What an interesting word “compassion” is. Is compassion the same as empathy, sympathy, or subtly different? Are they synonyms? Like shades of any colour, these three emotions are close. I would suggest that compassion is a richer and more vivid colour.
A good place to start would be with definitions:
Compassion: a deep sympathy for the sorrows of others, with an urge to alleviate their pain.
Empathy: ability to imagine oneself in the condition of another, a vicarious participation in another’s emotions.
Sympathy: a general kinship with another’s feelings, no matter of what kind. *
So what? Maybe a lot, maybe a little. What I note is that the term empathy seems to be the most common of these emotions. Is this because empathy best describes the feeling, or do we mean compassion?
The psychologist Paul Bloom** carefully analysed empathy and suggests that society would be better served with rational compassion. He notes that empathy (and sympathy), are kind, but is it helpful for the person in grief? Both are passive and immediate, but are they concerned with solving the underlying challenge? Both focus on a specific instance or person (which he called the spotlight effect), but too often do not engage with the complexity of a situation, or with the larger community of others in similar conditions.
So, what does Paul Bloom suggest? One should step back from the immediate situation, look at the larger set of circumstances, and carefully consider any uncomfortable trade-offs that may be required to address the troubling dilemma. Compassion is about alleviating a pain, which is more than feeling sorry. He encourages compassion for the larger community in similar situations, rather than dwelling on the specific individual. Compassion is about solving challenging problems rather than focusing on symptoms and quick fixes.
Compassion is effortful and uncomfortable. It is about asking difficult questions, saying NO and rationing scarce resources, be they emotional, spiritual or financial. But, in the longer run, compassion does more for mankind because it solves future difficulties that we will not hear about because they are gone. Which may just be the real point.
Reflection Source: www.Smalmercup.org
Please freely share and widely, there are no copyright concerns.
Physically distance, never socially distance.
*: The Free Dictionary by Farlex
**: Paul Bloom, Against Empathy, the Case for Rational Compassion