As often happens here, we're invited to talk about something before anyone knows what it is we're talking about. I, for example, do not know what compassion is. Anyone?

I do not know whether compassion has been dumped into the rubbish bin or not. Personally, I don't look to philosophy per se for guidance on acting compassionately. I rely on the Gospels here.

However one thinks about compassion, or however one comes to act compassionately, the critical part is to DO compassion. Dig a little: find out what needs exist in your community; find out about the severity of need; find out who is addressing the issues; find out what you--an individual--can effectively do.

I don't think it is at all difficult to identify bleeding, open wounds in the body politic. Really, one has to avoid information to not know what it is that people are suffering from.

In Matthew 25, Jesus states the terms of Judgement: 35 'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

These are examples not an exhaustive list, but any one of them is a good starting point.

Compassion takes practice -- not just to do well, but to develop the desire to be compassionate. Compassion needs to be planted and cultivated.

I can offer you the following quote from Judith Lief, in 'Radical Compassion',
'Compassion is based on empathy, being touched by the suffering of others. There are many levels of empathy Someone who is greatly compassionate is so touched by the suffering of others that it cuts him deeply.' In my own personal understanding empathy, involving feeling along with the person rather than looking down on them, is central. It involves being able to step inside the perspective of that person and connect with the experience. It could apply to the person who is homeless, abandoned by a lover, grieving after a death or a multitude of other different experiences.

You are quite right to point to the way in which compassion is central to the Gospels. I would say that both Jesus and the Buddha are ultimate examples of people who lived their lives based on compassion. Perhaps you are right to put the idea of compassion in the context of the Christian tradition, rather than in philosophy. But I do see it as independent of religious contexts because its importance is not based on any necessary belief in God or particular set of spiritual beliefs. I see it as a perspective which is central to life, for anyone, including atheists too, so that is why I frame it as a philosophy idea. When I say it has been thrown in the bin, I am probably referring to the way in which it is not given as much attention as it should in philosophy while it is an underlying basis of the emotional nature of moral values.

I wasn't clear. I'm not asking anyone to look at any steaming piles on the ground and tell me that compassion passed that way; rather I'm asking what compassion is.

I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever. — Jack Cummins

What has been thrown away, that we need?

Action? Passion? Reaction? Feeling? Thought? Behaviour? Reason? Unreason? Rational? Irrational? Standard/Criteria? Rule? Attitude? Disposition? Proclivity? Aspiration?

Out of the list you give I think that the one that springs to my mind is passion, but I don't wish to generalise. I am not saying that compassion has been thrown away, and perhaps many people, including philosophers do value it. It could be that in some philosophy circles it is discussed, or perhaps it seen as a rather boring topic. I just feel that it should be on the agenda because there is so much suffering in the world. It just doesn't seem to appear much in current discussions I have been reading, so I am wondering why it is being left out of the picture.

But I do see it as independent of religious contexts because its importance is not based on any necessary belief in God or particular set of spiritual beliefs. — Jack Cummins

It can be independent of religious context, certainly. But there are far more people whose ethical direction comes from religious teaching than there are people who get ethical direction from philosophy, per se. Combining Bhuddist, Abrahamic, and Hindu totals around 75% of the world population.

Philosophy seems to be more suited for defining what a good society is like, than is religion (in my opinion). Religion may be better for motivating virtuous individual behavior than philosophy might be, but philosophy can (presumably) perform that task as well. The difference between the two is that religions fund teaching and philosophy as such does not. Pragmatists, Stoics, Epicureans, Existentialists, Nihilists et al are not offering regular instruction, as far as I know.

I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever. — Jack Cummins

By the CCP and putin it has, yes.

Schopenhauer considered compassion as central to morality, but this is in contrast to pessimistic views of human nature. So, I am asking how relevant is for us to consider now? I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever. — Jack Cummins

The more human "being" descends into fragmentation at the expense of wholeness, compassion becomes less relevant.

"The whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all these living beings, which are all part of one another, and all involved in one another." Thomas Merton

Becoming enchanted with individual trees, our psych loses the conception of the value of the forest and our capacity to have compassion for the value of life itself.

When someone is being compassionate, are they doing something or is something happening to them? If they're doing something, what's making them do it - or is nothing making the do it? Or if something is happening to them, how is that compassion? (Passion would be something happening to them.)

I am trying to get you to engage with the word and whatever it is that the word represents or means. In many settings and discussions compassion, whatever that is, would be understood, probably as one of a small number of alternatives as maybe with a judge imposing sentence on a defendant. But that is not this discussion.

Let's see. Is compassion justice or injustice, or just no justice at all? Or why not try the old tool of genus and species and special features? Until you can assay some response, this thread is probably DOA.

You didn't ask me, but I don't see why you are having a problem with "compassion". The minimum definition is 'concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others'. In that usage compassion is a state of mind. "Having compassion" (for refugees, for victims of horrible diseases, for the homeless...) is 'feeling concerned'.

The feeling of compassion and 50¢ will not get you a cup of coffee. It won't advance your admission into heaven, either. Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol) did not even feel compassion for the unfortunate. "Are there no prisons? Are the work houses full?" he snarled.

Enacting compassion is what is important. Actually doing something to assist those you recognize as victims of significant misfortune is what is important.

Do compassionate acts need to be affiliated with compassionate feelings? I say no. If you feed the hungry and house the homeless you have acted compassionately, even if it was done to improve your reputation. If good PR was your motivation, then you have received your reward, as Jesus put it. In the larger ethical tradition in which Jesus stood, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is still important--whatever the motivation. (Jesus being God had inside information about motivation; The rest of us should not worry about motivation. We should just ask whether the hungry were fed, or not.)

Some people are motivated to act compassionately because they do not want to go to hell. Some people worry about the purity of their motivation. They feel guilty if they feel pleasure in helping other people (See: No good deed goes unpunished).

Why should atheists act compassionately? For the same reason that believers should: Because they can imagine what suffering is, and can understand that if not saved by good fortune, it could be them lying in a ditch. It could be them starving. It could be them with metastatic cancer, etc.

You didn't ask me, but I don't see why you are having a problem with "compassion". — Bitter Crank

Hi. I really don't, but consider the question of the OP,

So, I am asking how relevant is for us to consider [compassion] now? I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever. — Jack Cummins

You, just above, have it at least as a feeling of concern, i.e., a feeling. Then you allow it to be a behavior that meets some external standard, but that needs have zero to do with feeling - or the act itself! All right, then, it's an abstract concept - a many. But abstractions are never real. Are we to suppose that compassion is nothing real?

In sum, compassion is something about which likely most of would say we know what it is. And that is enough to get a lot of the world's work done without too much confusion. But we want to talk about it on a philosophy site. Indeed we learn the OP thinks it to have been "thrown into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas." Does that mean that compassion is a "philosophy idea"? That is, we think we know what it is; most of us take it for granted that we know. Great! So many people know but I do not. With such a richness of resource it should not be too hard to get someone to say, don't you think? Especially if they want to talk about it.

I don't know why Jack Cummins thinks that compassion has been "thrown into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas." Compassion doesn't get a lot of airplay on this site, but we are hardly a big part of P philosophy.

We don't talk a lot about mercy or forgiveness either. We could, but we generally don't. Those topics are much more the province of religion. Maybe lots of philosophers are writing about mercy--I wouldn't know.

A lot of religion is a cluster of emotions and memories which add up to what the believer experiences internally. Some of it is sweet, some of it is bitter, some of it good stuff and some of it is baloney. All of this 'religious affect' is inside the head. It's one piece of religion.

Another part of religion is action -- enacting the commandments or principles, or teachings. Praying is an action. Eating the Eucharist is an action. Giving alms to the poor is an action. Shoveling the snow off the old people's walk next door is an action. They are both real -- the affective and the effective. Personally, I give an edge to the effective--the stuff that people DO. The comforts of religion are affective, but the works of mercy are effective. Never mind about faith vs. works -- that's another can of worms.

The comforts of religion are affective, but the works of mercy are effective. — Bitter Crank

This of yours one of those lines that makes reading TPF worthwhile.

We don't talk a lot about mercy or forgiveness either. We could, but we generally don't. Those topics are much more the province of religion. — Bitter Crank

Well, I somewhat disagree. Religion does take possession, but that doesn't mean it's theirs, nor even that what is theirs is mercy or forgiveness. And we're back to the propaedeutic work of first figuring out what we're talking about.

And the process does not have to be strictly ordered; meaning can be refined in and by discussion. The real problem is settling uncritically, wrong-headedly, on a wrong meaning.

Compassion, to my reckoning, is better translated as the kind of love one is asked to feel for one's fellow human beings and because that love is based entirely on the ability of humans to suffer it follows that compassion must extend to all sentient beings too.

In my humble opinion, people are in the habit of looking for reasons to be anything and that includes to be compassionate and that, again in my humble opinion, is a dead end because there are just too many differences between humans, between humans and animals for there to be a strong enough foundation for universal compassion, the compassion of the kind recommended by religious and secular institutions. Thus, I suggest, we stop the futile search and simply be compassionate for no rhyme or reason.

I would agree that compassion should extend to all sentient beings and not just human beings, but yes, it is harder to find the same connection with animals, although I know some people who prefer animals to people.

I think that your part of the problem is how we allow cruelty to animals. I would say that the same applies to people. Even if we feel compassion, do we act on it? Having created this thread, I was thinking of this in the night. I would say that I do 'feel' compassion but don't always know what to do about it. In particular, I would say that I feel compassion for the homeless but don't know what to do to help them.

So, the question is whether if compassion is just a feeling and nothing more is does it count for anything? I would say that it is a level of awareness but ideally it should translate into action, and this is where the difficulty lies. I would say that it is an approach to life in general, but I am not sure whether this is enough.

I would agree that we are becoming fragmented and perhaps this does create a problem for becoming compassionate. I know that the more broken apart I am feeling, the less able I am to feel compassion towards others. That is where healing oneself first comes in because that and compassion are like twins, or the yin and the yang, and both need working upon.

I can see that your point about how compassion can be seen as a rather fuzzy, abstract concept. Of course, other ones such as justice, equality and even beauty are also abstract. Are they measurable at all? Perhaps none of these should be considered within philosophy because they are abstract. Of course, to some extent philosophy is dealing with the abstract because it is not just about facts.

I remember reading a book at some point by Paul Gilbert, 'The Compassionate Mind', which was concerned with psychological techniques for enabling compassion. Perhaps compassion fits more comfortably in the field of psychology and it is about a mindset rather than anything else.

However, when people use the term they often mean much more than this. In particular, in health care, there is a whole emphasis upon delivering compassionate care, and when I have worked in mental healthcare, I don't remember anyone actually querying what does compassion mean? I think that it is easier to point to lack of compassion than the presence of it. Here, I would say that if a person is admitted to hospital, say for an operation, they have some expectation that staff will treat them well and act in their best interest. However, if they did not feel that they were listened to it would be easy to say that the staff lacked compassion.

So, I can see why it is not a key focus because it is not measurable, but at the same time, compassion is a concept used in everyday life, which is more philosophical than anything else. I don't think that it should be relegated to religious thinking because it is about human living and not dependent upon religious or spiritual beliefs. Personally, I do see it as a way of seeing more than anything but it is one which has big implications for human behaviour towards others and animals. I do believe that the translation of compassion into practice is complex, but I would say that the same is true for other ideas, such as equality. It may be that others have a different understanding of compassion. My question of whether the idea has been thrown into the rubbish bin is related to the way in which I feel that compassion needs attention. But, this is bound up with the question of what is compassion? So, I am interested to know how others perceive the idea, and what others think that this entails.

Schopenhauer considered compassion as central to morality, but this is in contrast to pessimistic views of human nature. — Jack Cummins

I think Schopenhauer is pretty consistent here. Consider for example the Karma theory; if everyone gets what they deserved then there is no evil because there would be evil only if people suffer unjustly. However if there is no injustice then to explain what is the karma theory invoked? It amounts to a blatant denial of evil or the irrational in the world; it does not explain why there is evil in the world. Mind you the question is not about suffering but evil (or tragedy) - people getting what they do not deserve. If there is no evil then there is no point in being compassionate and having sympathy for another but if you are sympathetic then you accept the existence of the tragic. If there is no wound, there is no healing. But instead we try to rationalize away evil in order to retain belief in a rational and moral world, that whatever happens, happens for good, that whatever is, is right and people always get what they deserve.

All actions loose their moral worth if they are based on the denial of tragic and hence the existence of the tragic makes morality possible. Even when it comes to dealing with a personal tragedy covering up the exterior is of no help if the inner wound is not treated or ignored. That only increases suffering because the pain is not understood and its removal is not effected. Suppression and control offers no solution in this regard. What is needed is understanding and what is needed for understanding is compassion. Morality too is concerned with the inner spirit of the action and hence its locus is not within social rules and regulations; but then for social morality its the external that matters.

The best attitude towards someone else’s suffering and towards one’s own is to develop empathy and understanding towards it. Even if someone else’s suffering is due to their own mistakes even then one should realize that human beings are fallible and everyone makes some mistake at some point of time or other. This way one can also be more forgiving towards one’s own mistakes. The world would be a better place if people who suffer less can understand and share the suffering of someone less fortunate than themselves. I also feel we are quick to give moral lessons and instructions to those suffering. A good word is always helpful but to listen is a great merit. Sometimes people just want someone else to listen and just listen and do nothing else. It is a great quality to be able to listen to someone else. Again that way one also is able to open oneself to oneself and can better understand oneself and alleviate one’s own suffering. This I believe is morally and practically the best way.

I can see that your point about how compassion can be seen as a rather fuzzy, abstract concept. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, can be. Is that your goal, to have a fuzzy abstract discussion? Look through the thread so far. Six blind men feeling stuff - not knowing they're blind and not even yet an elephant! It is a little disturbing so little attention is paid to what something is even as a matter of inquiry and consensus before embarking in it on a voyage of discussion and discovery. These are the nautical skills of the Jumblies.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/54364/the-jumblies

I see your point about the 6 bind men, but, of course, you could say that this applies to many threads. Do all the other threads go beyond abstract ideas and feelings? When we start threads do we need clear goals? I create work for myself when I write threads but I do think that worthwhile discussion does take place.

But I like the poem and I do believe that creative writing takes us into places beyond philosophy. Also, perhaps philosophy is full of jumbled. When I tire of my new hobby of creating philosophy threads I would really like to write a novel, but, in the meantime, I do believe that the topic of compassion is as worthy of discussion as many others.

When we start threads do we need clear goals? — Jack Cummins

Sometimes, and with respect to those times, yes. Nor for that matter does our present exchange concern goals at all, but instead establishing that which creates the possibility of making any progress to any goal.

I do believe that the topic of compassion is as worthy of discussion as many others. — Jack Cummins

Well, that's the point. As topic you have a word, as it sits a closed door. Do we go through the door, or merely discuss doors.

If you wish to discuss compassion - seeming to me a worthy topic - and I in turn ask you what that is, I am not giving you a quiz or a test. Rather I am asking a civil question about the topic which the word itself by itself has not conveyed, and I think does not carry.

I would say that compassion needs to go beyond the idea of karma for it to be genuine. If someone is only responding and seeking to help another with a view to some future reward, in this life or another one, that is purely self reward. If responding to the suffering of another is done with a more generalised understanding of the way in which we are part of the cosmos, acting in line with the flow of cause and effect, it is slightly different because it is about wishing to contribute in the grand scheme of things which may have repercussions for us personally, it is a little different because it is not such a direct focus upon giving support to others with a view to positive gain. In other words, the principle that you reap what you sow is more in the background rather than in the front, for a specific personal reward.

I do believe that the tragic is part of the spur in the ability to enter into the spirit of compassion. The awareness of physical, emotional and mental pain is a key aspect. We could say that empathy needs to be based on a certain amount of experience of suffering of some kind. How can we be moved by the pain of another if we have no experience of pain. It would be empty rhetoric. But, of course it does not mean that we would necessarily disclose our experiences of suffering to the person who we meet in our empathy. That would only burden the other with our personal pain. But, experience of pain and tragedy is probably central to being able to reach out to another who is suffering.

I do believe that listening and understanding are central towards empathy and compassion. This is recognised in most schools of thought within counselling. Listening is so much more important than advice. I would say that we have so many people who like giving advice. Many people like to perceive what a person in a given situation should do and this is through inability to step into the world of the other. When we are listening to the person who is suffering, in the spirit of compassion, it may be about listening and not just trying to formulate specific answers. The person who is suffering may need the psychological space, to view and reflect. In being compassionate, we may need to stand back and enter into the suffering of the other to enable someone to find their own way forward.

I do believe that listening and understanding are central towards empathy and compassion. This is recognised in most schools of thought within counselling. Listening is so much more important than advice. I would say that we have so many people who like giving advice. Many people like to perceive what a person in a given situation should do and this is through inability to step into the world of the other. When we are listening to the person who is suffering, in the spirit of compassion, it may be about listening and not just trying to formulate specific answers. The person who is suffering may need the psychological space, to view and reflect. In being compassionate, we may need to stand back and enter into the suffering of the other to enable someone to find their own way forward. — Jack Cummins

You may appreciate how Jacob Needleman described an experiment pertaining to listening. Is listening the beginning of morality? If it is, then compassion is impossible without the ability to listen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

I have just played the video, thanks. Strangely, only a couple of weeks ago I wrote a thread about how people are determined to be right and your video seems to be suggesting the importance of listening to others views.

I believe that listening to others is of supreme importance and it is central to compassionate because this involves being moved to step into the predicament of another. We may not be able to know what the person we encounter should do but listening may be the one thing which we can do. I would say that listening is an essential skill for living and it may be one that is undervalued within philosophy.

I believe that listening to others is of supreme importance and it is central to compassionate because this involves being moved to step into the predicament of another. We may not be able to know what the person we encounter should do but listening may be the one thing which we can do. I would say that listening is an essential skill for living and it may be one that is undervalued within philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I'm a great admirer of Simone Weil. Listening seems to be as difficult as it is necessary She wrote.

“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil

"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him." ~ Simone weil

Sometimes it does feel difficult to give another the full attention of listening, without attention when really it is probably easier than trying to come up with the right thing to say. It may be that we are so accustomed to speaking, almost like an automatic response and it involves slowing down, reflectively.

I have never read any writing by Simone Weii but I would like to.

I have never read any writing by Simone Weii but I would like to. — Jack Cummins

Simone can have an effect on a person. When Julia Haslett was living in depressing times she discovred Simone and it saved her life. She wrote a documentary trying to understand it.

Simone cannot be classified. she was seeker of truth who had the mind of scientist and the heart of mystic. She couldn't be put into a collective. She is a woman who embarrasses me as a man. I do not have her total dedication to truth which is what a real man has. This is the trailor to Julia's documentary. She raises the whole question of attention. How does a seeker of truth respond to the question of attention? It is both philosophical and religious question a person can come to when they tire of arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw

I watched the trailer and I do think that Weil's idea of being the witness of someone's pain is of supreme importance. This can also be seen as connected to the experience of personal pain. Christopher Gerber, in, 'The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion', stressed that ' Instead of greeting difficult emotions by fighting hard against them, we can bear witness to our own pain and respond with kindness and understanding.' I believe that this is about not beating ourselves up, or feeling guilty for our negative emotions but being mindful, observing the emotions rather than fighting them.

Perhaps when we need to witness the darkest emotions, including despair which Kierkergaard spoke of as, 'Sickness Unto Death,' which he defines: 'Despair at Not Being Conscious of Having a Self ( Despair Improperly So Called); in Despair at Not Willing to Be Oneself; in Despair at Willing to Be Oneself.' When I have been working in mental health care, with suicidal and despairing individuals, I found that connection to my own innermost feelings of despair was important. Of course, I did not explain this to them, but when I was engaging with them I believe that they were aware of genuine empathy, spoken or unspoken, and appreciated this, rather than only exploring the changes which could be made in life to make it better.

So, compassion may be about being able to enter into the spirit of another's suffering rather than just attempting to fix it. Of course, compassion involves elimination of cruelty and oppression in the world, but at a deeper level it is about being able to help others to bear the weight of suffering, through being willing to share and partake in the experience of another person. This would involve the whole spectrum of emotions, including the positive and negative ones.

Let's see. Is compassion justice or injustice, or just no justice at all? Or why not try the old tool of genus and species and special features? Until you can assay some response, this thread is probably DOA. — tim wood

I believe the Buddhists got it right when they suggested that compassion and wisdom are intimately intertwined.

Without wisdom (the ability to see with clarity), compassion cannot properly manifest (instead replaced by feelings of sorrow). Feeling sorry so someone is about ourselves and does not aid (and many times hinders) the person we are trying to help.