's already committed or instigated, was to poison his seven children to spare them the disgrace of having to occupy a "fallen" Germany).
You pose a good question though of whether it is worth our limited energy to empathize with such people. Without thinking too deeply about it, I'd have to go with yes, maybe because I just don't feel I'm qualified to judge who is or isn't worthy of empathy.
Works like The Rise and Fall are precisely the sort to inspire these thoughts in me. To avid believers-no matter how incorrect-their beliefs often feel fundamentally true to the point of death. It makes me think critically about my own beliefs, wondering about what I take for granted, to avoid aimless harms born of naive reasoning. In that sense, learning becomes a moral act, an avoidance of the dangers of one's potential ignorance.
Your final point about judgments-on deciding who or who not to empathize with-is an important one: once we slip into disregarding empathy for some for the sake of others, we slip into our own biases (and all the shortcomings of sight therein). Even if we could judge rightly at the start, the ease of such judgment would seemingly condemn us to falling back on the whims of easy sympathy, and all those less-sympathetically-tinged become flattened labels for our eyes to gloss over.
A tough challenge, this question. Thank you so much for watching and engaging seriously.
I absolutely love your videos! I’m so glad I found your channel!
That's so nice of you, thank you!!
Loved your discussion! I wrote this whole comment at the halfway mark of your video, only to find we said the same thing, but here it is anyway: empathy is a wonderful aspect of reading, but it also needs to be said that most people read what they relate to, therefore a conservative or religious person may never read about LGBTQ struggles, or a white person may never read about a black person's struggles. When it comes to empathy, I think that is where the real value lies: reading outside our comfort zones. Which means that if you are a good person, you may emphasise with the bad because the good already have your sympathy. You can't prescribe everyone's reading journey though, and it is like life: people will only ever be as open/kind/compassionate/understanding as they choose to be and reading can only grow that of which the seed is already there. When it comes to the bad people though, I think the value is not in empathising with them, but in understanding how their environment got them there, how society shapes us, and what potential part all of us have to play in the creation of the bad things that happen. That's how I see those stories: how do we, as a society and as individuals avoid creating this again. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions, but also yes, we can change society and root causes to stop bad things from happening again. Only if we face them though. This is a much longer discussion, but the real value in reading IMO is not so much the empathy or sympathy we learn to have, but the understanding that everyone we meet comes to us from life with events stacked behind them - some long ago and some recent - and inner processes that we can never fully comprehend, just like no one can fully comprehend ours. So, can we understand that there is the potential for any one of us to have been any other person; can we understand that we have the potential to change the world with small ripples and even if we aren't aware of those ripples; can we understand that when we feel unacknowledged or misunderstood it is most often not malice but other people seeing the world from their own experiences and understanding? This should not become a way to bypass or avoid responsibility, actions or emotions, but it can soften our extreme knee-jerk reactions and give us more inner reflection about the stories we spin for ourselves, the people we meet, and the world at large.
As a PS: I was asked once why I feel sorry for people with life sentences in prison when they did such horrible things. My answer was that I feel sorry for a life wasted; for a life where no one cares if you live or die and you aren't able to contribute to your loved ones or even the world (yes you can, and yes people are more complicated than the one action that lands then in jail, but also not); a life that becomes a traumatic struggle every day and where nothing will ever be soft again. And the difference is that most people will say they deserve it, while I look at the cycle that gets people there, think we can find better ways that don't waste life, and wonder what parts of yourself you must lock away in order to deal with what you did and where you ended up.
This is fantastic! Yes, we overlap in direction, but I find your phrasing and examples to be immensely clear and helpful beyond my own choice of words. Thank you for watching and taking the time to write this.
You're always such a great commenter! 🙂
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that is such a compliment, thank you! I tend to comment less often because I am not a succinct person and these days no one wants to read lengthy paragraphs anymore...
@@talking_to_trees I've been trying to comment less often for precisely the same reason. Many have become used to a flippancy online, but I'm not. Unfortunately, there's now issues of time which have curtailed my commenting and replies, but I can't help but feel rude without saying something.
Your comments are always appreciated! Long or short. And there's no pressure to comment unless you have something you're excited to say. Either way, I can't help but remember you because you're one of the best commenters!
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that I understand and it is likely that your channel may one day become to big for you to answer everyone. That is what happens to most channels. No matter how much the host says they love hearing from their tribe, there comes a point where I can see they are too big to really do it because everyone has limits. It is the paradox of online communities...
@@talking_to_trees I definitely feel this some days. Definitely.
I think empathy is as individual as anything else. You refer to it as a disposition and I think that is a good way of describing it. We develop empathy over time and as a result of our individual experiences so we will all have differing levels of empathy and empathize differently. And that’s a good thing. Uniform empathy -an agreement on who deserved empathy and who didn’t and how much empathy each kind of person deserved - wouldn’t be empathy at all. That you might feel more empathy for the person who does terrible things than I is a good thing because it means that there are at least some of us to feel empathy for almost every individual. The limits of my own empathy are those who harm people I love (zero empathy) and those who have power and use it to harm multitudes (very little empathy).
Thank you, Brian, this is such a necessary point: diversity in this outlook is a gift. Each of us can contribute through our own perceptions and priorities, some prioritizing the practical, others the care, others the philosophizing-that is perhaps the essential gift of various perspectives in a society: we can organize attention based on our needs and dispositions, and that is okay for us to have differences in that regard, so long as those differences don't impose or overly neglect.
I read what you write and find myself wishing I had made that point myself, but thank you for contributing it to the comments. This is really helpful (and just genuinely thoughtful on your part).
Deeply appreciate this, and relate on some levels. Something for consideration that I think pertains: By empathizing with the narcissistic psychopathic person/ character (whether overt, covert, toxic, malignant…..), you can only be harmed, hurt, abused, lied to, humiliated, dismissed, demeaned, manipulated, bullied, robbed……. Until your self-worth is in tatters and so much of your life is in ruins. Especially if it’s a family member. The only solution is to run as far as possible……. No contact. Start afresh…….. it takes time and patience with yourself. Miss Jenny
I think some people confuse empathy and sympathy. You can try to get inside the mind of someone bad, try to work out their motivations and why they do the things they do. You don't have to like or agree with them, but it can be worth it. Although I'm not drawn to badness (I don't even read crime fiction for example, and I find the obsession some people have with true crime repulsive), to reject empahy for wrong-doers (or at least those who society has deemed wrong-doers) completely seems unhelpful at best.
Hello Rubin. I don't have a story about empathy and books, but I do have a real-life story about transformative empathy. I had a Christian upbringing and some churches we attended had tendencies to be judgmental towards people in certain circumstances. I learned to put those harmful ideas aside when I met a young, homeless heroin addict named Jonathan. Some of my friends didn't think it was a good idea to help him. They said you can't change him. Nothing good will come of this. Where they saw trouble, I saw an eager young man with big problems who most needed shelter, food and a friend. I bought him a hot chocolate with marshmallows on Christmas Eve. Long story short: We became close friends. I was a father figure to him, lending him an ear, a shoulder and fed him as often as I could. He became like the son I never had. He eventually entered recovery, got a place to live, and went to work for a roofing company. As much as a mere mortal man is able, I loved him unconditionally and non-judgmentally. Twelve years ago, this month he lost his life in an on-the-job accident. We had to open three visitation rooms for all the friends who came to say goodbye. Empathy and caring can change the world around us, one person at a time. I feel privileged to have been his friend. I'll love him and miss him for the rest of my life.
Wow, Curt, that sounds like a resounding experience for a lifetime. As the homeless population has increased, so too have labels and detachment begun to foment among so many who drive by. Each individual becomes a "them," someone far away whose story remains unheard. You took the time to hear and care, and that is as great a gift as a stranger can offer another. It is no wonder your relationship with him became a stepping stone toward his recovery. I am so sorry to hear about the tragic turn of events, but you're right to say you experienced a great privilege in that friendship, and he must've felt the same. Just an incredible story. Thank you for sharing. You've done honor to his memory. 🙏
This is an interesting topic. The difficulty for some to understand empathy and sympathy, and tell them apart. The discussion of empathy vs pity: one being healthy the other being unhealthy, and the difficulty to tell them apart. Said many times that reading fiction does expand our interests, our experience, and our sympathies/ our emotional intelligence.
This video reminds me of the thoughts I had while reading The Tunnel by William Gass.
The novel made me reach the following: we constantly draw conclusions from our experiences in order to make sense of the world; however, due to the amount of experiences we have, we filter out most of them, and because an infinite number of conclusions can be drawn from a finite set of data, we choose which conclusions to follow based on our subjective values. What literature and empathy does is give me an opportunity to explore different experiences and conclusions. The unfortunate fact about victims is that most of them are ‘normal people’: most of them hold similar values to the ones we hold, which makes their worldviews less ‘novel’. If you haven’t read that book yet, I highly recommend it.
I personally find great value in empathizing with the worst of humanity, because-although we don’t like to think about it-the individuals who do the most harm are human too. By leaving out this part of our history, we are cutting out a significant portion of the human condition.
You have to receive some empathy to give empathy. I love listening to your videos, you're very well spoken and I can tell how your reading life informs how you speak. Really inspires me to read!
I love that. I hope to inspire as many as I can to read and wonder. Thank you for watching!
I believe it is better to try to empathize with the "worst of us". Empathy is NOT agreement or condoning their actions even though we are attempting to "share" their views. Share in understanding perhaps. For instance, a couple of BookTubers apologize as they read "Gone With the Wind". We can all agree that we do not want "the South to rise again" in the form of slavery. However, Mitchell portrays the inner thoughts and motivations of characters living through those times. Empathizing with those "worst" provides an understanding of how build a better society and reminds us what dangers lurk when people are not able to see each other as worthy and equally valuable. Much appreciation for your theorizing!
Thank you for this deeply felt and considered reflection on what empathy can mean to individuals and to society. You have really made me think about my own feelings, behaviours, and actions. I just read a book, The Spinning Heart by Donal Ryan, set during Ireland’s economic collapse and I was not at all empathetic with the majority of bad characters. Now I find I must reflect on why I reacted that way. A small trivial example compared to what others are sharing, but I so appreciate your many pearls knotted out for consideration.
Wow. I'm grateful for your rich exposition on empathy. I can't respond to all of it without going overboard on the amount of space here but I have a lot of experience in this realm. To summarize even before I begin, I believe I empathize with every being, human and non-human. I'm convinced we're all doing our best and my best bet is to understand. That does not mean that I have to do anything about the empathy I feel. That doesn't mean to me that we don't have to lock some people up for the protection of others. My preference is to lock them up in a lovely environment with lots of heartfelt empathy and nourishment, body and soul, offered. I have an exercise I devised and practice to reach my deepest state of empathy which is pretending I am everyone: I am the eagle in the sky, I am the farmer in the field, I am Mother Teresa, I am the super nice neighbour, I am the sex-crazed cannibal in prison, I am the apple on the tree, I am the mafiosa, I am the good, I am the bad, I am nobody....it goes on until I'm finished. I can empathize with all. That leads me to understanding the individual's plight and not trying to manipulate it unless by rare chance someone wants my support. Then, it's freely given with the proviso of never giving more than I freely want to. On another note, I think there's a category not presented in your talk: the person who isn't a perpetrator or a victim. There are lots of us who have not been victimized and have done no noticeable harm who are also candidates for empathy., for example the nerd. Why anyone felt compelled to make up an insulting label for someone who's serious about learning and harmless brings a tear to my eyes. Those who regard unthreatening, probably very interesting people as a target for derision must have an open wound somewhere. Fortunately, I suspect most of us nerds are too captivated by our interests to notice random insults. Yet, we are members of the species deserving of empathy of a kind that is not pity or sympathy but dignified inclusion. For some reason I don't quite grasp, a line from one of William Blake's poems, The Little Black Boy, comes to mind: And, we are put on earth a little space, That we may learn to bear the beams of love,
I had a similar question w/r to my toxic parents. At what point do I “cut them out” completely?
On the one hand, I empathize with them because I understand the trauma that shaped who they are. *And* true empathy includes empathy for me and my wellbeing too.
So, I don’t know if there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think it’s possible to have empathy for those who harm while also maintaining safe and healthy boundaries *from* them - whatever that may look like for each person.
Oh, yes, I think empathy does not preclude boundaries. You can fully attempt to understand or empathize with someone's different perspective, but that doesn't mean you need to have them be part of your life. You can-without vitriol or hate-recognize that some people make your life worse, and given you only have one life to live, you should allow yourself separation. Always take care of yourself (possibly, no one else will).
“…you should allow yourself separation.” Yes 💯 ❤ Thank you for this video, first time viewer. Appreciate these kinds of questions a lot.
Maybe I should think on it more, but my ideas on the matter come down to this single sentence from the philosopher Baruch Spinoza; "I have tried, in observing human action, not to ridicule or to bewail, nor to detest, but the understand them. (Humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere). You can, in my opinion, feel great discontentment, repulsion, disagreement about someone's *actions*, but at the same time, because you have tried to understand them, still feel empathy for the person who does them, or is afflicted by them (which is the same person in this case), because of him being a person.
Excellent, thought-provoking video! I went through a very similar journey as a child. The fact that I could be worthy of empathy was an epiphany, and I’m sure that’d be the case for many who’ve been starved from that response.
I believe there is a limit to empathy, but boundaries can shift over time. While you might be inclined to have empathy for the perpetrator, that might be too much for the victim or those close to the victim. That boundary may remain firm indefinitely, but maybe space for empathy opens in time.
I make a distinction between empathy and compassion. Empathy is the ability or willingness “to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” Compassion is the additional step of wishing that person freedom from suffering. Compassion might be heartfelt, but you can practice compassion without actually feeling convinced you want that. The Loving Kindness Mediation is to mediatively wish compassion for yourself, someone you love, someone you’re neutral towards, someone you dislike, and then all beings. You don’t have to “feel” compassion, but the practice can elicit that. It’s also been studied that compassion is more powerful than empathy in producing altruism. It can also affect the brain over time. (I recommend the book “Altered Traits” for further research explanations)
I agree that we don’t have much control over our perspectives, but I think we can ironically open our minds more when we acknowledge that. Thanks for this thoughtful video, and thank you if you read this super long comment! 😅
I remember I used to feel skeptical in reaction to kindness. It felt like they were messing with me in some way, that it must be false, because my prior experiences had been from those who were dismissive and at times cruel (there was also my own inner masculine distancing that wouldn't allow myself to feel gratitude, which I had to grow out of over the years). The meaningfulness of genuine, committed empathy can be life-changing.
You bring up such a great point: empathy-in its continuous emotional weight-can sometimes diminish altruism. I believe I read about that in the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky, wherein he describes how sometimes an overabundance of empathic connection can lead to feeling overwhelmed by emotion and thus can lead to shutting down instead of helping. Like a doctor, for instance, if they don't allow themselves some distance might become consumed by their work to the point of breakdown; so many tragedies in that line of work; to persist requires allowing oneself to let go of some of that empathy, at least to an extent.
I so very much appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your comment. 🙏
@@ToReadersItMayConcern I loved Sapolski’s Behave! So glad to have found your channel, and I appreciate the thoughtful response! 😊
Good shit.
This was an interesting discussion Ruben. I have some muddled thoughts on it. I've been doing social work in a few different variations but all in an extremely rural and not affluent area and I've seen/learned things I sort of wish I had not. But my biggest takeaway regarding empathy I think is that the world is a very broken place and many "broken" people had been dealt hands that I likely would not have played any better than they did. In that sense, it helps me empathize to some extent so I understand why some people make certain decisions even if I wished them not to. The stigma around different groups of people is a weight around their necks in a lot of ways and a lot of that probably comes from a lack of empathy from the rest of us. I think to some extent too that you can theoretically (maybe?) still help people and try to lift people up even if someone doesn't empathize in any real sense. I can remember a distinct case where let's say I was misled as to the extent and degree of their previous felonies. I'd admit much of the empathy and whatnot was lost almost instantly, but the work continued. But reaching out to empathize in the hard or worst cases can still be valuable and having even just a few percent break the cycle can make the majority of other "wasted" efforts worth it. I know this was only one part of your discussion haha but I'll end with a quite I've always liked that kind of skirts the issue of empathy. "You don't need a reason to help people." - Zidane Tribal
Excellent topic. As an resigned employee of the school system in many capacities, I gravitated to children, such as how you described yourself. I hated the rules I had to follow of the school system, because the interactions on the playground weren't always black and white and held a lot of small nuances that needed to be dealt with. And telling the so called bad kid, who was frustrated and dealing with a lot in their life, that exploded in school, is not their fault. They don't know how to deal with all of the emotions. And then, when they experience empathy, there's a natural distrust. I loved those kids. I still think of them. And there were bad teachers. One in particular that comes to mind who, imo, abused her students. She hated me. I'm sure of it.
I have zero sympathy for people who claim to be victims and it has nothing to do with having a moral high ground. It's because we're all given different experiences in life. Some have better lives than others and we must live with the decisions we make. Opportunities today far outweigh than in history. And it made them stronger for having struggled through it. My empathy is going to be greater for younger people than for older people who keep making the same mistakes and haven't learned life's lessons. And quite possibly, because they haven't faced accountability. There are victims of something horrible happening to them outside of their control. That I can empathize. But when someone plays the victim of their bad decision, I care less about and may have some sympathy, but not when they continue to make the bad decisions and don't learn and grow. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.
There also needs to be an awareness of not being empathetic to narcissists who will play on/manipulate people's empathy. We also need to be aware of the "do-gooder" who is doing it for their own gratification.
Yes, language is limited.
The "Against Empathy" book sounds interesting. If we are faced with "that one hungry child" then feed that child. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other. The ONE child is in front of you, or me. It annoys me when a photographer will go to another country and profit off of photographing hungry children, but not do anything to feed the children. (Unless he's using the money he made from the photograph to send food, then that I can get on board with, but I've not heard that story and I have a skeptical mind set).
Rewarded bad behaviour continues. Are victims always the true victims? My son and I enjoy talking about the mind of the people who are the "bad guy" the "enemy" and try to figure out the reasons they chose to do what they did. For instance Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
Love your enemy: the greek word "love" means to: "to love, value, esteem, feel or manifest generous concern for, be faithful towards; to delight in, to set store upon".
This disarms a lot of people. If you have street smarts, you have an intuition on this and who to trust and whom not to trust.
It's strange the memories I have of cruelty from some teachers. Yet I also remember those who, like you, took pause and attempted to notice me as a full, complex individual. Especially where I grew up, that was rare, but it did matter (in spite of, as you describe, my wariness to trust). There is a certain degree of moral prestige tied to proclaiming oneself a victim, if only because it sometimes works as a shortcut to sympathy. You're right to notice that there are some who abuse this. Unfortunately, this seems to hinder our ability to help those genuinely in need.
Thank you for your thoughts, as always. I see you were expanding your comment as the video went along (I do that, too). It makes for a nice play-by-play of considerations.
Very excited for this! Will give my full thoughts at the end x
Ooh, great topic, first time I'm tuning in, and I am doing a tag by you on Sunday! :)
Thanks for the heads up about the tag! I'll be sure to watch! (Also, this might be an oddly serious video for you to start with.)
I feel sorry for the victims of crime and injustice.
Two examples come to mind of how this can work, both diametrically opposed.
The first is the work of Hubert Selby, Jr., he who gave us LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and many other works. Many of his characters are not good people -- they're junkies, hoodlums, street trash of one kind or another -- but just as many are people left bad because they have no place to go with who and what they are (the prostitute Tralala, the homosexual crossdresser Georgette, the closeted union shop steward Harry Black). Selby once wrote about his experiences making BROOKLYN into a film, and how he broke down sobbing when they screened the scene where Black is beaten half to death near the end of the film. "That poor son of a bitch," Selby said, "he just wanted to be loved." The impulses themselves are not sophisticated, but the way Selby displays and examines them are. We're not invited to excuse bad people or overlook good ones, but to see the greater environment, to know they didn't come from nowhere. This goes a long way towards explaining the long final chapter, "Landsend", essentially a novella in itself, that details the lives of several residents of a Brooklyn housing project, none of whom have anything to do with the earlier parts of the book. This is the world that makes such people possible, and maybe inevitable. We empathize so that we might see better our own bigger circumstances that make the badness possible and the goodness difficult.
The other is Akira Kurosawa's movie IKIRU (recently remade, and quite adroitly at that, as LIVING with Bill Nighy in the lead role). It gives us a dolorous city official, whose job is mainly to stamp pieces of paper and move them from one file to another, who has existed but not lived, and who discovers the thread of his life is about to be cut short before he has ever had a chance to actually do anything. This spurs him first to despair, and then to the kind of action that wouldn't be out of place in an Albert Camus story: he takes up the cause to help a local circle of housewives drain a swampy patch of land at an intersection in their neighborhood and turn it into a playground. Then, as Roger Ebert noted in his magisterial discussion, the movie uses a peculiar story construction device to make us go from a spectator or even cheerleader of this man's final fight to an evangelist for it in our own lives. We empathize so that we might be inclined to do more than just read or watch.
The bigger purpose of fiction as an empathy machine is to show us what it is like when we do in fact give a damn about each other, or why it is some of us might not.
This is a remarkably cogent analysis. Fascinating through and through and expands on my thinking while directing it back toward literature itself and the merits therein. I don't have in me at the moment to write an equally long response (tough day, workwise), but I appreciate that you took the time and were so clear and thoughtful. I really, really appreciate it.
I believe there's a fine line between empathy and understanding, where with the latter we remain to a degree more separate from the person or persons than with empathy. I can understand the motivation for a Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, but that motivation is so foreign to my way of thinking that I can't in the least empathize with them. Maybe a better example is through Greek drama or epic poetry, where we the viewer/reader can understand the actions of an Orestes or Hamlet but not empathize with their motivations as being so beyond our own experiences. Perhaps the degree of separation also impacts empathy, as you say - our reactions are stronger relative to the actions of one person (which is why the commercials always show one starving child or Dorothea Lange's photos of Okie families) than large groups (thousands killed in an earthquake). And of course one's own history and experiences affect levels of empathy and understanding. Not an easy question to answer.
My used copy of Europe Central arrived via Amazon the other day, and of course the next day my bookshop got a used copy also. Sigh. But it'll have to wait for me to finish Don Quixote, and I'm about halfway through. I definitely empathize a bit with poor Sancho Panza and have no empathy for all the beautiful and/or rich folk. Maybe that's also why I empathize with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rather than Hamlet? ;-)
Yes, the distinction is important. I think my internal life ends up steadily transitioning from understanding to empathy, likely because of my personal experiences having had destructive ways of thinking. I find calloused forms of my former self in others' sensibilities. That's fitting that you have Europe Central in the queue: it is a book with a lot of seething amidst the prose, and yet Vollmann (and he always does this) goes out of his way to not allow either victims or perpetrators to exist one-note. In fact, now that I think of it, I could have brought up a few examples from his Seven Dreams series, because he spends a lot of time entering the thinking of truly horrible people. That's somewhat his forte it seems.
The book, The Language of Flowers, by Vanessa Diffenbaugh, is a novel that provides an excellent example of empathy for destructive people.
Thank you, Cynthia! I love getting recommendations like this (hadn't heard of this one before)!
Me again. In response to your question, "when do you stop empathizing?", I hope you don't. A person with firm boundaries, ie, knows what they want, what they have to give, what they don't have to give, where one ends and the other begins, doesn't need to worry. One who's comfortable with their own boundaries can feel empathy without any impulse to help, rescue, sermonize, fight, punish, reward or change the other. One doesn't have to do anything or not do anything about the empathy infusing the situation. But the fact that the empathy is genuinely felt within makes the world kinder in my opinion. I don't minimize the beauty of acts of kindness and generosity. but I value empathy in and of itself.
I could not have said this better myself. Thank you!
@@ToReadersItMayConcern You're most welcome. Your videos are so enriching, I appreciate them and the comments very much.
I think that is easier to have empathy to a historical figure because we avoid anachronisms, not judging them by our morals. It's hard to know where to draw a line, when people commit certain acts with the intention of being remembered and to inspire others, by having empathy aren't you helping to spread their message? like news avoid to say attackers names, there was a motive to Damnatio memoriae to exist back then. Those dilemmas take a life long effort to reflect on.
Hi Ruben. I have watched your entire video. I am responding now as a teacher, and I guess I do like to think that I was the kind of teacher who saw good in students who couldn't see it in themselves. My heart breaks (you will hear my talk about my breaking heart many times in this response, I think) to think that teachers made you feel like you were a "bad kid." I cannot fathom that. I rejoice to know that someone came along, or maybe a few "someones," to give you a different experience of yourself in the world--and the hope for a different kind of future than your brother's. My heart is broken once again--as are the hearts of many--in the aftermath of yet another school shooting that resulted in many fatalities. How many times do we have to relive this narrative? I join the throngs who want somebody "to do something about this." My heart is shattered for all of the families now destroyed by what has happened--families that will NEVER be the same. And then I see the perpetrator of these atrocities--and he's just a little kid himself--just 14 years old--and my heart breaks for him too. What must his life have been like leading up to this horrible decision to do what he did this week? We can see glimpses of it as the details begin to emerge about his parents. We can conclude that he could not have felt loved and nurtured, and he could not have been taught much of value at home. He was not taught that he was of value. He was given an assault rifle by his father as a gift, or so that is what is being reported in the news right now. Do I feel empathy for this child? I absolutely do. And I feel total despair because his life is beyond ruined too. Why wasn't there someone there to step in for him? To show him his worth as a human being? Before it came to this? And what will become of him now? I have no answers, Ruben, but your video tapped into what I have been grieving over these last few days...I hope that this does not seem like too much of a digression.
You demonstrate much of my own thought process in regards to these incidents-not too much of a digression at all-and I find myself feeling emotional reading your words. It hurts to think of the loss all around in situations such as those, the pains that compound, and it is all the worse knowing this will repeat and repeat and repeat... I feel your grief. And I wonder how much caring we have lacked, how much could have been otherwise. This is horrible to say, but I remember I was so, so angry growing up, and I remember how direct and cruel the teachers were to me-thankfully, not all of them, but the ones who were nice I had trouble knowing how to connect with, because it felt so different and like a trick they were playing on me-and I remember how true it felt in my heart that I was a bad person (my parents used to tell me "you've done bad things but that doesn't make you a bad person," and in repetition over years that perhaps saved me, alongside leaving that city and all the incentives to be vicious in a space of honor-bound violence), and in remembering the mindset I had it feels very much that circumstances could have escalated to a horrible extent. I feel so lucky to have escaped (that's what it feels like, an escape). I feel so, so lucky, and it hurts to think about those who never got that luck. It really does. You know, I teach now, and I can't imagine saying anything like what teachers used to tell me. It feels unbelievable to say such things to a child. Then I remember one teacher in particular who broke down in our class, and I think of the city I was in and the poverty and the spread of traumas, and she couldn't stop crying because she didn't know how to deal with us, and it helps me understand that so many of those teachers were struggling with their own traumas, too, and that hurt compounds and spreads-Thus, I guess, so much of my thinking in this video: everyone is striving amidst imperfection. There’s a video I found recently, a mini-documentary about my father’s work with gang youth (this was right around the time our lives were beginning to change), and it includes my older brother (you can see how young he was when he first served time in prison). I hope I’m able to share it with you here, as it may be of interest: th-cam.com/video/nF_YgVKH4hs/w-d-xo.html
@@ToReadersItMayConcern I just watched the entire documentary. Thank you for sharing this with me. I am almost speechless. I have so many questions, but I don’t want to ask them here…
I'm glad you viewed it and found it enlightening. If you ever want to reach out, you can email me at ToReadersBusiness at Yahoo dot com.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern thank you, Ruben. I will write later today.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern
Emailed you this am.
Are you drawn to Paul Ricoeur & Martin Buber, & their phenomenological approach to experiencing the strangers we meet as subjects through their stories & memories?
I've only read about Ricoeur in relation to language, not either of their works directly. Is there a place I should start?
👀
Here I am crowdsourcing our conversation.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern almost word for word 🤣🤣🤣 but it feels like a compliment, thank you
Hey man
Hey!
Early point: Perhaps people who are slightly more empathetic than others are more drawn to books (it is a contributory factor as to why some people read). And perhaps English professors like to be dismissive of history in contrast to their own contribution to "the truth". Perhaps some of them prefer the pseudo-intellectual claims of the far-left (neo/marxists), Frankfurt School, post-modernists etc, one of which includes the idea that people - professors even - are not capable of being fair minded (objective) or even handed about a topic, and that they are not even aware or self-aware of the fact. That they have too much belief in a political-religion. That that will manifest at least in some way in all that they think and perceive, and therefore in all that they write. And that they are not even aware of the fact. And that it took people like Derrida to tell them so, professors, and everyone else. And yet... if we acquire a belief in something from literary theory, at the right age, it might tell us that: "It was entirely of your choosing. Sauron looked inside you and plucked the very song of your soul, note by note, making himself out to be exactly what you needed, a lost king who could ride you to victory. You gave him everything he wanted and then thanked him for it..."
Have you read Karl Popper's The Myth of the Framework? It's a slim volume that strongly critiques much of the Frankfurt school's reasoning. You may appreciate it (though, The Open Society and Its Enemies does a better and more extensive job, but much of that book is focused on other issues). You also may love the anthology A House Built on Sand, which tears into postmodernism from various directions. My early comments in the video are not dismissive of history or historians (so many historians are fantastically even-handed and strive for objectivity); I am recognizing aspects of narrative, not to say it falsifies by default but only that it is something to attend to otherwise one slips into a spell of compounding correlations. Having received an English degree, I can say with confidence that what is taught is not 'the truth.' And yes, you make a great point about how to interpret the results of those scientific findings, which reflects my point in the first section of the video: decisions get made in regard to how to interpret facts (but the facts persist nonetheless, don't they).
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Your early comments I agree are not dismissive, but they are prejudiced. The evidence for this as a fact can be found at 2:47mins where you make a statement as a matter of fact, that "there are overlapping waves of arcs... but as soon as it is put down in a book of history it suddenly becomes one over-arching storyline". Which history books might these be? _Tecumseh_ by John Sugden perhaps? Or _Edge of Empire_ by Maya Jasanoff? History is about evidence not storylines. No offense intended.
Prejudiced in what direction, do you think? FYI, I have read more history, science, and philosophy than literature in my life.
Also, no offense taken. I blame myself. As stated later in the video, this conversation started because a viewer said I was sympathizing with a historical figure too strongly and thus naively consuming what I read, so my mindset at the start was to display my lack of naivety in that regard, to emphasize my critical bona fides, but here I am now trying to clarify in the opposite direction. My fault, not yours.
You say "history is about evidence not storylines," but I wonder if we're not recognizing "story" in quite the same way. I can't think of a history book that does not take correlations of evidence and does not formulate relations between them. That seemingly must be the case. A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief" or severs by saying "the queen died coincidentally soon afterward." And there are facts that can support the link or the severance: maybe the queen cried a great deal, never leaving bed, then dying, hence it's reasonable to assume grief (but not certain); or maybe the queen cried-as is to be expected-stayed in bed out of sadness (again, to be expected), and died of an undiagnosed burst aneurysm, not because of grief itself (though grief is clearly correlated, but here you rightly noted in regards to the study on reading and empathy: correlation is not causation). Historians contend with these details always, and they are aware of needing to contend with this. I enjoy reading historiography-highly suggest the Routledge Companion to Historiography if you're interested-and this is a major aspect of work as a historian, discerning connections, recognizing the limits of facts-in-themselves to interpret themselves, and the importance of reading widely.
For instance, an actual example from books I've appreciated: Stephen Kotkin's Stalin biography and Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Young Stalin (and a bit of Court of the Red Tsar). Both contend with Stalin's capacity for great harm later in life, with Simon Sebag-Montefiore emphasizing Stalin's abusive and eventually absent father, Beso (though, to be fair to Montefiore, he clearly only suggests that it matters, not outright insisting upon it), while Kotkin makes clear that such 'abuse' was common for the time and isn't likely enough to explain Stalin's propensities. And then the emphasis-the story-becomes obviously distinct between the two historians, one (Montefiore) spending a great deal of time on Stalin's exiles and swashbuckling and criminality, in the feel of almost an adventure tale (I finished Young Stalin like two months ago), and Kotkin taking a more technical (heavily endnoted), subdued, and/or neutral approach with branches of broader history alongside (which I much prefer). That is storytelling. It is not an insult to call it storytelling, and it is not a way to say either historian is disregarding the facts. It is just that, again, facts do not speak for themselves, we have to deal with them.
The point of "arcs coalescing into one" in a book is to say that a single book grants a single experiencing of those facts. Not in itself inaccurate but filled with choices of presentation. For example, it is a fact I am sitting in front of my computer typing. If this were filmed, a camera could focus in on my face, the brief expressions hinting at thought, the light mouthing of words as I type, and could steadily zoom in further over time, understandably matching my focus with the focus of the camera. Those same facts could be filmed differently: straight-on to the computer screen, isolating the text itself as it appears, my fingers lapping in rhythm to the clicks. The referent is the same, the sense is distinctive; both reveal some facts and not others. Neither is a lie. But the choice of how to emphasize those facts are choices of storytelling. And that's okay. Again, it is not an insult; it is seemingly inevitable.
Thus we have to read more than one history book on a subject. I'm a little surprised you say history isn't about storylines, because whenever I read more than one book on the same subject I'm struck by how distinctive the formulation is. I not too long ago read A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes, and it is entirely different in its presentation of the Russian Revolution and its consequences compared to something like Sean McMeekin's recent work, though they overlap plenty. A specific example that stands out: they both bring up German funding of the Bolsheviks, but McMeekin takes that detail much further, creating a far stronger relationship between those funds and Bolshevism's rise than Figes does (though, when I return to the Figes book, he absolutely brings up much of the same facts, but their relegation is to that of almost a footnote, which is super interesting, and again reinforces the importance of emphasis). With a different emphasis comes choices of the story being told. Imagine what it would take to give every single fact-that would require more than a single book could hold. Selection of facts is necessary, thus that selection emerges into the realm of story. We have to select facts as writers and make further decisions on how to present them; hence, "overlapping waves of arcs" coalescing into one.
I'm sure you agree: "everyone, please, read more than one history book!" I'm sure you've felt that difference when reading of the same subject matter. Each book evokes an entirely different sense-but I should reiterate now: the facts are still true!! and I am not calling history a lie!! There just has to be decisions in writing history, much like there are choices in my translating my thoughts into writing right this instant: there is a truth of my thinking, and I am attempting to lay them out in a particular way, anticipating different understandings, adapting that, not merely constrained by truth in itself but now by presentation. When you write, too, you can likely feel the strain of choice to convey the truth. You have to edit your own words for that reason, and so do I. It has to be conveyed but you're still accounting for the impression of the reader and that has an effect. None of that makes it untrue. But it is a different arc of experience than would have been otherwise.
This whole non-naive-attempted-argument-about-history that I laid out at the start of the video relates to empathy because with different emphasis also arises differences in who we empathize with. If I read The House of Government by Yuri Slezkine, my empathy is with many of the Bolsheviks themselves and their families; if I read Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, the timeframe is similar but my empathy is for an entirely different group of people. By the end of the video I end up stating that I do not know what to make of that fact, the fact of difference in emphasis leading to differences in empathy (again, facts don't include instructions on how to deal with them).
By the way, I am just a nerd, not angry. If any of the above feels forceful or bothered or anything of that sort. Just, again, I am just a nerd, so I like going into minutiae like this. You're great, and I have been watching your videos since around the same time I started posting regularly on this channel half a year ago. Thank you for giving me something to nerd out about. I wouldn't write a lengthy comment like this to someone I didn't respect. I hope to have said at least one thing of interest amidst all of the above. (And the point I make a little later than the beginning in the video-about some truths being mixed in with untruths-that is just an obvious point about difficulty in testing one's interpretations, how "correlation is not causation" alongside many other challenges in knowing something with certainty when you can't go back and test each hypothesis individually.)
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Very interesting! Reply 1. You said at the beginning: "A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief"... but i have never come across a history book that says such a thing as... after the king died, the queen died of grief. And really where is the evidence of historians saying as much? And can you be so sure that professors haven't really thought about or looked into, how a queen might have died, whensoever, if she was known to have cried a lot, and taken to her bed out of sadness? Really. Do you have the knowledge and therefore the evidence to support and back up your statement.
And sure you then talk about the two books about Stalin. And they are biographies, so will naturally have a start point and end point principally about one person - that will run a bit like a story we might say. And lots of history is chronological. But that history often and naturally involves topics and sub-topics, one chapter at a time.
And then there is the issue of different kinds of history book. There is a version that might be understood as popular or public and not proper academic history. The history written by Sebag-Montifiore will surely be the popular kind, trying to be a bestseller! For example there is _In The Lion's Court, power, ambition and sudden death in the reign of Henry VIII_ by Derek Wilson, and then there is _Early Tudor Government 1485-1558_ by Gunn. The latter is a text quoted from and appears in endnotes of more general history books. The Wilson is not. The Gunn is on an under/postgrad reading list. The Wilson is on a shopping list.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern Reply 2: You do say that the Figes and McMeekin diverge, and yet later in the paragraph you do say they have the same kinds of information (after all). Beyond that however, a scientific approach to the issue of emphasis might/could involve a survey or study, a focus group: 10 people read one, 10 people read the other; then incisive questions, to see if there is any difference in the reading. To discover if there really was a noticeably different impact due to emphasis/presentation. Perhaps certain things did end up a little buried, whereas via the other things are prominent and more significant. And then again perhaps not. There is ability in writing but there is also ability or capacity in reading.
The heart of what you are saying is good but I think what you are confusing is there are some people who do bad things but in themselves are not psychopaths and can be empathized with such as having an addiction or mental illness being a very good example. Then there are people who are psychopaths and I am sorry to say this but they are not people like everyone else. Having been a victim of multiple psychopaths in my life in very brutal ways to the point where I sometimes am surprised I am still alive I know for certain the world has many, many monsters. What do I want to do with them? I want them to never be able to harm me or anyone else again. Is that possible? No because we live in a corrupt society where people don't give a shit about victims. People don't give a shit about what I have experienced. So I find myself getting very angry about feeling empathy for people who do not deserve any empathy and it will benefit no one to have empathy for them. But I must insist that yes it is good to have empathy for people who do bad things because everyone does bad things and most of these people are not psychopaths and are just either in bad situations or things may of happened to them beyond their control. Once you get them out of that situation you can really feel they are sorry, their is real sorrow about their actions, and it is easy to understand them. But once you have met and dealt with real psychopaths you can easily notice the distinction and difference between them and someone who did some bad things but is later genuinely sorry about their actions. The psychopath will never feel sorry. There is no point in trying to get an apology. Some of them get really clever and good at faking being sorry which allows them to continue their abuse. I know I cannot understand and connect with a psychopath just as it is impossible for them to connect and understand me. I wish they could be reformed but I also know that it is not possible. That is as far as my empathy for them can go. I can wish that they were not the thing that they are. In the meantime I would rather place all my empathy with those who I know can be helped or reformed by my empathy. I am very easily moved by peoples stories. I love to understand people. I am very good at getting other people to open up and be vulnerable. Thats why psychopaths usually are attracted to me unfortunately because I make a great victim by being a very emotionally sensitive and vulnerable person. Empathy is really a fascinating thing and having too much empathy can be really painful sometimes.
You're bringing up many excellent points, a few of which I had in mind to discuss but didn't, such as psychopathy in particular and those who take advantage of empathy generally. I cut out my initial attempt from the video, because I felt like I could only communicate the exact points I had to make by getting very personal. Like yourself, I have known intimately psychopaths in my life and have suffered directly as a result. You're right to notice this gap in my video. It is a subject that I think is important, and so I will probably try to discuss it someday in a future video. Right now, the specifics feel too private, and I'm not yet comfortable sharing those details on the channel (because of the conditions I grew up in, some of these experiences compounded over a few years).
This fact-the need to cut out my own story from the video-inspired the section of the video wherein I discuss how the stories of perpetrators will tend to be told more often than those of the victims', simply because not all victims will want to put their story out into the world. Victims shouldn't be expected to have to tell the worst parts of their stories. Of course, this leads to many not quite knowing how bad things can get.
I'm going to think on this a while. It feels like a more complicated layer of this whole discussion, and so I won't discuss it until I feel I have something of worth to say. Thank you for adding your insights.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern that makes total sense! I apologize for bringing up the part you didn't want to be said. And I am sorry for what you have been through. There is no need to explain anything. Privacy is very important and a precious thing. I am enjoying your thoughtful videos very much. I have been looking to expand my To Read list with books with lots of substance and depth and you have helped greatly! Thank you.
@@jennyjaybles Thank you, and no need to apologize. You have a keen eye to notice what was missing, and I invited the topic, so I take responsibility for what arises. I've reached a point of calm in regard to those memories, such that with those close to me in life, if they want to discuss those things, I can, and it feels fine. However, I sometimes have to remind myself when I film these that, though I end up feeling comfortable, I am still speaking to mostly strangers. That requires a bit more thought and care.
Like you describe in your initial comment, I also love to understand people and am often easily moved. And just like you describe, that has led to my being too open. Over the years, I've found my way through such experiences, to set boundaries without becoming jaded (it can be easy to become cynical, distant, and defensive, and I've worked my way to avoiding that). Maybe I should discuss that someday, that internal sensitivity I have and my means through it toward a kind of equilibrium. The more I think about it, the harder it is to explain. It ends up being a kind of sensitivity-oriented logic, a strange center between how little I must know and the fact that I have actually learned something, to be both humble in curiosity but stable in reasoning. And that latter stability becomes a way through, has been a way through, a quiet hand to hold as tension builds (and a knowing that it will always build, and I'm okay because I've overcome this before). I'll have to think on this. Maybe some things aren't fit to be explained.
@@ToReadersItMayConcern I think I understand what you are describing. It's a struggle to keep one's self safe? To put it simply empathy and sensitivity is a double edged sword. It can be very powerful when interacting with others and lead to great connection and insight. It can also be devastating to the wielder of that power. It can really suck. Figuring out how to manage it is freaking hard. It is a day to day struggle. I hope all sensitive people can figure out how to suffer less. Though I think suffering might intrinsically be part of the deal. This a depressing way to end my reply. I assure you I am fine.
I believe you very much that you are just fine. You sound like you've reflected on and been experiencing the struggle for a while (the struggle of the incline toward suffering). That makes your final point not depressing: it sounds like genuine, thoughtful experience, and that to me is a good thing.
Sadhguru’s channel posted a video today of him speaking after the Nirbhaya case, in which he says that a society can’t be based on punishment. There were points in common between both your videos. th-cam.com/video/UoAD_upkEco/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qxfGNnMEb94oBFpF
Oh, fascinating, thank you for sharing!