Doesn't he know that you are DYING for HIS FREEDOM?!
Hey Troops! KPunk Doesn't Support You!
Mystery Train is dead to me
Having grown up in a military family in a military town, I'm not sure I have much empathy left for anyone. And aren't you suppose to be watching a Jarmusch flick right now?
I've been finding it unnecessary and unwatchable throughout this past week.
I also stick by my guns that you are possibly confusing "empathy" with "sympathy."
But what does any of it even matter when ICE STORM NUMBER 4 IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS is waiting in the wings to fuck with my existence.
.
I seem to recall that MYSTERY TRAIN was only interesting when Joe Strummer appeared. And even then it was a bit disappointing.
As for linguistic confusion, my understanding is that sympathy involves feelings of social affinity (grounded in feelings of loyalty and allegiance) while empathy is a desire to identify with and understand another's situation, feelings, and motives (the language I'm using here is partly taken from the American Heritage, to cite my source). Thus, in this case, I don't sympathize because I don't have feelings of loyalty or affinity. But I do have a desire to identify and understand. Moreover I'm basing this distinction on some wise dude who talked about the importance of 'edification through empathy.'
So stick to your guns all you want, Buck-o. I'm not backing down.
Hey, watch your mouth
And while I appreciate you trying to apply something learned from some marriage counseling pamphlet, I still think you're wrong.
EMPATHY is "understanding and entering another's feelings," and the key here is that the ability to do so would mean that you would have to have been in a pretty similar situation to those you are empathizing with.
Like "oh, my mom died too, I can totally empathize with what you're going through."
SYMPATHY is "an inclination to support or be loyal to or to agree with an opinion," which is to say that you can put yourself in someone's shoes in a removed way and understand how they may feel in concept.
Like "oh, that sucks that your mom died, I can only imagine what you're going through."
You saying you empathize with the troops would, to me, mean that you have gone through an experience that is almost identical to what they're going through so you could put yourself back in that moment and truly understand their mindframe etc.
Saying you sympathize with the troops means you understand in a general sense what they might be going through, etc etc.
Where the fuck is grammar/language nazi Todd when you need him?
Hmmm
I think the original meaning of sympathy is more akin to what is now popularly understood as empathy.
Some argue that, strictly speaking, sympathy is actually stronger than empathy. Sympathy literally means "feeling/emotion in harmony with," implying a sort of oneness. Sym= with, pathos=passion, feeling, experience, emotion, suffering.
Empathy is more of a projection...a sort of intuitive imagining of another's feelings/emotions or experience...putting oneself in another's shoes, as it were. Em=within or in.
Others argue that empathy is the nobler of the two, since it implies an attempt to engage in another's perspective without necessarily having experienced it firsthand for oneself. But it's also more detached, more of an intellectual exercise.
Either way, the definitions have become more or less reversed over time.
I don't know that there really is much difference, unless you literally believe in telepathy or something.
.
I think the original meaning of sympathy is more akin to what is now popularly understood as empathy.
Some argue that, strictly speaking, sympathy is actually stronger than empathy. Sympathy literally means "feeling/emotion in harmony with," implying a sort of oneness. Sym= with, pathos=passion, feeling, experience, emotion, suffering.
Empathy is more of a projection...a sort of intuitive imagining of another's feelings/emotions or experience...putting oneself in another's shoes, as it were. Em=within or in.
Others argue that empathy is the nobler of the two, since it implies an attempt to engage in another's perspective without necessarily having experienced it firsthand for oneself. But it's also more detached, more of an intellectual exercise.
Either way, the definitions have become more or less reversed over time.
I don't know that there really is much difference, unless you literally believe in telepathy or something.
I'll take this as a vindication of my position.
No, Kevin dude, you don't win
Todd is merely a reference material, he can be cast aside in this case.
But Todd, why is firsthand experience magically removed from the definition of empathy? Based on the prefix definitions, it shouldn't be.
Engaging in another's perspective means that one is drawing on past experiences in order to do so. One would obviously be drawing on similar types of experiences to do so successfully (Hence EM=WITHIN).
And if one can't do so, as Kpunk can't do with regards to the troops, then one can't empathize, but one must sympathize (Hence SYM=WITH). He's WITH the troops in relation to the situation they find themselves in, but he's not WITHIN them (pig minds out of the gutter this is some serious for real language shit).
And I'm talking WITH on a humanistic level, not political. As in, he probably doesn't want them to die, just as he wouldn't want to die if he were in their situation. BUT he's neither been withIN their situation nor presumably one like it so he can't empathize.
I don't know about you assholes, but WITHIN is also lot more powerful than WITH. Thus, empathy trumps sympathy and I win.
Logic
USE LOGIC!
Not some make-believe rules that Todd conjured up.
I bet this is in the Chicago Manual of Style but I left it at work, and attempts to Google a concrete answer are proving to be stupid.
Also Strunk and White's Elements of Style is proving useless on the matter, and Webster's is giving similar definitions for both.
But the real question is: Do you empathize or sympathize with me?
RUGS OF WAR
I think you jerks should both
be made to buy a lot of these
and use them to keep warm
!
But Todd, why is firsthand experience magically removed from the definition of empathy? Based on the prefix definitions, it shouldn't be.
Jerk, were you not reading anything I wrote above?
Pull your ice-addled brain out of your boil-encrusted ass and get with the program, Scooter.
There can be no firsthand experience with empathy in its strictest definition. You can't literally be in someone's mind, you can only imagine being so. Dude, this is kindergarten shit!
In regard to sympathy, we're talking about emotions, not situations.
Jerk, I Was Trying to Edit and You Had to Go and Comment. Jerk.
You feel sympathy with someone when you've experienced analogous emotions or a generalized mental state. When a friend's loved one dies, you can sympathize if you've lost someone, too. You can do that because people experience grief in similar ways even if the circumstances under which it arises are entirely different.
Empathy is more abstract and vicarious. Kevin can empathize with the troops even though he is not among them because he can only imagine himself being in a similar situation.
So True, So True
It makes me HAPPY that Smart Greg came back just to make that observation about my astrological sign. 
It makes me SAD that R. John is being so mean to me. 
It makes me MAD, too. 
If I were R. John, I would be SCARED of being punched like a bug. 
R. John DISGUSTs me. 
Hey, Todd, way to not read what I typed
Empathy is more abstract and vicarious. Kevin can empathize with the troops even though he is not among them because he can only imagine himself being in a similar situation.
This is where we disagree.
First of all, I realize that one has to imagine in order to empathize. Second of all, I realize that empathy is attached to experiences and sympathy to emotions. Third of all, I think I made that clear in my response. Fourth of all, pray for your life because I'm going to fucking cut you.
My point being, in order to empathize, one would have to be drawing on SIMILAR EXPERIENCES. I'm arguing that there are cases in which people cannot empathize. In the grand scheme of things there are not many, I would guess, but the example Kevin gave would be one of them. He is then forced to relate on an emotional level. Analogous emotions, yes.
He cannot imagine himself being in a similar situation, just as he cannot imagine being trapped in a mine shaft or something. Or eating out my boil-encrusted ass.
Someone better acknowledge my correctness because, even if I am wrong, I'm bringing up a critical point relating to English-language comprehension that needs to be answered. I'm considering myself a teacher here.
Joined: 2006-08-24
Location: Where Will the Little Green Man Be Next?