Yes. We are faced with the challenge of achieving a new kind of social consciousness whose operation is predicated on empathy — Pantagruel

Is empathy possible without first being able to understand what appears to one initially as a dangerously alien worldview? In other words, does empathy come first, or does insight come first and empathy follow? Religious traditions tend to fetishize free will and value-formation without understanding their origins, and so argue that empathy comes first.

Is empathy possible without first being able to understand what appears to one initially as a dangerously alien worldview? — Joshs

I don't think we need to restrict empathy to situations where we have a worldview difference. Do you wince when you see someone get hurt? Does it disturb you if your actions or the actions of those serving you (in some way) lead to the suffering of others? Then we can start to see if this doesn't happen when the other people have other worldviews or races or cultures. Of course, I am reacting to the use of the word empathy in the way that I meant it in the post PG was responding to. He or she may be using it differently. Whether I am correct or not in my sense of today's situation, I meant people who really do not care at an abstract level or should they actually see it happening if other people suffer, even if it is due to them (the empathyless ones). I actually don't think they care about worldview. I'm not sure they care about each other very much either, but have common interests.

Yes. We are faced with the challenge of achieving a new kind of social consciousness whose operation is predicated on empathy. — Pantagruel

And in those who weild a great deal of power. IOW it's not something that printing books on parenting or changing pedagogical practices, I think, will change in the least. Using just a couple of ways one changes social consciousness. I don't think most of the common methods - protests, op-ed pieces, social media campaigns, legislation, movies, documentaries - will make any dent on this 'faction'.

On the ground, between groups with different worldviews, there is a lot of propaganda (not using that term pejoratively or not pejoratively) and a lot of suggestions, demands for changes in the various ways of raising/changing social consciousness. And, the differing ideas about this is often part of the conflicts.

And those I see as lacking empathy are lovin' it.

I don't think any of it matters to them, except to the extent it keeps people divided and focused on the bad attitudes and behavior and nature of other people with little power.

There are certainly conflicts between worldviews, but I suppose if I were to generalize I would say there is a war between people with no empathy and everyone else. The everyone else is involved in a lot of paradigmatic conflict. Which helps the people with no empathy. — Bylaw

Yep, an aggravation that isn't an aggravation. Go figure.

Is empathy possible without first being able to understand what appears to one initially as a dangerously alien worldview? — Joshs

I think that the whole point of empathy is that it is a reaching out beyond the personal. You don't need to understand a different world view to help someone who is in need.

You don't need to understand a different world view to help someone who is in need. — Pantagruel

You don’t necessarily recognize them as being in justified need before understanding their perspective.

. Do you wince when you see someone get hurt? Does it disturb you if your actions or the actions of those serving you (in some way) lead to the suffering of others? Then we can start to see if this doesn't happen when the other people have other worldviews or races or cultures — Bylaw

Wars often exemplify clashes of worldviews. As a solider in battle , I am not only not going to come to the aid of an enemy soldier in need, I actively try to induce their suffering. Their needs represent for me the desires of an alien and hostile worldview, and thus what benefits them causes me suffering. One can extend this to political and religious clashes.

You don’t necessarily recognize them as being in justified need before understanding their perspective. — Joshs

I think that the nature of needs is that they are very universal in character. Certainly with basic needs, which is a great starting place for some empathy.

Wars often exemplify clashes of worldviews. As a solider in battle , I am not only not going to come to the aid of an enemy soldier in need, I actively try to induce their suffering. Their needs represent for me the desires of an alien and hostile worldview, and thus what benefits them causes me suffering. One can extend this to political and religious clashes. — Joshs

Sure, a soldier is in a specific situation, though even there some show mercy to wounded enemy soldiers. What I was saying about empathy was that one need not have insight to feel it. One can see-feel. Even other social animals show this kind of reaction.

Empathy is a significant factor in life as a whole. When weltanschauungs encounter each other, empathy is one of the first casualties and hence the usual - brawls, wars, and all.

Live and let live. — SYT