Empathy is not pure perception.
Peter Lind

Allow me to remind you of the definition of the word “empathy:”

“ 1.the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.”

Let’s also take a look at “perception”as I meant it above:

“1.the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.”

Empathy is a psychological capability; an identification and an experiencing. To perceive is to apprehend/understand via one’s senses or mind (and of course, the senses are filtered through the mind so they might as well have collapsed that phrasing). There is no additional component to empathy; it is a purely psychological experience. Your attempts to redefine it otherwise make a compelling argument only for your failure to understand the nature of this debate and the failings of your own position in it.

At least in the latter paragraph you wrote, you seem to finally be inching closer to the right idea, but you must get it out of your head that empathy is itself a motivator — not only do you have to imagine the suffering of another, you must also yourself believe that such suffering is not justified; that it should not happen. Lots of people focus on the Golden Rule: “love your neighbor as yourself.” This is an additional maxim that attempts to induce empathy in a person — but crucially, is not to be equated with empathy.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.