I'm not moralising, proselytising or preaching or advocating or advising or recommending but-
Imho compassion and empathy are the entirety of meaning without reference to anything other than themselves,

I wonder if it's worth separating empathy from sympathy or from compassion. A lot of people have sympathy for others but they don't quite arrive at empathy - the notion that one can put oneself in the other person's position and creatively imagine how they must feel in certain circumstances.

I'm skeptical about empathy. I don't think most of us can put ourselves in the shoes of others. Whatever that is meant to mean. We may imagine a person's situation as applied to our unique circumstances and adapt it to suit our own disposition. Or we have to radically recreate an other's experience to arrive at some pretence of understanding. How, for instance can someone without children understand what it is like to lose a child?

I've tended to prefer the word compassion (but I'm happy to be talked out of it) - you can conclude that others require care and support without having to connect viscerally with what they are experiencing.

I use to think that pessimism had a narcissistic underpinning - we may believe that nothing will go right for ourselves, that we will not be happy (often based on childhood experiences) and then we globalise our emotional reaction. Pessimism seems a pretty easy, even tidy solution to the world's problems. If you can put all things into the basket of 'everything's fucked' one doesn't have to think much further.

compassion and empathy are the entirety of meaning without reference to anything other than themselves, — aodhan

The pronoun "we" seems to derive its meaning from the very notion of empathy professed towards another, no?

I'm skeptical about empathy. — Tom Storm

It's fairly easy to empathize with another. I don't think sympathy arises out of nowhere. First, based on experience one gathers the raw datum of what it would feel like to ourselves, and then through experience can fathom what sympathy might allude to another, no?

How, for instance can someone without children understand what it is like to lose a child? — Tom Storm

I believe that what you might be alluding to is "care," which is even more stipulated and derived from compassion and with that empathy.

Pessimism seems a pretty easy, even tidy solution to the world's problems. If you can put all things into the basket of 'everything's fucked' one doesn't have to think much further. — Tom Storm

Yes, well isn't it derived from a sense of compassion, or a strong sense of empathy towards others? I can anticipate what you might say based on only basing the suffering of the world focusing only on ourselves, yet, Buddha wouldn't have been Buddha and neither would Schopenhauer been Schopenhauer without a strong sense of identity derived from the suffering of others, yes?

I meant empathy and compassion are the supreme reality-
As a poor analogy you could say beauty exists in and of itself, trying to reduce it to a category is ineffectual, an AI algorithm can create an image of a beautiful face any number of times given the appropriate criteria but it doesn't get to the soul of the aesthetic experience

It's fairly easy to empathise with another. I don't think sympathy arises out of nowhere. — Shawn

Two different things - the former IMO being hard to achieve.

Yes, well isn't it derived from a sense of compassion, or a strong sense of empathy towards others? — Shawn

I don't think so. I have encountered too many philosophical pessimists who don't care much about others at all.

Buddha is a mythological figure and Schopenhauer is an influential philosopher. I wouldn't feel comfortable coming to conclusions about pessimism in general based upon their stories.

Buddha wouldn't have been Buddha and neither would Schopenhauer been Schopenhauer without a strong sense of identity derived from the suffering of others, yes? — Shawn

It could be argued, based on their putative biographies, that the initial impulse towards their school of thought was entirely personal. Buddha's life of privilege was disrupted by shock (the 'Four Sights'). Schop's, by childhood and the death of his father. Both stories don't seem to have involved empathy. More a case of ontological insecurity - perhaps, 'my world is fragile, I am at risk!'

Philosophy is often associated with a love for wisdom; empathy and compassion, not just for other people, but all other things, is important for philosophical thought. A love for the whole information of what we observe, leads to great insight on how everything is and connects.

I think "empathy and compassion" may preceed, rather than follow from, philosophy (which consists of reflecting on, among many other aspects of human experience, "empathy and compassion"), specifically in aesthetics or ethics.