It is that untraceable growth in the meaning of terms and the ability to engage them that is the meaning we, partially, recognize in the concept of "empathy". — Gary M Washburn

Let me break this down.

1) Engaging with the terms, what they mean, is the actual meaning of empathy that, in part, exists in
the idea of empathy.

2) Empathy is, partly, engaging with the terms and their meaning about empathy.

What might some of these terms be? Caring, listening, concern, sharing?

So “the terms” take us back to the meaning of empathy. What is it?

Which means you’re statement is a question about what empathy means.

Is that right?

It’s worth considering how the writer’s use of character in a fictional story gives us a greater understanding of people than empathy can because they give us more information about a character than empathy ever will.
— Brett

Imagination doesn't lead to understanding though... so you say. — creativesoul

It’s because the writer creates the character, (in a God- like way) that he understand it fully. That’s my point. Because he creates it he understands every aspect of it. Whereas in reality we live outside the lives of people around us.

Your quote doesn't even mention using imagination. I'm sure he's talking about the expressed views of the characters, knowledge about their history provided in the book and other things of that nature. — Judaka

It mentions a fictional character. Fictional characters are imagined.

You think/believe the following(assuming sincerity)...

Fictional characters give greater understanding.

You also argue the following...

Imagination is useless for understanding other people.

The problem is clear.

Fictional characters are imagined. Therefore, those two claims contradict one another. At least one of them is false.

I might have created another problem by introducing the novel. But it’s here so I might as well deal with it.

The two claims are only contradictory in the light you’re seeing them.

Yes the writer uses imagination to create a character, and that character might seem real. But it’s still a fictional character, not real except in the world of that novel, also not real. This is probably the great quality of great fiction, it gives us the rare experience, not at all real, of getting inside someone’s mind. Great writers produce characters who seem to live on outside the book as if they are real.

But the writer is still the creator of the character, just, as it seems to me, you are creating the character of the person you are empathising with by taking what signals they give and what your own experiences are. So you are both creating a character that you then respond to.

Judaka’s question, to me, is just the eternal question; can we understand the world through our feelings and ideas?

I might have created another problem by introducing the novel. — Brett

Nah. You didn't create another problem. Rather, it simply highlighted the inherent issues in the position you've been arguing for.

Use it wisely.

Realize that sometimes imagination can indeed lead one to better understanding an other. Revisit your position and make the necessary adjustments. It's not a big deal...

Just a matter of changing "all" to "some"...

The last post is continuing with the self-contradiction... it's multiplying...

No need.

Judaka’s question, to me, is just the eternal question; can we understand the world through our feelings and ideas? — Brett

Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge...

It's quite simply not possible... at all... to divorce the two.

Both consist of thought/belief, as does understanding.

I disagree strongly with your position but I know of a lot of smart people who agree with you, no hard feelings. — Judaka

Nah. No hard feelings.

You may feel strongly. But your disagreement does not have strong justificatory ground. The argument you've presented is not strong at all. Full of conviction. Yes. But weak when compared to actual events.

Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge...

It's quite simply not possible... at all... to divorce the two.

Both consist of thought/belief, as does understanding. — creativesoul

I’m assuming you don’t mean that imagination and knowledge are the same thing, but that they are linked. For instance Einstein imagined himself sitting on a photon of light then went on to write his formula for relativity.

Would that be a fair statement of what you mean?

Close.

Both consist entirely of thought/belief. Not all thought/belief is true. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. Not all thought/belief is well grounded. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be.

So, no...

Imagination and knowledge are not equivalent. Rather, they are both kinds of thought/belief.

Well, you may have decided not to leave the thread but I don't have much more to say to you. You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what, I give you the problems of empathy and you don't give counterarguments.

At this point, since there's so much I've said that you haven't argued against, there's no reason for me to change my argument just because you're ignoring it, all that's left is for me to repeat myself. You act as though I haven't provided any arguments but realistically if they're so weak you would have just dismantled them rather than ignoring them.

I think that there are situations where you could have provided some stronger arguments for your position. Such as an actual slave trying to empathise with another slave. However, nobody in the thread has actually provided counterarguments to the specifics of my argument. Many come here and assert their own positions, which is fine, but don't tell me my argument is weak when most people just left the thread before even trying to justify their positions against my arguments.

The only people who remain sadly, are people who don't feel that they need to deal with my arguments. You, themadfool and gary. I don't think any of you are even capable of explaining my position. You just say they're invalid without even saying what was invalid and really, they're clearly relevant problems.

Until you actually deal with my arguments, it's just an endurance contest. I didn't create this thread for that.

Well, you may have decided not to leave the thread but I don't have much more to say to you. You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what, I give you the problems of empathy and you don't give counterarguments. — Judaka

That's just not true.

The simple counter-arguments have been given, without subsequent due attention. Those arguments do not negate everything you've claimed. Nor do I disagree with everything you've claimed. I've argued against the parts that I disagree with.

Any and all claims that rest their laurels(that are grounded upon) the mistaken ideas that a)empathy is useless for understanding an other, and b)imagination is useless for understanding an other.

Neither is sufficient, all by itself. Both are necessary.

I'm trying to help you formulate a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge... — creativesoul

But from what I understand here you said our mistake was to dissect imagination from knowledge, to separate them, that it’s not possible to divorce the two.

You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what... — Judaka

May I suggest that you read this page a bit more carefully?

But from what I understand here you said our mistake was to dissect imagination from knowledge, to separate them, that it’s not possible to devorce the two. — Brett

Yes...

And?

Both consist entirely of thought/belief. Not all thought/belief is true. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. Not all thought/belief is well grounded. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. — creativesoul

Well it seems to me you are saying knowledge must be true, imagination need not be. Those are almost opposite things, even if they consist of thought/belief.

Well it seems to me you are saying knowledge must be true, imagination need not be. Those are almost opposite things, even if they consist of thought/belief. — Brett

Well, imagination can be false. Knowledge cannot. However, imagination can consist of well-grounded true belief...

Imagination can be knowledge.

What sort of knowledge can imagination be?

Justified(well grounded) true belief.

Give me an example.

Einstein

Copernicus

Why?

Why?

Why what?

"Why" is a psychological interrogative.

Nope. Not good enough. Bye.

Suit yourself.

"How" is a better question.

I hear of a people who are needlessly suffering. I, myself, have needlessly suffered. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. I see pictures, and read reports. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. The outlook is bleak. There is little hope within their words that I read. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes, and then have another person whom I do not know genuinely want to help me.

I imagine all this... then I go help. While there I talk to them and hear their story, see their hope return, watch them smile...

Some of my imaginings were true at the time I imagined them. Others became true(prediction/expectations were verified). All were partially grounded upon my own experience, partially grounded upon my imaginings. This was the experience they were still having. It was not a complete understanding of their situation, yet the empathy led to acting, driven by imaginings. The result was greater understanding...

Always is.

Try it sometime.

I am not criticising as a motivator, I agree that people make an effort to understand each other only because empathy caused them to care in the first place. I consider this to be the strongest counterargument to my position, it was something I knew already but my interpretation is that empathy as a motivator is not helping you to understand, it's just making you want to understand but I will respect disagreement on this issue.

I think you had many opportunities to bring up less contentious examples than things like slavery and police targetting of black youth, which are fairly preposterous examples that are easy to dismantle.

Take something like empathising with someone losing their car keys, it's annoying to you so it's a fair assumption that they find it annoying too. Everyone decided to bring up trying to empathise with groups or empathise on complex issues and represented the worst in utilising empathy as a tool for understanding people.

I am sure in the cases where you listen to what people are saying, you read their body language and try to confirm/deny assumptions you're making - that you reach a greater understanding. The question remains as to whether empathy did anything to help. If you had gone and talked to someone, asked them what's wrong, listened to them and asked them how they felt about it - you've already got all the information you wanted to get by using empathy. So what was the point of imagining it?

I think empathy for better or worse, suffers from implicit biases which are extensive and you may take what they say and try to imagine what it's like but it's more likely you're wrong than right and by quite a margin. You may get pieces of the truth which you could then further seek to confirm/deny but once again, why didn't you just ask more questions instead of imagining things?

As for groups, go do some research, listen to people and try to understand the facts. I don't know what information you're seeking to attain through empathy that you can't get a far more accurate picture by just doing a little research or investigation (by asking questions for example). I've asked you but you haven't given answers.

If you want to agree to disagree then it's probably for the best, we've been going in circles for a while now.

EDIT: I always want to mention that you can make logical conclusions without empathy.

Another Kitchen Nightmares example which I think is pretty instructive on this you can watch if you want but I'll just explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUvl9D_IMW8

Sushi Ko is a failing Japanese restaurant with an old chef as an owner named Akira who no longer cooks. When Gordon Ramsay eats there, he thinks the food is disgusting but he already knows that Akira should be aware that the food is awful. Usually people either defend the food (denial), act defeated (given up) or accept they're wrong and don't know what they're doing.

When Akira a chef who should know better didn't argue back, it seemed obvious for Gordon to assume he's given up and when he talked to the family and they agreed, this seemed all but confirmed.

We don't need to empathise with Akira, his actions speak for themselves and with a little insight, we can make strong causal arguments that didn't require us to just believe everything Akira says.