I do hope that you get well and have wondered about your lack of presence on the site recently. I am thinking that your issues may come down to diabetes, which is so prevalent.

So much of philosophy may be about abstract and nitty gritty ideas and may lose sight of existential suffering and the questions which it poses about the human condition. We are not simply 'minds' but embodied beings, and any understanding of empathy or sympathy needs to embrace this, in understanding the human condition.

Yes, the communication issues involved in conveying sympathy or empathy are critical. For example, if I relate an experience of great suffering and receive what feels like a shallow response of someone who is not suffering it may feel like a 'condescending', or 'chocolate box' response. The interpretation of the person receiving the response is also significant, and it may differ from the intention of the sender.

I wonder about the present time, when so many appear to be suffering, although that is an interpretation of news, may open or shut down empathy and compassion. It may lead to Hobbes' conclusion of life being 'brutish, nasty and short' or about egoism and the need for survival. Individuals may focus on self interest, in a harsh world, or may consider altruism, which goes beyond the idea of action for direct personal advantages and gains.

Yes, the imagination of someone to feel another's pain may be limited and that is why the issue of autism is relevant. It is hard to know to what extent the ability to empathise is about biological wiring or experiences, including trauma. Even reasoning about others' suffering and ethical concerns may be affected by these factors. Traumas may do so much damage.

Yes, both too little or too much empathy can be problematic. Too little can lead to indifference to the suffering of others and too much can lead to extreme sensitivity. It is indeed possible to become afflicted by the pain of others through sensitivity. This may be a cause of mental suffering, including effective disorders and forms of addictions, including drug and alcohol.

It partly comes down to the problem of being separate individuals, but interconnected.

Yes, the psychiatric understanding of autism and empathy is probably slightly different from the issue of sympathy/empathy. The reason why I mentioned it is that the issues of autism are becoming so common. There are so many people who are self diagnosing themselves as autism and, lack of empathy may be part of this criteria.

It also overlaps with the idea of 'emotional intelligence'. However, it would be too crude a stereotype to think of autistic people as lacking social concern. Greta Thundberg is an example of someone who cares for social issues of justice. Sometimes, gushy emotionality can be mistaken for empathy, as in 'crocodile tears'.

I am uncertain about where I stand on the issue of empathy/sympathy being about semantics. That is because so much does come down to usage and context of words. However, so much of the conceptual understandings within philosophy do as well, and part of in the debate about empathy vs sympathy becomes apparent in its translation to ethical responsibility.

Also, the issue of empathy has become an important area in psychiatry, in relation to autism. Lack of empathy has become medicalised. However, even in that context there may be blurring of semantics. Some assumptions and assessments may be about the ability, or lack of ability for 'feelings'. This may involve value judgements on the part of those assessing. Nevertheless, on a more analytic level, the research on autism looks at theory of mind, involving the ability to be able to imagine another's perspective, which is the basis of the concept of empathy.

I am responding to your post first because I can relate to it most, as I was in hospital twice and experiencing cries of distress from other patients. The question does involve the extent to which one's own pain makes us more sensitive or blinds us from that of others' suffering. It may vary so much. I am also thinking that your situation sounds 'worse' than mine if you had a limb amputated, which your post seems to suggest. (I was in hospital for chest infections, although I need further tests for underlying systemic health problems).

But, going back to the issue of how one's pain affects the response to the pain of others, comes down to mood and attitude. It is possible to become shut in a prison of personal suffering or to become more awake to that of others. One thing which I have reflected upon is that when my mother had chest infections, I may been less empathetic as at that time I was not aware of how awful the experience is. This may apply in so many issues. For example, those who have been homeless or in poverty may be more compassionate toward those in similar circumstances, but not always.

Your point about empathy being more passive whereas sympathy being more active is important. I used to think that empathy was 'better' than sympathy because it involved authenticity. However, it does seem that sympathy involves a more active need to help in many ways. Empathy is the experience of feeling alongside another, involving the passions. I guess that both empathy and sympathy can be hollow responses if not involving some kind of action. That is where compassion-based ethics steps in.

As far as your questioning of the current vs historical nature of empathy, it is likely that human nature does not change in itself. It is possible to see the suffering of past times and in far distant lands as 'barbaric'. The closer it comes to daily experience may make such a difference. Presently, the news shows so much trouble in the world (2025 seems far worse than the time of the pandemic from my point of view). The difference between passive emotion and action involves the extent to which the emotion is matched with reasoned responses and a pragmatic approach. That is if one does not become overwhelmed, especially by the intensity of the emotions, and 'the fight and flight' aspects of human nature and survival.

In the meantime, I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever health problems have led you to a rehabilitation unit.

Best wishes,
Jack

Thank you for your feedback, including the issue of how physics may be regarded. It was once seen as the foundation for science. This has become a shaky area and the whole issue of experimental verification arises in connection with this. Partiality and impartiality is linked to this, especially as scientific experiments can only test hypotheses or descriptive inferences. So much comes down to interpretation and physics may give what is considered to be metaphysical flights of fantasy.

Thanks for your feedback, and, at least you know part of the background. The concepts of 'insides' vs 'outsides' was probably not considered fully enough. It is about positions, or perspectives. As far as lopsided thinking, it is a good question how this relates to prejudices. Each person comes from a background of experience, of cultural epistemological influences. The challenge may be to expand this as far as possible.

If anything, this essay is one of processing a lot reading which I have done, culminating in the issue of New Scientist on the nature of reality. It may be more one which involves my own thinking, and it would need a lot more careful exposition to make it helpful reading for others.

The references to needing more oxygen were based on my own low oxygen levels, which did give rise to hallucinations...I did wonder about the significance of needing breathing space, especially given the intensity of thinking in philosophy...

Thank you, I am still not great and have to have some further physical investigations.

One thing which may interest you, as I know it is one of your areas of interest, is that when my oxygen levels were very low I had some experiences resembling NDEs. I saw underworlds, which seemed to be like art in the imagery of the Tibetan and Egyptian books of the dead. I even had some auditory hallucinations, such as the 'voice' of a spirit guide. I nearly wrote my essay about this but it felt too intense a task to undertake.

The reason why I put Vera for Dante is because I see her as rather literature based.

I also spent time trying to work out which one was yours. I nearly didn't enter because I have been in hospital twice but did so to try to take my mind off the physical health problems. I think that I may have got discharged a bit too soon because staff thought that I was more well than I was as I spent so much time reading philosophy while on oxygen.

Poetic Universe definitely wrote Part 1 and 2
Sam 26 the Wittgenstein one
I did wonder if Baden wrote 'Styx and Bubbles', but it could be hypericin. However, I think it could be I like sushi
Vera Mont, the Dante essay
The others I am not sure about... alt

A nice little reflection on human nature, an issue which can be explored from so many different angles. Here, historical examples are included. I felt that the present era was glossed over a bit too lightly, but that probably shows how understanding of human nature is so bound up with thinking about human meaning and theories in general.

One book which I I found extremely useful for thinking about human nature is 'Seven Theories of Human Nature', by Leslie Stevenson. It compares the approaches of Plato, Christianity, Freud, Marx, Lorenz, Skinner and Sartre. This choice of thinkers definitely doesn't have any female perspectives! It all shows the various partialities of any descriptions and understanding of what it means to be human.

Generally, I am impressed by the way this author writes in the form of poetry. I almost imagine him thinking in rhyme. For the purpose of this essay activity I do wonder if the writing should have been tailored a little. As it is, it is a little long and obscure, with some of the arguments becoming a little muddled or muddied through too much rhyming poetry. The patterns of rhyme almost seem to convey a picture of a clockwork, mechanistic universe.

The trouble is that thinking has been based around 'Silence of the Lambs' stereotypes of motivation. Lawyers may have once erred in the direction of presumptions that women who dressed in certain ways were asking for rape. The leaning may now have gone in the opposite direction, that all 'biological males', including those who wish to become women should be viewed as potential 'rapists'. Feminism was needed to alter fear and, now, it is a basis for generating authoritarian ideologies of fear.

It may appear as common sense, but it depends how far it goes. Some politicians have suggested always going by birth gender, which ends up with transmen who look completely male being expected to use women's toilets, which will upset women. It also means transwomen in male toilets. Okay, people say that there are unisex toilets but they aren't always available. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism.

I found this to be a good theoretical examination of what I have seen happening in America and England.

One of the aspects which I do wonder about in relation to this is the backlash against transgender and I was interested that the author included mention of Judith Butler, who has written extensively on gender.

In America, Trump has been harsh in his fundamentalist approach towards trans individuals. Even though the essay doesn't look at England there has been a legal ruling against self-identification of gender. The full impact of this has not become clear but it seems to be in conjunction with monitoring of people's choice of public toilets. It seems to be ushering in an approach in which transgender people are expected to use the toilets of their birth gender, even if they have had biological treatments to change gender. In some cases, it does seem that individuals may have to use disabled/unisex facilities only, which makes them vulnerable to violent attack.

Of course, the trans toilets issue is just one aspect of increasing authoritarian measures and there is lack of clarity over how it is going to be monitored. There is also the question of whether people who are not even trans may be affected. That is because some people get misgendered or have their gender questioned who don't have gender identity issues at all.

In general, it does seem that since the time of the pandemic the liberty/authoritarian paradox has become more apparent. It is as if the restrictive rules to protect others have ushered in a speedy form of authoritarian compliance.

I am surprised that this well written essay has not received attention. It may be for the same reason as the one on 'The Insides and Outsides of Reality', that there is so much being discussed in other threads. It is rather unfortunate that a thread on 'the phenomenological basis was started shortly after this essay. If anything, this may point to the way in which stringing these essays alongside main threads may have weakened the reception of the essays so far.

Back to the essay, while I don't subscribe to materialism generally, I think that the essay is written so well that I do find the argument within it to be strongly supported and worth reflecting upon.

One main problem with this essay on the forum is that it is an area so hotly debated within philosophy. It is rather unfortunate that it is onsite while the thread on 'what is reality? is going so strongly. This may mean that hardly anyone will read it all, because that thread has grown so long. To say less or more about the idea of reality is the question?

An interesting piece of writing, which captures emotion and suffering. It draws upon notable philosophies and a sketch of personal experience in a way which creates a compelling existential essay.

The essay does argue for the importance of essays within philosophy. However, it does have a narrow scope as to what that may mean, based on guidance for academic philosophy essays. This leaves little scope for the most creative possibilities and such guidelines are likely to be a factor in the decline of philosophy essays in the first place.

I found this essay to be enjoyable and worthwhile to read. It reminds me of the worldview of Shakespeare, but it was interesting to read it in connection to the writing of Dante.

The essay brings literature and its history to the forefront of philosophy when so much seems to be focused on science. This essay stands out as being fairly unique, as Dante's ideas are not discussed much, if at all on TPF.

I agree with you ultimately. The fear of plagiarism may be too negative and, in a way, I would feel honoured by anything I say being selected to be plagiarized!

I guess that I have just been wondering about Feedspot ever since I have been getting emails from it. So, your clarification about it is helpful.

This is a distinctly creative piece of work, especially the combination of writing and art. Also, the crossover between fictional narrative makes philosophy accessible to a wider audience, like 'The Tao of Pooh'. It may also enable younger readers to think about philosophy.

Whoever the author is, I recommend working on this further with a view to publication. It may have an originality which will make it extremely successful, as a refreshing alternative to academic philosophy.

and others:
Personally, I am not concerned one way or another about whether the essays are public or not. There is just one aspect which I wish to draw people's attention to, I get emails about Feedspot, which links to a number of sites about threads on various sites, including TPF and Reddit. I found emails from Feedspot creating links to at least a couple of the TPF essays.

I am not a member of Feedspot and don't know what it involves exactly and how it links to various media sites. However, I am wondering about people who may have submitted to this writing activity, or even created threads, having their writing made accessible publically in such a way. If anything, I am concerned that it may give rise to plagiarism of TPF poster's ideas far more easily than previously.

As for the essays, I am wondering about the decision to make the writing public on the mere basis of one member having difficulty signing in currently. But; as I say it is not my personal concern, but the essays being made public on Feedspot is an issue which needs to be taken into consideration.

I am a bit overwhelmed by the essays but I am impressed by the overall quality. Your idea of the activity has certainly sparked some creative responses.

We are going to need a fair and of time to read, process and give feedback. Initially, I thought that having them on the the front page was good, but it is possible that some may get lost by being jumbled amongst a fast turnover of ongoing threads. Also, from the one which has received a reply, it is questionable whether it will be clear that they are part of an essay activity rather than new outposts by @Moliere.

Of course, people can find them by looking in the category of philosophy essays. It is hard to know whether having them in the main page will hinder or help gain readership. But I don't plan to go on about this too much, especially as it is an experimental activity. Also, based on the entry above mine, I am hoping that many regular users do not see the outposts as a mere intrusive nuisance! As it is, I just wish to focus on the essays and appreciate them for what they are.

Yes, 'One' would be great inspiration for a song as it is so philosophical. If my current essay doesn't out I may try it or another U2 song. Or, someone else may try one based on music by U2.

On a sadder note , one of my favourite singers, Mike Peters of the Alarm died this week. He was 66 and had chronic leukaemia for 30 years and it took on an aggressive form last year. A lot of people have not come across The Alarm, who were from Wales. They go back to the 80s era and were still performing but with a lot of different members and Mike. I have found The Alarm's music to be a big source of inspiration, comparable with early U2.

Stress gets in the way of writing sometimes, but I will try to chill out and hope that you do too. Music helps so much. What I am listening to at the moment is 'Songs of Surrender' by U2, which is a compilation of reworking of many of their songs.

It does seem sad that essays have been lost and that the completel anonymity has been compromised in the approach. I wonder how essays have been removed, because there is so much going on with data attacks etc.

I am hoping to submit still but fearful of the essay getting lost because I have to type it onto the pms directly, due to software problems. Actually, what I am writing is far from finished as I have been struggling with a lot of stress since coming out of hospital. I am hoping that what I am writing will come together sufficiently for me to submit. It is over 500 words but I don't wish it to be too long and get lost. I will give myself time until the closing date. If it gets lost on the system I will use my handwritten draft as a potential thread instead.

Let's hope that people who have submitted the missing essays are not too demoralised and have their work saved somewhere. It would be awful if this situation affects the competition. I hope that the problem doesn't come down to issues of submitting private emails because there is so much going on in the world with security concerns about the internet at the moment.

A lot of what is happening in Britain, and other parts of the world is about resources. There is some difference between the monetary figures of economics and how it translates into material resources. But, a large part of the problem is the way of life which Western civilisation has come to expect is unsustainable.

It is not simply about politicians trying to deprive people but about tough decisions in thinking about the future. The cost of the welfare state and NHS is tremendous but people are reliant upon it. So, what can be done is a conundrum. How to manage it fairly is difficult, especially in an age in which digital technology plays such a role. The basic needs of people for food, housing and essentials may get missed and it is likely that there is so much wastage of resources. There is a need for resources to be shared and it is likely that a need to go beyond capitalism and socialism needs to occur to address the nitty gritty economic realities which lie ahead.

How much allowance is made for people who can't do digital is so variable in public organisations. For example, I have heard of people who have been cut off from the benefits system as a result of losing a phone.

You seem extremely optimistic about any political agenda. I do not wish to be completely negative but see so much as being questionable. I see the need for people to be heard and fear that democracy is decreasing.

I am aware that you are writing from the USA. The versions we hear of news in both countries is likely to be filtered differently. This may be especially true at the present time where tensions between world leaders are extremely fraught. The relationship between Trump and Starmer is critical in this, especially with negotiations about Ukraine/Russia and Trump's tariffs.

I see what happens next as being fairly complex and may depend on who is involved or left out in the dialogues. It is with this intention that I wrote the thread, although it is likely that discussion here is of minimal significance in the power structures of political discourse.

There has been no talk of co-payment but what is starting to happen is in the form of inequalities, whether intentional or not.

In particular, many GPs require everything to be done on-line and requiring certain apps. Not everyone can access such resources or use them, especially the most vulnerable groups, meaning that they are in danger of being marginalised, or even excluded.

Also, GP appointments can be grabbed by the most healthy and denied to those who are most unwell. That is the likely reason why so many people are presenting at A and E departments. This will need to be addressed for effective change, as opposed to random community visits, which may ignore many less visible people.

As I see it, so much is being rushed through by the government. Such haste may be extremely disastrous and costly, leading to potential collapse of the NHS.

I am not opposed to change or restructuring in itself. However, what does seem to be happening is that the pace of changes does not allow for so much unpredictability and uncertainty in life. The NHS in England had been restructured and was making so many changes before the pandemic. After Covid hit, so much was hit by cost. That is the main reason why the NHS is in crisis. So much is intended to save money, especially job cuts. Also, without being negative it is hard to know what will happen with the plan for the government to have more direct control over decision making.

In addition, so much change, in the NHS and other organisations is focused around technology being introduced. The people involved in such organisations are being trained in technology and policy. What may be lacking is the value of human individuality in this. In particular, communication skills and listening may be lacking in such processes, especially as staff are so busy on machines and computers.

There was a thread on 'The Metaphysics of Poetry', started by @Gus Lamarch a few years ago, which you may find worth reading. I see the topic as important because it comes down to the nature of linguistics as evolutionaryhuman expression vs the idea of the qualia of ideas 'out there'.

One other area which I am slightly but not entirely familiar with is the way in which Wittgenstein's ideas have been developed as a basis for poetry. Generally, I see the dialogue between poets and philosophy as a fantastic area for exploring the nature of imagination. Also, it is likely that the philosophers can learn so much from poets and vice versa.

2
A sound bridge between rationality and emotive morality may be useful. That is because without the rational, we may end up with 'herd instinct'. Morality based on rationality or emotion alone may too narrow in scope.

I do not deny Nietzsche's argument or the issues of relativism. Nevertheless, what may be happening is a 'fashion' or slippery rope argument whereby the right to express hatred is being justified.

I see your argument as possible logical but questionable from a deeper philosophical point of view. Here, I am wondering about philosophy as being about the pursuit of wisdom for living. After cultural relativism and postmodernism there has been a shift to philosophy as rhetoric, alongside a fragmentation of values.

The problem which I see with the idea of 'beyond the pale' is that it is culturally and historically relative. Also, it may depend on situational contexts.

For example, I am aware of how what is considered appropriate or not varies on a written forum to face to face groups which I attend. On the forum, certain remarks are unacceptable, such as racism but in philosophy discussion poor or low quality argument are key issues. In face to face interaction, factors like racism and sexism are also unacceptable but the focus is more about sensitivity rather than formulation of arguments.

While there are unclear markers of ''beyond the pale' vs 'the unacceptable', one possible measure which holds up to rationality is the idea of respect for others in general.

I am sure that some who read my thread may be unsympathetic about my groans about the NHS and welfare state. However, have one big grouse, which I think is significant. I came out of hospital after having pneumonia and I finding it difficult to get a face to face appointment for follow-up care because I got discharged within hours of coming off oxygen. I am fearful that without face to face aftercare I may end up back in hospital.

The underlying issue which I see is how so many aspects of the system are reliant on online apps etc. In particular, I need a 'fit note' for the DWP and it is unclear from my discussion with a receptionist if this can be done at the face to face appointment or has to be done separately using certain apps. It also requires Zoom and this doesn't work where I am living because of a poor signal where I live .

So, I am fearing both benefits being stopped and ending up in hospital again if cannot get necessary medical care. It is so stressful, affecting both my physical and mental health and seems to be about a system where almost everything has been put in the hands of Gov. UK websites, which were introduced so much during the time of lockdown.

Sorry that I have taken a while getting back to you. I agree that population is an issue but I am a little confused by your stance. That is because in England, at least, the problem is such a large population rather than the problem of the population not growing. This is partly due to medicine having increased life expectancy and social care needs previously. That is one of the reasons why age for retirement has been increased for men and women, and will continue to be increased.

Nevertheless, while life expectancy has increased previously, health is variable and many are unlikely to be fit enough to sustain employment until the official retirement age.

There is so much medical technology and pharmaceuticals but it is costly. The NHS and welfare state are at breaking point because of mass population. Amidst this, it is that many are not receiving what they need amidst the cost and chaos. Individuals are becoming mere numbers, with some gaining what they need while some are being thrown into deprivation.