Versus
Some things have been brewing in my head; growing, coming to the surface of my consciousness for a little while and then disappearing back below, so that I will not remember the details when I try and tell someone about them. Hope fully if I start putting things down, it will come out in as close to its entirety as I can hope to understand.
The first is that of the difference between sympathy and empathy. At first glance in the dictionary they seem to be almost identical. I lugged out the old World Book dictionary, and this is what I found:
Sympathy: 1. a sharing of another's sorrow or trouble.
Empathy: 1. the quality or process of entering fully, through the imagination, into another's feelings or motives, into the meaning of a work of art, or the like.
It's an interesting thing. It seems that these are two different things. They both have a common end, to try and ease some other person's pain, but they take different paths. It is the difference of crying with a man, sharing in the outer, emotional instances of his woe; and that of crying FOR the man, attempting to share a deeper spiritual bond with him through the attempt to understand him. It's the difference in the answer when that person says that you don't understand. Sympathy says, "No, I don't." Empathy says, "No, but I'm trying to."
It is not that I think either of these is better than the other. I do not. It's just something to think about.
The other thing that has been on my mind is how (in general) I should look at the world. Whether it is better to be accepting of a harsher reality, or the belief in an ethereal ideal permeating the lives of men. Larisa clarified it (actually, spiritually objectified would probably be more accurate) as being the difference between focusing on either: the depthless depravity of man OR the endless mercy of God. It makes sense that way, but I still have more thoughts on the subject.
Exploring the different sides, I see positive aspects to both. I was watching the movie Secondhand Lions with my family last night, and during the build nearing the climax of the film, one of the uncles told the young boy something about that he should believe in the ideals of goodness in men, true love, and other powerful things not neccesarily because they were real, but because they were good. This line of reasoning is probably the strongest that line that get me to identify with holding to idealism. It is one that I had thought of, when I searched this topic before.
However, this morning, I remembered a little passage from East of Eden; so, I searched for it and found it.
" ' There's more beauty in the truth even if it is dreadful beauty. The storytellers at the city gate twist life so that it looks sweet to the lazy and the stupid and the weak, and this only strengthens their infirmities and teaches nothing, cures nothing, nor does it let the heart soar ' "
You can see how a novel with such things contained in its pages would enchant me. The statement above does not preclude holding ideals, but it does describe how an acceptance of reality can be the more helpful thing. It also describes something that I have suspected for a long time. That the definition of beauty as being a thing that pleases a person. That there is beauty in both the things that make one smile, and the things that make one frown. Even in that which makes the lips sit in a simple line. There is beauty in both the emerald canopies of a forest in bloom, and in the windswept skeleton branches of a dead forest with dirt for a floor.
Well, I guess I'll end this with the same answer. I do not think ones that much better than the other. It is just something to think about.
The first is that of the difference between sympathy and empathy. At first glance in the dictionary they seem to be almost identical. I lugged out the old World Book dictionary, and this is what I found:
Sympathy: 1. a sharing of another's sorrow or trouble.
Empathy: 1. the quality or process of entering fully, through the imagination, into another's feelings or motives, into the meaning of a work of art, or the like.
It's an interesting thing. It seems that these are two different things. They both have a common end, to try and ease some other person's pain, but they take different paths. It is the difference of crying with a man, sharing in the outer, emotional instances of his woe; and that of crying FOR the man, attempting to share a deeper spiritual bond with him through the attempt to understand him. It's the difference in the answer when that person says that you don't understand. Sympathy says, "No, I don't." Empathy says, "No, but I'm trying to."
It is not that I think either of these is better than the other. I do not. It's just something to think about.
The other thing that has been on my mind is how (in general) I should look at the world. Whether it is better to be accepting of a harsher reality, or the belief in an ethereal ideal permeating the lives of men. Larisa clarified it (actually, spiritually objectified would probably be more accurate) as being the difference between focusing on either: the depthless depravity of man OR the endless mercy of God. It makes sense that way, but I still have more thoughts on the subject.
Exploring the different sides, I see positive aspects to both. I was watching the movie Secondhand Lions with my family last night, and during the build nearing the climax of the film, one of the uncles told the young boy something about that he should believe in the ideals of goodness in men, true love, and other powerful things not neccesarily because they were real, but because they were good. This line of reasoning is probably the strongest that line that get me to identify with holding to idealism. It is one that I had thought of, when I searched this topic before.
However, this morning, I remembered a little passage from East of Eden; so, I searched for it and found it.
" ' There's more beauty in the truth even if it is dreadful beauty. The storytellers at the city gate twist life so that it looks sweet to the lazy and the stupid and the weak, and this only strengthens their infirmities and teaches nothing, cures nothing, nor does it let the heart soar ' "
You can see how a novel with such things contained in its pages would enchant me. The statement above does not preclude holding ideals, but it does describe how an acceptance of reality can be the more helpful thing. It also describes something that I have suspected for a long time. That the definition of beauty as being a thing that pleases a person. That there is beauty in both the things that make one smile, and the things that make one frown. Even in that which makes the lips sit in a simple line. There is beauty in both the emerald canopies of a forest in bloom, and in the windswept skeleton branches of a dead forest with dirt for a floor.
Well, I guess I'll end this with the same answer. I do not think ones that much better than the other. It is just something to think about.
posted by Eric Luke | 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home