About Empathy (and a cool video)

What an interesting presentation! The RSA Animate collection takes a short audio lecture clip and "animates" it with coordinated time-lapse video of a whiteboard sketch artist. What a wonderfully engaging experience! I've watched several of these and "The Empathic Civilisation" [sic] caught my interest—enough to spawn this post!

The ten minute video clip covers a portion of a lecture by Jeremy Rifkin to the Royal Society of Arts. Incidentally, theRSAorg (the video creator) calls Jeremy Rifkin a "social and ethical prophet", so I feel comfortable expanding the religious angle of this video.

First, watch the video. Enjoy the drawings and get the gist of the message. Then read my comments and watch it again!

I agree with his premise. We, and other creatures (the extent is not known), are soft-wired for empathy. Empathy is an essential trait of compassionate, civilized beings (not just humans).

"We are soft wired to experience another's plight as if we were experiencing it ourselves." — time stamp: 00:02:30

He also states that new research "suggests that we are actually soft wired, not for:

• aggression
• violence
• self-interest
• utilitarianism

but for:

• sociability
• attachment
• affection
• companionship

And that the first drive is actually to belong." — 00:03:00

This is a powerful claim. It reverses a lot of popular beliefs about our inner selves; that we are selfish at heart. I like his claim, that we are intrinsically empathic beings. I think it gels with my world view, and my theology.

For a whole two minutes of his ten minute lecture (03:00:00 - 05:00:00), he defines empathy. For the most part, I think he's right. But his understanding of empathy is only half-developed. For Rifkin, it hinges on the mortal condition, on the commonality of suffering, the universality of death. That's it. That's the crux of the matter. Empathy requires temporariness and pain.

That's where his theory is flawed. Empathy is much deeper, much more intrinsic to the eternal cycles of progress and permanence. Empathy is a requirement of life (which, for me extends beyond animate creatures) and the very existence of the universe. We may not be able to measure it in lesser life forms, but I suspect that empathy is one of the motivating factors in the true obedience of all things (a topic for another post).

Empathy is required for order, sacrifice, obedience, and love. I agree that it is intrinsic to our beings, infusing our subconsciousness naturally, but in varying conscious forms based on our environment and experience. It can die, and it can be cultivated. In fact, we must cultivate it!

I posit that we are empathic beings because our "creators" (who are, in fact, our real parents eternally), are themselves intrinsically empathic, selfless, affectionate, and attached—to everything that they have created, which is our universe. Gods are the ultimate empaths! We exist to become like them.

So imagine my surprise when he dismisses God, heaven, and eternal life as untenable, even undesirable, because they can't be empathic beings or states. I can understand one reason for his ignorance; because most people have a flawed (or at least incomplete) understanding of heaven, hell, godhood and the nature of eternal life. But I think there are other flaws in his logic and I think they are rooted in his disbelief in life after death—in eternal life. Or maybe it's fear? After all, omniscience and omnipotence, without empathy, is terrifying! Which is why neither is actually possible without charity (the ultimate maturation of empathy).

He states that Heaven (or utopia) is not empathic (they are antithetical in his eyes), and by extension that God cannot be empathic, because he doesn't suffer.

"Empathy is the opposite of utopia. There is no empathy in heaven because there is no mortality. There is no empathy in utopia because there is no suffering." — 00:04:35

That may be true for his narrow understanding of heaven or utopia. But there is mortality and suffering in heaven, only not of the primal nature we have here. Physical life may be secured for eternity, but mental and emotional experience (joy) is still changing and is at risk through the empathy that we feel for our children and creations.

Rifkin goes on to show how broadening our ties broadens our empathies. The Gospel teaches us that we are all one family. That is the basis of empathy, the strongest tie we have. Families are eternal. Eternal expansion of family is risky and subject to failure, suffering and even death (whether mortal or spiritual).

So where is he going off track? It's not all that far. I think it's a sub-conscious desire to discount heaven, commandments, the need for theological obedience to an omnipotent (and supposedly un-empathetic) god. That's a common aim of humanistic beliefs, remove the ephemeral god and replace him with ourselves, because we can only trust ourselves to be responsible enough to maybe succeed (but that's another post too).

Empathy is desirable. It is a virtuous attribute. It deserves attention. In fact, I agree with Rifkin's premise. Empathy is the invisible hand. Empathy drives our progress to a better existence. It is essential!

I champion his message to the Nth degree; empathy shouldn't end with our world, it should extend to all creation! While that would require an unknown measure of comprehension of "other" as self, it is not impossible. In fact, I propose that this is the very purpose of mortality, to expand our empathic abilities to complete comprehension (and appreciation) of all things. This is when empathy matures to become charity. It is by this charitable feeling that all universal order is perpetuated. It is, in my opinion, the source of God's power. It is this power that we should strive to be worthy of. This is the only way we will succeed.