More thoughts on empathy

Is it reasonable to empathize for every ailment in the world? To attempt to put yourself in the position of every suffering, psychologically, physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, socially, etc.? I came to this question when pondering upon what perfection would require. For surely a person who knows very little about cooking will find it very difficult to prepare an elegant banquet. Likewise will a person unfamiliar with the pressures and norms of a culture be likely frustrated in providing adequate government. As it goes in today's world, there is an immensely great variety of cultures and subcultures scattered throughout every nation. Is it possible or reasonable to attempt to empathize with all of them?

Psychologists might suggest limiting one's exposure to such an extensive array of suffering, reasoning that such imagery or cognitive input has a sort of "flashbulb" effect on an individual, where powerful negative sensations are encoded deeply into memory and may sporadically and irresistibly resurface into conscious thought, resulting in a range of undesirable psychological effects. Yet anthropologists might argue that encoding such imagery or input is precisely what makes the phenomenon of empathy possible. But to what degree is it effective to try to empathize with one other person, let alone multiple people? Consider to what degree it would be possible for another person - take your pick - to know exactly what you're thinking and why. Think about how effective it may be to explain all of your thoughts, conscious and unconscious, to another person so that they would be able to completely understand every mental process that occurs in your mind. Much of our mental activity happens unawares anyway, making this a near impossible task. Our cognitive experience includes the agglomeration of information received during our entire lifetime, a thing which simply cannot be verbally transposed. So empathy can only reach a certain degree. But as we expand the scope to include groups of individuals, there appear commonalities in forms of suffering, meaning that certain types of suffering are felt on more public levels, making it easier to extract and isolate the causal issue and thus facilitate the process of empathy. But even among these types of suffering, some are still deeply rooted within the individual psyche that is simply caused by a widely-shared causal issue or set thereof. For example, most of us can understand why color-segregated facilities are highly discriminating and somewhat dehumanizing, or why unemployment is a lamentable detriment in society, but it can be very difficult to trace the actual roots of gang violence or the enmity exhibited by differing political parties.

When I was in California serving as a missionary, I encountered many people, on the streets, in homes, and some just over the telephone, who would explain to us some of their major problems. Some of the problems were similar, unemployment and education (or regretted lack thereof) being among the most common. But many others were highly personal and uncommon. Several people I met were homeless, or illegal immigrants, but each of them explained complex personal ills, and would usually ask us missionaries to help them. Many would ask us for money. How many of them were lying? I have no idea, since money can be spent to help relieve a number of life's issues. I don't doubt that, lying or not, these people that I met may have had personal concerns that were causing their life to be less than what they were hoping it might otherwise be.

Here I restate my question: Is it reasonable to empathize for every ailment in the world? I was presented with several different undesirable life situations, and with each one I did my best to put myself in the position described by the person and give what help I could. However, when we were no longer in active contact with the person, I usually let the thoughts fade into the back of my mind. When recalled, I would think about the person and their situation, but not reproduce the same level of empathy as much as the actual encounters. The reason is because I had already done so, and there was nothing more to be achieved. I could not help them any more. However I have not forgotten many of the situations presented.

I never saw a gunfight, or anyone get murdered. I did not see someone dying in the streets. The scope of what I experienced was not great compared to a world-wide range. Mostly it was tragic family situations, unfortunate illnesses, unfair treatment, psychological ills, relationship troubles, and other personal issues, which persist in innumerable forms throughout the world - things that involved a deeper understanding of the life of the individual describing his or her issues. How terrible would it be to have nothing to do but wander around, having little education, having no home or money but what you might get from a few hours of labor if it's a luckier day, having no way to get back to your parents or wife and children in Mexico because your plans of coming here for a job have failed, and you have nothing now, except your one pair of clothes. Can I think about that heavily, along with every other case that I've become familiar with, and be able to move forward with my life, to study and think clearly about school, to socialize, to write music, to sleep well, to think about other topics that deserve attention; and above all, to be psychologically stable? Is it just or right that I should put off empathizing with those people to forward my own, relatively extremely fortunate circumstances? Do I have an obligation to empathize as strongly as possible with those people, and by association, everyone else? Must I be acquainted with every problem known to humanity?

Christianity teaches that Someone has already done that. Or rather I should say, ancient semitic texts from two separate continents talk about a Someone who did that. That is perhaps one of the things that is hardest for us to grasp - this ability to have understood everything that everyone has ever gone through or will go through. Critics may say it is just a pleasing thought that draws people to the idea, but it isn't the thought that I go for, it's the evidence. Well, I should say, the thought is a very nice benefit of believing the evidence.

But anyway, I don't have a definitive answer for the questions. I don't think it's possible or reasonable to impress our beings with every sadness or mal occurrence currently felt, but I don't think one should go ignorant about every controversy. I think there is a degree to which it is reasonable and important to empathize with worldly ills, and that our cause should be an honest and productive hope towards solving such issues in what ways we can, including educating those who may have a wrong, hurtful opinion of certain cultures or subcultures.

And now I must study Spanish.

Another string of thought

Attending a session of general conference at the conference center I noticed people around the building, non-patrons holding signs and/or yodeling rants. Because I have the unfortunate tendency to be extremely critical of people who I consider of little intelligence, I have been pondering the extend of the blatant hypocrisy and confusion that is exhibited in these "protesters". To clarify, by "intelligence" I mean use of knowledge, or supposed knowledge. Now of course this is an unfortunate tendency that I do this because in itself it is a form of hypocrisy, in that firstly I myself am obviously not perfect and have faults of intelligence, second I am assuming things that I do not know (since I am not the people who i criticize) and third I am making judgments on those assumptions, which is something I am in no place to do. There is, however, nothing wrong in holding opinions, so long as they are open to consideration of every aspect available and do not become a permanent receptacle of hatred. Anyway I shall continue.

My first exposure to these picketers were the pickets - people silently holding signs. Every one of these people that I saw were of a different Christian religion, or, I should say more accurately, outwardly professed so. These signs had slightly differing messages: scriptures about Christ being the Savior, others about false teachers, ignorant followers... Their intended audience was most likely people going into the conference center. Do they have trouble reading the lettering on the building? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So we're on the same page with Christ being the Savior. False teachers? Considering our teachers get their teachings come from the scriptures, this accusation labels the Bible as false. Ignorant followers? Everyone is different. Some members may have a simple testimony or may still be learning about the church. However, I personally know many very learned, talented, and thoughtful (may I add "intelligent") members of the church, scholarly in thought and with a realistic and thorough testimony of the living Christ. Overgeneralizing picket signs? Oui.

Moving closer to the part of the building where our entrance was, I overheard some people (talking about overgeneralizing, every single person I saw in the objecting party was a man who was either old or old and fat. coincidence? probably) on a megaphone gritando rants, of which I caught "you reject the Bible, you reject the God of the Bible, and in the end God will reject you". These people would do well to study the religious group they're being payed to protest against. The defining clause: We believe the Bible to be the word of God. There aren't too many jumps of logic to be made between that and the fact that we believe in the "God of the Bible", namely, Jesus Christ. It's also in the name of the Church, but as that seems to escape the logic of these people, we'll make do with an equally obvious clue: our basic beliefs, stated in the Articles of Faith.

After the session I came outside and experienced a most alarming dialogue. While passing one of the larger activists holding down a chair, someone passed and said "we love you" in the midst of whatever he was saying. This poor man replied "no you don't, you don't even love yourself." How sad this man does not read and/or understand much of the Bible. 1 John chapter 4 may do this fellow some good, and remind him of the hypocrisy of spewing hateful judgments against people he doesn't know.

"And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."

 Now of course we all make mistakes, and where we try to follow the commandments we slip. This man, however, seemed to have acquired this adamant attitude towards the church previously, and I would venture that dislodging this attitude would be something of a miracle. NOT to say impossible, for miracles do happen, and it's just my opinion anyway.

Here ends my string of thought.