Now we're on the right track - and thank you for that! Wisdom is the ability to see clearly. (Compassion being, then, not wisdom.) Compassion is_______________________?

Compassion is_______________________? — tim wood

...the manifestation of that wisdom.

I think we have plenty compassion going around. There is no shortage of people publicly signalling their compassion about this or that group. But compassion, as a feeling, is nothing if it isn’t followed by good deeds.

May I paraphrase this way - do you accept this: Compassion is acting in accord with what is most clearly seen? Refinement welcome - and I think you're on to something - or you already have caught it.

Yeah, you could say that, but true compassion is being able to see the issue for what it actually is and then act in a way where you can effect the most appropriate help (which in many cases is doing absolutely nothing except listening).

The key to everything in life is clarity (seeing things for what they really are).

I do think that compassion needs to lead to deeds of kindness. Even though I may have emphasised how it is about witnessing the pain of others, I would not wish to suggest that it ends there. In thinking about that, I have been focusing more upon emotional pain, and probably the reason I have done so is because my own background is mental health care.

However, I am not suggesting that compassion is just about that. It involves all dimensions of life, including responding to the physical pain of humans and animals, as well as poverty and starvation, homelessness and areas of need. I think that the problem is partly that there is a danger of telling people what they should do and that it needs to come from the heart. One complexity here is when people help others from a sense of guilt. Obviously, the fact of people being helped is still reached, but where I would suggest that the 'feeling' is important is that it is more genuine and should be on a deeper level.I do believe that empathetic understanding is central to all true compassion.

I do believe that there is a clear link between wisdom and compassion.

I also think agree that wisdom is about 'seeing clearly.'

So, we could say that compassion is a whole way of perceiving need correctly. The vision of needs is perhaps central and is one which goes beyond superficialities and identifies the root concerns, such as poverty, or emotional suffering. These form the basis for action but the perceptual vision is the foundation for all else. Perhaps, we could say that it is more than a feeling, and more a feeling toned evaluation of suffering and need.

So, we could say that compassion is a whole way of perceiving need correctly. The vision of needs is perhaps central and is one which goes beyond superficialities and identifies the root concerns, such as poverty, or emotional suffering. These form the basis for action but the perceptual vision is the foundation for all else. Perhaps, we could say that it is more than a feeling, and more a feeling toned evaluation of suffering and need. — Jack Cummins

Compassion really isn't about feelings or need (although it can be). It's about clarity that brings about wisdom that tells one what (if anything) is needed. Most times, people just need to talk it out and thereby solve the issue themselves. Allowing this process to play-out is true compassion as it avoids creating/sustaining the cycle of unrelenting dependency.

So, we could say that compassion is a whole way of perceiving need correctly. — Jack Cummins

It appears to me this far into this thread that you are not interested at all in what compassion is, but instead what you "feel" or want compassion to be. The trouble is that instantly you're back thinking that what compassion is not, is - and that's confusion. What, for example, is "correctly"? Whose "correctly"? In service of whose or what agenda?

So far we have compassion as clarity of seeing and then acting "to effect the most appropriate help." "Correctly" not mentioned, nor really any part of this compassion.

I think.you're looking for the touchy-feely heart of compassion. It doesn't have one. An old-fashioned question covers this, although with the sensitivity of a different era. It used to be that some dogs had their tails docked for cosmetic reasons. The question then was if it were compassion to cut off the puppy-dog's tail one inch at a time.

But I like compassion as an appropriately effective helpful doing based on clarity of perception. It's actually clarity all the way down - it has to be to determine best action. And that leaves the questions of what the clarity is, what it is about, and the criteria in use - all worthy questions, nor easy to answer.

I would agree that clarity and determination of action, where necessary, are central in the outcome for compassion. This is based on reason. However, what I would add is that there has to be an emotional element to motivate the concern in the first place. For example, if someone sees a queue beside a food bank while shopping. In order to make the connection that these people needing to have food provided, there needs to be an emotional connection with the suffering. Similarly, say that someone has sat down for the evening, and a friend phones, saying how low in mood, it has to be the emotions which spur the person to, perhaps, spend an hour on the phone. I don't believe that it is simply based on the belief that it is the right thing to do.

I think it is a mistake if people get into the emotional side of compassion in a gushy sense. That would be mere sentimentality and probably not very helpful. But I do believe that there needs to be an emotional connection for compassion. I would argue that is probably what is lacking when people act in the complete opposite of compassion, such as in the case of cruelty towards another. It is the lack of empathy which leads the person to act in a hurtful or malicious way.

However, what I would add is that there has to be an emotional element to motivate the concern in the first place. — Jack Cummins

Emotion is about self and only serves to confuse interests. Compassion is only about other. It is clarity that will guide you, not emotion (which tends towards projection).

I think that it is a mistake to divide care for self and for others into two separate categories, because they are interrelated. The ideas of the sociobiology of Edward O Wilson have influenced the way in which I see this. He sees us starting from the self and family, into an increasingly circle of others in our altruistic concern.

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

I believe it hasn't been thrown away. But compassion is often done in silence -- not broadcasted. It also very often, if not always, starts on a personal (individual) level.

The anti-dote for compassion is abuse or others taking advantage of this notion to get what they want. Sometimes, you hear someone utters "I feel used" or taken for a ride.

I don't understand why philosophy is mentioned here as something to criticize.

So, I am asking how relevant is for us to consider now? — Jack Cummins

To me, compassion is a virtue. It is a feeling, quality, or a kind of state of mind. As others have mentioned, I believe compassion is synonymous with the expression of empathy. Although, that may not be the only conception of compassion.

Whether or not compassion by itself can bring about tangible remedies to suffering without action to back it up is in question. NOS4A2 sums it up well:

But compassion, as a feeling, is nothing if it isn’t followed by good deeds. — NOS4A2

A less extreme version of the point indicated by the quote is well-taken on my end. Feelings by themselves do not solve the "seemingly intractable problems of our times". Those may be too large-scale to solve without collective action.

Yet, I do not think compassion is worth "nothing" without good deeds to follow it. I think good intentions normally (but certainly not always) are prior to good action. If compassion is in the philosophical trash bin as you worry, then I do not think it deserves to be there. After all, since compassion can motivate someone to palliate the suffering of another, then compassion is a harbinger of goodness in the world in at least a minimal sense. But as NOS4A2 brought up, someone who feels empathy may nevertheless not act upon that feeling, often because they do not have the means to do so effectively. In cases like that, while compassion may be helpful ( and perhaps necessary) to develop the kinds of human beings who wish to alleviate suffering, compassion alone may not be enough to solve the "world's problems". Perhaps all that is why compassion might appear rather underrated in philosophical communities.

On another level, what exactly the "intractable" problems in need of solving are seems up for debate. Such problems do not seem delineated in the original post. Yet this is an important clarification to make: what counts as "goodness" or a "problem" in the contexts of actions and people might be totally relative to your audience.

In my opinion, in the final analysis, the solution to the intractable problems of our times, whatever they are, must take place due to tangible, noticeable, and positive change in rules and institutional structures. That is a feat achieved by - but not only by - a change of heart.

I would agree that compassion may happen quietly rather than be broadcast around. I am not really criticising philosophy or any philosophers but just think that the idea of compassion may not be getting the attention it deserves. I just wished to raise the whole idea for consideration. What appears to be emerging is some conflict as to whether it more of a feeling based attitude or a basis for addressing, or action.

I actually thought that the debate would be more about whether people are actually able to rise beyond self interest. But, so far no one has challenged that but just queried the whole question of whether it is just a feeling. However, I do see that the whole issue of compassion is more one which is perhaps acted upon on more of a personal level.

I think that you make some very good points. It is highly likely that compassion is not enough to solve the world's problems and I see it more as a starting point. Perhaps that is why it is not discussed that much in philosophy communities, although when I did do a web search it does seem that this has been explored more from writing based on Eastern philosophy.Even Shopenhauer was influenced by Eastern thought.

Apart from compassion focused actions, it could be that what we need is philosophers who write from a compassionate point of view. This would involve a complex blend of emotion and reasoning in developing ideas, but I am not suggesting that this is not happening at all. Many recent books which I see do seem to go beyond the dry logic of much of the academic philosophy tradition of the last century, so perhaps it will be the direction forwards.I am not saying that the matter of compassion is just a dichotomy between feeling or reasoning but a whole approach of genuine concern, or to go back to the idea @Nikolas mentioned to me, from Simone Weil, of being witnesses to another's pain. Perhaps writing which comes from that perspective will embody the idea of compassion in a true philosophical way.

Ps. I edited this after writing it because I felt it was not finished.

I actually thought that the debate would be more about whether people are actually able to rise beyond self interest. But, so far no one has challenged that but just queried the whole question of whether it is just a feeling. — Jack Cummins

Talks of compassion is not one for debate. As the replies here show and perhaps in your own personal experiences prove. No one argues against compassion -- but compassion, first and foremost, arises out of empathy -- so feelings here is important. If you could expand your understanding of action to go with compassion, you must include not doing something, in some cases. Not giving up, not performing harmful acts, not changing anything in the current situation because the current situation works., etc.

If could please explain how self-interest go against compassion, that would be helpful.

I actually think that compassion is not something which we can achieve easily because it is often hard enough to help ourselves, let alone others. I started the discussion because I thought that it is an esteemed principle, but not simple to translate it into practice. Personally, I do not see it as being opposed to self interest, because if we cannot even serve our own interests we cannot even begin to meet those of other people. I am not attacking ethical egoism, but wishing to see fulfilling one's own desires to be superseded by that of reaching out to others to offer whatever support we can. However, I do believe that it is not simple to achieve in practice because we can get stuck in the rut of focusing on our own goals and desires.

As far as giving things up, surely this would only be about giving up that which involves harming others. It may involve more cooperation and sharing but certainly not just ideas about self sacrifice. I would not recommend the striving for compassion for the sake of feeling righteous, because that is not genuine compassion at all. I am speaking about the need for understanding of suffering and responding through responsible actions.

As far as giving things up, surely this would only be about giving up that which involves harming others. — Jack Cummins

Does the usefulness of compassion consist in “giving up that which involves harming others”, as you suggest? Or am I misunderstanding what “this” is referring to?

If you mean that compassion entails the prevention of harm, are you referring to harm of all kinds? If compassion, to you, is linked to empathy and a desire to palliate the suffering felt by human beings and/or animals (it might not be, correct me if I’m wrong), do you think all harm is unjust and so should not be tolerated by compassionate beings?

One might argue that wrongdoers do not deserve compassion, but justice. Might those people deserve the pain they experience and might compassion not apply to them? Is anybody unworthy of compassion to you? Or should all people be entitled to the freedom from pain? So who deserves compassion is a question to answer.

On top of that, harm is often warranted (indeed, sometimes necessary) to mitigate social ills. Perhaps ironically, the kind of effective and large-scale action that can solve the social ills of the world, those driven by compassion, may only be effective by way of coercion and force, things which do often cause harm and suffering in their wake. As it so happens, though not always, to cure social ills (a useful way to act on one’s compassion) requires causing harm. To defeat the forces of evil that bring forth the pain caused by social ills, a feat often motivated by compassion and no shortage of bravery, may nevertheless require much suffering on the behalf of wrongdoers. Compassion may not be synonymous with “giving up that which harms others” if social change for the better cannot happen without suffering and some kind of loss.

I hope you will address these questions, as they go a ways to determining how effective compassion is as a means to improve the world.

Compassion is not morality, it's self-serving appeasement in the presence of immorality. A soldier who just massacred a village of unarmed non-combatants can have compassion toward a lone boy throwing rocks at him.

Empathy is what prevents indifference, the root cause of virtually all suffering man will ever face.

The questions which you raise are useful for thinking about effective compassion, or we could say going beyond it as a feeling to the nitty gritty of life. What you are really looking at is where there are conflicts of interest.

One example, would be the whole idea of 'just' war, where people take action to fight against injustice. An obvious that would be how people actively fought against the Nazi's in Germany out of compassion for the those suffering the atrocities in concentration camps. Many movements, including the whole anti-apartheid movement and animal rights are fueled by compassion and prevention of harm.

Even the complexities of the current pandemic are about compassion concerns and the competing harms which need to be addressed. There is compassionate concern to prevent the vulnerable people from getting extremely ill or dying and it is with this ending of harm that the extreme sanctions are being placed on everyone. However, this is not without problems because many people are experiencing extreme harm by the long periods of lockdown restrictions. Here, we are talking about extreme poverty, homelessness, many people not having routine health checks, in addition to an extreme rise in serious mental health problems. So, here we can see that compassionate concern to stop the harm of the virus is creating a whole load of other problems for large numbers of the population and this also needs to be addressed with compassion. Concern for one side of prevention of harm has to see it in the widest way here rather than a narrow one, because we are talking about competing harms.

This is probably where the philosophy of compassion comes in because we all probably have our own sympathies, in the concerns we have and this needs to be looked at as an ethical framework rather than just about empathy. In particular, we may feel the most compassionate for our family and friends. However, if we just fight for the concerns of our loved ones this can be to the exclusion of the needs of those outside of our immediate concern. It may be easier to see and respond to the need to protect an elderly relative rather than the needs of strangers who are living as homeless on the streets. It is at this wider level of prevention of harm that empathy requires consideration of more universal and objective measures.

I would agree that,for some, compassion is 'self appeasement' and that is why the topic needs philosophical discussion. I think that indifferent is a problem that is real in many aspects of human life today and does need to be faced. I would say that many people simply follow rules and regulations and do close their eyes to many injustices, especially homelessness.

Compassion seems to be a much deeper moral concept than love in the Christian tradition because, to the extent that I can discern, compassion seems to be about sentience itself while Christian love is, on the whole, a very human-to-human affair. When you define morality in terms of sentience, morality expands as it were and begins to include even non-human life, animals and even plants at some point along the way. Religions that I'm somewhat familiar with that build their moral theory around sentience is Buddhism and Jainism and these faiths have something the Christianity does not viz. moral status for animals.

What's odd and equally if not more lamentable is that Christianity is a relatively newer religion than either Buddhism and Jainism but Jesus failed to recognize animals as, at the very least, deserving of some moral consideration. Nevertheless, it's possible that animals could be, as Descartes believed, simply automatons although that would be astonishing if true but then there's Solipsism to contend with.

It is hard to know what Jesus would have thought about animals and compassion. I cannot see why animals should be excluded from the picture. I didn't know that Descartes saw them as empty autonoms. Of course, they are different from humans but Descartes' picture seems a bit limited.

What I have noticed when I did a Google search on the philosophy of compassion, it does seem that the idea has been looked at more from an Eastern perspective. Perhaps this is connected to the way in which Western civilisation and Christianity has been more inclined to the idea of the battle between good and evil and the whole dominance of control of nature, in general. I believe that this is more about the way Christianity developed rather than the actual teachings of Christ, because I see a lot of overlap between his whole approach to life and that of the Buddha.

I wish I had the means to do a linguistic analysis on the matter because many times, or so I heard, concepts in one culture don't have a perfect counterpart in other cultures and languages. When this happens, I believe translators pick the closest word in semantic terms for the translation. I don't know if this whole Eastern slant on compassion that you mention here is just such an instance but it could be and thereby hangs a tale.

I think that knowing the ideas of the original teachings goes beyond translations of texts. It is also about looking at what became included in accepted teachings. In thinking of Christianity there was so much tension in the early Church, especially with the whole wish to suppress Gnostic thought. So, it is also about what got included in The New Testament and what got excluded. I have briefly looked at some of the Gnostic gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hamadi, and my thoughts when I read them was how they seemed more consistent with Eastern thought.

believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas — Jack Cummins

Is it recyclable?

Yes, compassion is recyclable if you wash it thoroughly and remember to put it in an orange back and tie it up properly. Perhaps the part that will be useful is if you chop off the initial prefix and keep 'passion' as something which can be used to keep us going when life and all the philosophies seem to lead us to a flat picture of everything.

Maybe you could get a compass out of it for your great sailing adventures.

Remember, Schopenhauer was a determinist. He saw compassion as springing naturally when you realize the sinner was bound to sin.

Even though we are talking in jest, you have made a valid point in raising the idea of determinism in connection with compassion. That is to what extent does our biological nature program us towards compassion or against it, and the whole role is nurture in cultivating it.

I remember writing an essay question in sixth form: Are criminals born or made? I remember one aspect which I found in research was some evidence that men born with XYY chromosomes are more likely to commit crimes and end up in prisons. Here, the idea seems as if the extra Y chromosomes would give an additional tendency to aggression. I am not sure that compassion is simply about absence of aggression but it could be part of it. I know that many people believe that women are more nurturing than men and this could involve the whole role of biology and hormones. Of course, I am not wishing to perpetuate stereotypes and I am sure that men can be caring and compassionate. I am sure that history provides many examples of compassionate men, such as Ghandi.

Perhaps the way we are taught to a act plays an important role. Families which value compassion probably try to encourage this. I am sure that cultural valuing of compassion is important and perhaps the recent notion of the importance of 'emotional intelligence' is also one which helps cultivate it too.