"Compassion gets bad press; we don't like to be the object of compassion, and we don't particularly like to feel compassion either" (103). However, C-S is quick to point out not to reject compassion. "Among the antonyms the dictionary gives for compassion are ruthlessness, cruelty, coldness, indifference, hard-heartedness, insensitivity. They make compassion attractive, at least by contrast" (103). Why is it then that compassion can sometimes have a negative rep? He continues on to make a slight comparison between sympathy and compassion, pointing out that sympathy is a feeling though, and "not doubt we prefer feelings to virtues" (104). He goes on, however, to state that mere feelings are blind to value which prevents sympathy from being virtue.
As C-S moves on to try to convince us that Compassion is a positive and worthy virtue. "Sharing in the suffering of another does not mean that one approves of him or shares whatever good or bad reasons he has for suffering; it means that one refuses to regard any suffering as a matter of indifference or any living being as a thing" (106). Compassion is not focused on that morality of its objects, and this is what makes compassion universal. C-S references Christ and Buddha's compassion. They both had compassion for the wicked, and by being thus, they did not share in their evil and guilt but rather had compassion for their suffering caused by the evil in them.
Compassion is not the same as pity, for "pity only increases the quantity of suffering in the world, and that is what damns it" (107). Nothing positive comes from spreading sorrow. And according to Spinoza, "compassion in the usual sense of the term applies only to ill fortune; good fortune does not call for compassion" (109) and a kind of compassion that is positive is closer to mercy than compassion.
I really liked C-S' point that "Compassion, precisely because it is reactive and projective and identifies with its object, it the lowest form of love, perhaps, but also the easiest" (110). He talks about compassion possibly being the most universal virtue because while the others relate to humanity, compassion sympathizes with all suffering beings, including animals. This does not mean that we hold animals in the same standing as human beings, however, and I think this is important to note. I think in our society some people would disagree with this and do treat animals almost as equals which is not right. He does point out, however, that of all the virtues, compassion makes the distinction between humans and animals less clear.
Kant points out that compassion cannot be called up on command, therefore is not a duty. However, "it is not our duty to feel compassion, but it is our duty to nurture the capacity in us to feel it" (116). It is this aspect that makes compassion not merely a feeling but a virtue as well.
"Therefore, 'love and do what you wish'--or be compassionate and do what you must" (117).
I must say that I disagree with C-S' opening sentence that compassion is viewed in a negative light, but maybe that is just me. Does anyone else feel that compassion is underrated, and if so why do you think that is?
Compassion is definitely under-rated in our society today. We are thought in many ways that those who are of lower circumstance are not working as hard, and in many ways deserve what they are getting. I do not think that it is uncommon for us to judge an unwed single mother with several children that must be on welfare because she cannot feed them. I am not agreeing with or supporting this by any means, but I think that there is no doubt that compassion is lacking in our society today.
I found the differentiation between sympathy and compassion in this chapter to be the most interesting. C-S states that “sympathy can open the way to morality, since to share in another’s feelings is already to leave behind the prison of self” (105). This seems to be a reoccurring theme in C-S, that morality comes from unselfishness and not being attached (maybe there is a better word to explain this) from oneself and one’s possessions to be truly moral.
I personally disagree with the statement that “all suffering deserves compassion” (105). Some suffering is necessary and even good for everyone. If we did not occasionally suffer then we would not be strong individuals. C-S states that even though “suffering can even be low as vicious (as the suffering of an envious person at the happiness of others can be)” (105) we should still have compassion for all types of suffering. There should not be compassion for all types of suffering. Should we be compassionate towards a man who kills his cheating wife because his envy caused him suffering? I do not think that compassion should be all-encompassing. We all must have lines that our compassion cannot cross.
Comte-Sponville begins his chapter on compassion by stating that, “…we don’t like to be the object of compassion, and we don’t particularly like to feel compassion either” (page 103). Like Kelsey, I’m not sure this is perhaps the best way to introduce this virtue, which I believe is the most important of all (or at least of those that we’ve discussed thus far). While all virtues are of the utmost importance in regard to the human condition, C-S makes an interesting point when he places them into two distinct groups (page 104). At this point, many of the virtues we have studied thus far have only been “partial” virtues; a morally-corrupt individual, for example, can certainly be polite, prudent, courageous, or even generous or just. Compassion, however, is one of the first examples of a “complete” virtue; it is so exceptional because it is simply never morally reprehensible to be compassionate.
Perhaps the greatest facet of compassion is the ease of which it can be applied. Consider, for example, prudence. In order to be a truly prudent person, one must carefully weigh all of his or her options when presented with any sort of moral dilemma. It can thus be said that being prudent requires a certain thought process, a concept that is true for many of the virtues. Being compassionate, however, requires only the recognition of suffering in another person. We need not concern ourselves with whether or not the person is suffering justly or even, perhaps, whether they bring the suffering upon themselves—we must only feel genuinely sorry for the individual and thus, in a sense, passively participate in their suffering. I feel that this is the ultimate act of selflessness; another great aspect of compassion. We cannot feel true compassion without first putting the feelings of another above our own.
Throughout the chapter, compassion is equated with mere pity. C-S mentions that Cicero and Spinoza alike both condemn compassion because pity, which they feel is essentially the same thing, only adds more sorrow to the world. I don’t at all feel that this is the case. In order to be compassionate toward the suffering of another, it is not required that one actively becomes sad; it means only that one recognizes that another is suffering and is capable of understanding that the individual is in need. Feeling compassion should thus naturally lead to compassionate acts in order to alleviate these needs. While the Stoic philosophers argue that the same deeds could be committed out of joy and love, I believe that compassion is their true root.
Compassion is "reactive and projective and identifies with its object…" (110). Compassion as an emotion allows us to feel what another is feeling, to project their suffering onto ourselves, and step into their shoes so we might better understand them. Pity also does this. Both pity and compassion are ways of "co-feeling" with another person. I think that Spinoza is correct in saying that being able to feel the joys as well as the pains of others is a vital part of our humanity. The fact that people are able to emotionally move other people allows us to create and live in society together. Not having that ability to be moved by another sometimes leads to alienation and seclusion, and people who do not live among other people or interact with them suffer physical damage as well as mental damage. Therefore, pity and compassion as methods of sympathizing with another are biologically a part of us. However, since Sponville defines virtues as "excellent" human qualities, there is a difference between simply feeling, which everybody does, and having compassion, which is a virtue.
Sponville states, "…that pity is defined as sadness, whereas compassion is defined as love, in other words, first of all, as joy" (109). In other words, both pity and compassion, the feelings, tend to lead to other feelings by both parties invovled. Having pity leads to understanding in the one who pities another. However, after that acknowledgement of that sadness, there is no change in either of them. Having pity on the sad lets them know that others recognize their sadness but that person is still sad.
As Sponville points out, the person having pity may even feel "some measure of contempt" and inequality (115). The feeling of compassion "is defined as love," which implies the feeling is shared "among equals" (115). By making oneself equal to the person who is suffering, it opens each person up to the other. It is only after we become equals that we can be courageous alongside the sufferer and be prudently generous for him or her. If one feels what another feels but refuses to see the other as an equal, then the other virtues never have a chance to take root and grow. Inequality never permits it.
Compassion is underrated in some settings and endorsed in others, depending on the context of the situation and the connotation with which the quality brings. For example, in a romance movie, compassion, understanding and helping a loved one over the long haul, is often seen as a heroic and noble ideal. When a football player comes down with a terminal illness and the whole team gathers to support him and make him happy again, that is compassion also. I think that we have examples of compassion all around us, but society as a whole does not like the word, "compassion." It may be because connation of the compassionate person is someone who is weak or soft.
C-S feels like compassion gets bad press, but I don’t have that impression of compassion at all. He seems to use the word compassion as something that’s very close to pity. But I think of compassion as a positive emotion, and pity as an emotion with much more negative connotations. Personally, I don’t agree with C-S’s thought that we don’t like to feel or receive compassion. I think of compassion as a quality that is very commendable and positive. In fact, as C-S points out, it is a completely virtuous virtue, in that it can never be a bad thing to be compassionate—you can never be a compassionate bastard. (At least, while you’re being compassionate, you’re not a bastard—it is always a good thing.) It is true that compassion is a virtue that we have somewhat mixed-feelings about because it is one associated with pain and suffering. To me, it is definitely always moral and always a positive quality, but I agree that it is sometimes difficult to want to be compassionate. To want to be compassionate is also to want to connect and sympathize with someone who is suffering. It is to be near suffering. To me, compassion is one of the absolute most commendable virtues because it asks us to do things we don’t particularly want to in order to be compassionate. To be compassionate is to go to a friend’s loved one’s funeral to be there for the friend, even though going to a funeral is not in and of itself something that we would want to do. To be compassionate is to put aside personal desires in order to help another person. To me, compassion has anything but a bad rep.
"Compassion gets bad press: we don't like to be the object of compassion, and we don't particularly like to feel compassion either." (103) C-S brings up an interesting point to introduce this chapter. When I hear the word "compassion," my mind immediately jumps to "Compassion International," an organization that promotes the sponsoring of orphans in various countries across the world. The word "compassion," therefore, has a very positive connotation in my mind--the helping of others "less fortunate."
However, C-S lead me to view this concept of compassion more deeply. If viewing compassion as helping those "less fortunate," this virtue could sound quite degrading to the object of compassion.
Therefore, I feel that my connotation of compassion should be adjusted to more closely match that of C-S--"to suffer with." (103) We all suffer at times. Compassion is simply a realization that we are all human and all have occasions when we struggle, whether we are at fault or not. Compassion is showing others that we can relate to their struggle and feel with them; an effort to ease their pain.
Many people, just like me, have come to view compassion as "charity." C-S suggest that, "We should therefore avoid confusing compassion with condescension or with what has come to be caricatured as 'good works'.." (115) Compassion has a bad rep because we, as humans, do not like to be looked at as the "struggling one." To repair this common connotation of compassion, we need to realize, rather, that we all face times in our lives to both give and receive this powerful virtue.
I agree with many of you that I didn't have a negative view of compassion in any way, shape, or form and therefore I thought the way C-S opened this chapter was a little odd. It did, like others, allow me to adjust my own thinking for a moment and try to see what C-S meant, that perhaps no one wants to be in a position to receive needed compassion. We all want to be autonomous, to take care of ourselves, to "have it together" and I think that mindset makes us cringe a little at the idea of being at someone else's mercy, or benefitting from another's compassion. Perhaps that is the "negative" reputation C-S was referring to.
As for my own view of compassion, I believe that it is sorely underrated in answer to Kelsey's question. I agree with Andrea that it is indeed the most important of the virtues we've looked at thus far, and perhaps out of all of them (except for love). Like C-S goes on to explain, receiving compassion is not about being a weaker person per se, it's about having a moment of struggle, going through a time of suffering (which Karlie points out we all experience), and therefore being in need of another human taking the time to reach out and feel your suffering for a moment, to try to lessen your pain. I think that this act of reaching out to feel another's pain is probably one of the most beautiful human actions there is. To take a moment from your life which may be going absolutely wonderfully (or even horribly) and reach out to your fellow human being and try to experience their pain and thereby ease their suffering- what could be more selfless or virtuous?
In connection with the chapter on generosity, I feel that in order to act generously, we must have some kind of compassion. Isn't it an act of generosity to sit with someone, hear his/her struggle, try to comfort him/her? Therefore I think that C-S set these chapters up close to each other to convey the relationship they have with one another. Compassion, I believe, is the more over-arching theme and virtue that is necessary or recommended for other acts (of generosity, etc.) to take place. In order to truly and meaningfully help another, we usually must have the desire to help another, which is how I see compassion.
I am in definite agreement with JJ. Compassion, by no means, has ever had a negative connotation, in my book, and it does seem like C-S's functional definition of the word seems to be closely related to pity. However, feeling compassion is a good thing, both to feel it for another or feel it from someone else. It creates and restores bonds between members of society. While today's capitalistic society may not appreciate compassion as much as it should, I feel as if, on an individual level, most non-"bastards" (as C-S so aptly put it) feel that it is definitely a worthwhile quality, worthwhile enough to instill in the youth. Not to say that Atheists don't appreciate compassion like the "rest of us" do, but honestly, why would we practice a faith and our parents show us how to practice a faith that is so full of compassion as a compelling force if it were underrated (and yes, I know Christianity isn't the only religion, but I feel as if most religions have fairly common ground rules)?
So, it’s pretty easy to observe compassion as commiseration. So, sympathizing with the pain of somebody is virtuous. I would interpret that it is virtuous because it encourages one to consider the whole and relate the self to it. I think it’s less pity than active sensitivity. And more so, most, if not all, of these manifestations of virtue sound more and more like an iteration of love. Maybe I should word it as such: compassion is a case study of love. So is courage, justice, generosity, etc.
What’s more important to me here is that C-S finally mentions something other than humanity in regards to virtues. We can suffer with all beings, or we can express compassion to all suffering beings. What I find curious is his decision to pick two specific things – a child and a cat. His discussion is slapping the former is less bad than torturing the latter. I think a better question would be to ask if it is worse to slap a child or slap a cat. The immediate response, I imagine, would be to say the former is worse than the latter because children are more valuable than cats. I would ask Kelsey to comment on this too, if you wouldn’t mind. I would disagree and say that both are equally bad, and I would go on to say that slapping a tree would also be equal on the list. My compassion for the cat should equal my compassion for the tree or child. I think to act otherwise is to place greater value on the life of one over the other. And if you’re anthropocentric, that’s a-okay in regards to prioritizing the child. I think what C-S does is make virtue important only for humanity, and I think that that’s not appropriate. Is love exclusive to humans?
I really liked this quote: "Compassion, precisely because it is reactive and projective and identifies with its object, it the lowest form of love, perhaps, but also the easiest" (110). He makes an excellent point. When others are feeling a great misfortune we often say, “I’m sorry.” Not because we are apologizing for something we caused, but because he are trying to show compassion for their situation. This is considered a form of love just as CS says. It is easy to relate to people’s situations and feel compassion for them. While we normally tend to think of love in the romantic sense, love is everywhere. Where other languages have multiple definitions of “love,” we only have one in English and thus there are many different “forms.” Being nice and compassionate towards people is just one of these forms of love. And being nice is probably the easiest way to show this love.
I do think that compassion is underrated. We take it for granted until we need a hug, or someone to give a compliment on a rough day. Even a simple “I love you” from a parent as the ability to go a long way on a difficult day. These are all forms of compassion. I believe that these things are all underrated and ignored until we need one. Then they mean the world to us. Thus, it seems to me that compassion is ignored until it is needed and then it is one of the most valuable things in the world.
I agree with Holly, “I personally disagree with the statement that “all suffering deserves compassion” (105).” Suffering is good. Some people, who do not struggle, never get to where they are now. If J. K. Rowling was never poor and riding on a train, there is no telling whether or not she would have thought of the wondrous world of Harry Potter and gave so many people around the world great entertainment. It is those that struggle that appreciate success all the more.
I don’t necessarily think compassion is seen as a negative thing in today’s society, but, like most of the rest of you, I definitely think it is underrated. People today sometimes tend to equate compassion with cowardice, and that is just not okay. Compassion is such an important aspect of living that it should get more credit for the power it has. As Ellen noted, simple acts of compassion, not compassion necessarily in the sympathetic sense as it pertains to sharing in someone else’s suffering, but in the sense that it is a mere expression of love, is essential to getting through some days.
Personally, I do not have a negative view of compassion at all. I think it is a very positive and productive thing. In a sort of agreement with Compt-Sponville, I can see it as a form of sympathy or pity, but that does not necessarily mean it is negative simply because sharing in pain, according to C-S, does no good for the world. Thus, I can see his point in saying that compassion is sometimes an expression of sympathy or pity, but I do not think that is a bad thing. If we truly love someone, is it not just natural that we share in his or her suffering? Is that not, as I believe John is pointing out, the purpose of love as Christ or some other religious leader defines it?
In seeking to understand one another and what someone else might be going through, whether positive or negative, is it not justified to allow one’s self to share in his or her suffering as well as joy? It is all part of attempting to find solidarity with another and a reflection of pure love.
I disagree with C-S when he says that compassion is the lowest form of love. I don’t think that compassion is any form of love. It is a charitable action, in my opinion. To me, love isn't a virtue. Love isn't something that is hard to do. Being compassionate is difficult whether you define it as pity, or commiseration or empathy. To be compassionate, you have make an effort to put yourself out, and connect with somebody about something that doesn't affect you. I disagree with Ellen and Holly that not all suffering deserves compassion. While suffering may be good, I don’t think it is good to suffer alone. And who is to decide what suffering is worthy of compassion and what suffering isn't? I think that virtues are universal. If we owe compassion to person A, because they are suffering, then we also owe compassion to person B, even if they are suffering for a different reason. I really like compassion as a virtue. It seems to me to be one of the most selfless and giving of any of them. It's like emotional generosity, and I think that a lot of the time it is easier to give materially than to give emotionally. JJ Ruwe
"Compassion gets bad press; we don't like to be the object of compassion, and we don't particularly like to feel compassion either" (103). However, C-S is quick to point out not to reject compassion. "Among the antonyms the dictionary gives for compassion are ruthlessness, cruelty, coldness, indifference, hard-heartedness, insensitivity. They make compassion attractive, at least by contrast" (103). Why is it then that compassion can sometimes have a negative rep? He continues on to make a slight comparison between sympathy and compassion, pointing out that sympathy is a feeling though, and "not doubt we prefer feelings to virtues" (104). He goes on, however, to state that mere feelings are blind to value which prevents sympathy from being virtue.
ReplyDeleteAs C-S moves on to try to convince us that Compassion is a positive and worthy virtue. "Sharing in the suffering of another does not mean that one approves of him or shares whatever good or bad reasons he has for suffering; it means that one refuses to regard any suffering as a matter of indifference or any living being as a thing" (106). Compassion is not focused on that morality of its objects, and this is what makes compassion universal. C-S references Christ and Buddha's compassion. They both had compassion for the wicked, and by being thus, they did not share in their evil and guilt but rather had compassion for their suffering caused by the evil in them.
Compassion is not the same as pity, for "pity only increases the quantity of suffering in the world, and that is what damns it" (107). Nothing positive comes from spreading sorrow. And according to Spinoza, "compassion in the usual sense of the term applies only to ill fortune; good fortune does not call for compassion" (109) and a kind of compassion that is positive is closer to mercy than compassion.
I really liked C-S' point that "Compassion, precisely because it is reactive and projective and identifies with its object, it the lowest form of love, perhaps, but also the easiest" (110). He talks about compassion possibly being the most universal virtue because while the others relate to humanity, compassion sympathizes with all suffering beings, including animals. This does not mean that we hold animals in the same standing as human beings, however, and I think this is important to note. I think in our society some people would disagree with this and do treat animals almost as equals which is not right. He does point out, however, that of all the virtues, compassion makes the distinction between humans and animals less clear.
Kant points out that compassion cannot be called up on command, therefore is not a duty. However, "it is not our duty to feel compassion, but it is our duty to nurture the capacity in us to feel it" (116). It is this aspect that makes compassion not merely a feeling but a virtue as well.
"Therefore, 'love and do what you wish'--or be compassionate and do what you must" (117).
I must say that I disagree with C-S' opening sentence that compassion is viewed in a negative light, but maybe that is just me. Does anyone else feel that compassion is underrated, and if so why do you think that is?
Compassion is definitely under-rated in our society today. We are thought in many ways that those who are of lower circumstance are not working as hard, and in many ways deserve what they are getting. I do not think that it is uncommon for us to judge an unwed single mother with several children that must be on welfare because she cannot feed them. I am not agreeing with or supporting this by any means, but I think that there is no doubt that compassion is lacking in our society today.
ReplyDeleteI found the differentiation between sympathy and compassion in this chapter to be the most interesting. C-S states that “sympathy can open the way to morality, since to share in another’s feelings is already to leave behind the prison of self” (105). This seems to be a reoccurring theme in C-S, that morality comes from unselfishness and not being attached (maybe there is a better word to explain this) from oneself and one’s possessions to be truly moral.
I personally disagree with the statement that “all suffering deserves compassion” (105). Some suffering is necessary and even good for everyone. If we did not occasionally suffer then we would not be strong individuals. C-S states that even though “suffering can even be low as vicious (as the suffering of an envious person at the happiness of others can be)” (105) we should still have compassion for all types of suffering. There should not be compassion for all types of suffering. Should we be compassionate towards a man who kills his cheating wife because his envy caused him suffering? I do not think that compassion should be all-encompassing. We all must have lines that our compassion cannot cross.
Comte-Sponville begins his chapter on compassion by stating that, “…we don’t like to be the object of compassion, and we don’t particularly like to feel compassion either” (page 103). Like Kelsey, I’m not sure this is perhaps the best way to introduce this virtue, which I believe is the most important of all (or at least of those that we’ve discussed thus far). While all virtues are of the utmost importance in regard to the human condition, C-S makes an interesting point when he places them into two distinct groups (page 104). At this point, many of the virtues we have studied thus far have only been “partial” virtues; a morally-corrupt individual, for example, can certainly be polite, prudent, courageous, or even generous or just. Compassion, however, is one of the first examples of a “complete” virtue; it is so exceptional because it is simply never morally reprehensible to be compassionate.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the greatest facet of compassion is the ease of which it can be applied. Consider, for example, prudence. In order to be a truly prudent person, one must carefully weigh all of his or her options when presented with any sort of moral dilemma. It can thus be said that being prudent requires a certain thought process, a concept that is true for many of the virtues. Being compassionate, however, requires only the recognition of suffering in another person. We need not concern ourselves with whether or not the person is suffering justly or even, perhaps, whether they bring the suffering upon themselves—we must only feel genuinely sorry for the individual and thus, in a sense, passively participate in their suffering. I feel that this is the ultimate act of selflessness; another great aspect of compassion. We cannot feel true compassion without first putting the feelings of another above our own.
Throughout the chapter, compassion is equated with mere pity. C-S mentions that Cicero and Spinoza alike both condemn compassion because pity, which they feel is essentially the same thing, only adds more sorrow to the world. I don’t at all feel that this is the case. In order to be compassionate toward the suffering of another, it is not required that one actively becomes sad; it means only that one recognizes that another is suffering and is capable of understanding that the individual is in need. Feeling compassion should thus naturally lead to compassionate acts in order to alleviate these needs. While the Stoic philosophers argue that the same deeds could be committed out of joy and love, I believe that compassion is their true root.
Compassion is "reactive and projective and identifies with its object…" (110). Compassion as an emotion allows us to feel what another is feeling, to project their suffering onto ourselves, and step into their shoes so we might better understand them. Pity also does this. Both pity and compassion are ways of "co-feeling" with another person. I think that Spinoza is correct in saying that being able to feel the joys as well as the pains of others is a vital part of our humanity. The fact that people are able to emotionally move other people allows us to create and live in society together. Not having that ability to be moved by another sometimes leads to alienation and seclusion, and people who do not live among other people or interact with them suffer physical damage as well as mental damage. Therefore, pity and compassion as methods of sympathizing with another are biologically a part of us. However, since Sponville defines virtues as "excellent" human qualities, there is a difference between simply feeling, which everybody does, and having compassion, which is a virtue.
ReplyDeleteSponville states, "…that pity is defined as sadness, whereas compassion is defined as love, in other words, first of all, as joy" (109). In other words, both pity and compassion, the feelings, tend to lead to other feelings by both parties invovled. Having pity leads to understanding in the one who pities another. However, after that acknowledgement of that sadness, there is no change in either of them. Having pity on the sad lets them know that others recognize their sadness but that person is still sad.
As Sponville points out, the person having pity may even feel "some measure of contempt" and inequality (115). The feeling of compassion "is defined as love," which implies the feeling is shared "among equals" (115). By making oneself equal to the person who is suffering, it opens each person up to the other. It is only after we become equals that we can be courageous alongside the sufferer and be prudently generous for him or her. If one feels what another feels but refuses to see the other as an equal, then the other virtues never have a chance to take root and grow. Inequality never permits it.
Compassion is underrated in some settings and endorsed in others, depending on the context of the situation and the connotation with which the quality brings. For example, in a romance movie, compassion, understanding and helping a loved one over the long haul, is often seen as a heroic and noble ideal. When a football player comes down with a terminal illness and the whole team gathers to support him and make him happy again, that is compassion also. I think that we have examples of compassion all around us, but society as a whole does not like the word, "compassion." It may be because connation of the compassionate person is someone who is weak or soft.
C-S feels like compassion gets bad press, but I don’t have that impression of compassion at all. He seems to use the word compassion as something that’s very close to pity. But I think of compassion as a positive emotion, and pity as an emotion with much more negative connotations. Personally, I don’t agree with C-S’s thought that we don’t like to feel or receive compassion. I think of compassion as a quality that is very commendable and positive. In fact, as C-S points out, it is a completely virtuous virtue, in that it can never be a bad thing to be compassionate—you can never be a compassionate bastard. (At least, while you’re being compassionate, you’re not a bastard—it is always a good thing.)
ReplyDeleteIt is true that compassion is a virtue that we have somewhat mixed-feelings about because it is one associated with pain and suffering. To me, it is definitely always moral and always a positive quality, but I agree that it is sometimes difficult to want to be compassionate. To want to be compassionate is also to want to connect and sympathize with someone who is suffering. It is to be near suffering. To me, compassion is one of the absolute most commendable virtues because it asks us to do things we don’t particularly want to in order to be compassionate. To be compassionate is to go to a friend’s loved one’s funeral to be there for the friend, even though going to a funeral is not in and of itself something that we would want to do. To be compassionate is to put aside personal desires in order to help another person. To me, compassion has anything but a bad rep.
"Compassion gets bad press: we don't like to be the object of compassion, and we don't particularly like to feel compassion either." (103) C-S brings up an interesting point to introduce this chapter. When I hear the word "compassion," my mind immediately jumps to "Compassion International," an organization that promotes the sponsoring of orphans in various countries across the world. The word "compassion," therefore, has a very positive connotation in my mind--the helping of others "less fortunate."
ReplyDeleteHowever, C-S lead me to view this concept of compassion more deeply. If viewing compassion as helping those "less fortunate," this virtue could sound quite degrading to the object of compassion.
Therefore, I feel that my connotation of compassion should be adjusted to more closely match that of C-S--"to suffer with." (103) We all suffer at times. Compassion is simply a realization that we are all human and all have occasions when we struggle, whether we are at fault or not. Compassion is showing others that we can relate to their struggle and feel with them; an effort to ease their pain.
Many people, just like me, have come to view compassion as "charity." C-S suggest that, "We should therefore avoid confusing compassion with condescension or with what has come to be caricatured as 'good works'.." (115) Compassion has a bad rep because we, as humans, do not like to be looked at as the "struggling one." To repair this common connotation of compassion, we need to realize, rather, that we all face times in our lives to both give and receive this powerful virtue.
I agree with many of you that I didn't have a negative view of compassion in any way, shape, or form and therefore I thought the way C-S opened this chapter was a little odd. It did, like others, allow me to adjust my own thinking for a moment and try to see what C-S meant, that perhaps no one wants to be in a position to receive needed compassion. We all want to be autonomous, to take care of ourselves, to "have it together" and I think that mindset makes us cringe a little at the idea of being at someone else's mercy, or benefitting from another's compassion. Perhaps that is the "negative" reputation C-S was referring to.
ReplyDeleteAs for my own view of compassion, I believe that it is sorely underrated in answer to Kelsey's question. I agree with Andrea that it is indeed the most important of the virtues we've looked at thus far, and perhaps out of all of them (except for love). Like C-S goes on to explain, receiving compassion is not about being a weaker person per se, it's about having a moment of struggle, going through a time of suffering (which Karlie points out we all experience), and therefore being in need of another human taking the time to reach out and feel your suffering for a moment, to try to lessen your pain. I think that this act of reaching out to feel another's pain is probably one of the most beautiful human actions there is. To take a moment from your life which may be going absolutely wonderfully (or even horribly) and reach out to your fellow human being and try to experience their pain and thereby ease their suffering- what could be more selfless or virtuous?
In connection with the chapter on generosity, I feel that in order to act generously, we must have some kind of compassion. Isn't it an act of generosity to sit with someone, hear his/her struggle, try to comfort him/her? Therefore I think that C-S set these chapters up close to each other to convey the relationship they have with one another. Compassion, I believe, is the more over-arching theme and virtue that is necessary or recommended for other acts (of generosity, etc.) to take place. In order to truly and meaningfully help another, we usually must have the desire to help another, which is how I see compassion.
I am in definite agreement with JJ. Compassion, by no means, has ever had a negative connotation, in my book, and it does seem like C-S's functional definition of the word seems to be closely related to pity. However, feeling compassion is a good thing, both to feel it for another or feel it from someone else. It creates and restores bonds between members of society. While today's capitalistic society may not appreciate compassion as much as it should, I feel as if, on an individual level, most non-"bastards" (as C-S so aptly put it) feel that it is definitely a worthwhile quality, worthwhile enough to instill in the youth. Not to say that Atheists don't appreciate compassion like the "rest of us" do, but honestly, why would we practice a faith and our parents show us how to practice a faith that is so full of compassion as a compelling force if it were underrated (and yes, I know Christianity isn't the only religion, but I feel as if most religions have fairly common ground rules)?
ReplyDeleteSo, it’s pretty easy to observe compassion as commiseration. So, sympathizing with the pain of somebody is virtuous. I would interpret that it is virtuous because it encourages one to consider the whole and relate the self to it. I think it’s less pity than active sensitivity. And more so, most, if not all, of these manifestations of virtue sound more and more like an iteration of love. Maybe I should word it as such: compassion is a case study of love. So is courage, justice, generosity, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s more important to me here is that C-S finally mentions something other than humanity in regards to virtues. We can suffer with all beings, or we can express compassion to all suffering beings. What I find curious is his decision to pick two specific things – a child and a cat. His discussion is slapping the former is less bad than torturing the latter. I think a better question would be to ask if it is worse to slap a child or slap a cat. The immediate response, I imagine, would be to say the former is worse than the latter because children are more valuable than cats. I would ask Kelsey to comment on this too, if you wouldn’t mind. I would disagree and say that both are equally bad, and I would go on to say that slapping a tree would also be equal on the list. My compassion for the cat should equal my compassion for the tree or child. I think to act otherwise is to place greater value on the life of one over the other. And if you’re anthropocentric, that’s a-okay in regards to prioritizing the child. I think what C-S does is make virtue important only for humanity, and I think that that’s not appropriate. Is love exclusive to humans?
I really liked this quote: "Compassion, precisely because it is reactive and projective and identifies with its object, it the lowest form of love, perhaps, but also the easiest" (110). He makes an excellent point. When others are feeling a great misfortune we often say, “I’m sorry.” Not because we are apologizing for something we caused, but because he are trying to show compassion for their situation. This is considered a form of love just as CS says. It is easy to relate to people’s situations and feel compassion for them. While we normally tend to think of love in the romantic sense, love is everywhere. Where other languages have multiple definitions of “love,” we only have one in English and thus there are many different “forms.” Being nice and compassionate towards people is just one of these forms of love. And being nice is probably the easiest way to show this love.
ReplyDeleteI do think that compassion is underrated. We take it for granted until we need a hug, or someone to give a compliment on a rough day. Even a simple “I love you” from a parent as the ability to go a long way on a difficult day. These are all forms of compassion. I believe that these things are all underrated and ignored until we need one. Then they mean the world to us. Thus, it seems to me that compassion is ignored until it is needed and then it is one of the most valuable things in the world.
I agree with Holly, “I personally disagree with the statement that “all suffering deserves compassion” (105).” Suffering is good. Some people, who do not struggle, never get to where they are now. If J. K. Rowling was never poor and riding on a train, there is no telling whether or not she would have thought of the wondrous world of Harry Potter and gave so many people around the world great entertainment. It is those that struggle that appreciate success all the more.
I don’t necessarily think compassion is seen as a negative thing in today’s society, but, like most of the rest of you, I definitely think it is underrated. People today sometimes tend to equate compassion with cowardice, and that is just not okay. Compassion is such an important aspect of living that it should get more credit for the power it has. As Ellen noted, simple acts of compassion, not compassion necessarily in the sympathetic sense as it pertains to sharing in someone else’s suffering, but in the sense that it is a mere expression of love, is essential to getting through some days.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not have a negative view of compassion at all. I think it is a very positive and productive thing. In a sort of agreement with Compt-Sponville, I can see it as a form of sympathy or pity, but that does not necessarily mean it is negative simply because sharing in pain, according to C-S, does no good for the world. Thus, I can see his point in saying that compassion is sometimes an expression of sympathy or pity, but I do not think that is a bad thing. If we truly love someone, is it not just natural that we share in his or her suffering? Is that not, as I believe John is pointing out, the purpose of love as Christ or some other religious leader defines it?
In seeking to understand one another and what someone else might be going through, whether positive or negative, is it not justified to allow one’s self to share in his or her suffering as well as joy? It is all part of attempting to find solidarity with another and a reflection of pure love.
I disagree with C-S when he says that compassion is the lowest form of love. I don’t think that compassion is any form of love. It is a charitable action, in my opinion. To me, love isn't a virtue. Love isn't something that is hard to do. Being compassionate is difficult whether you define it as pity, or commiseration or empathy. To be compassionate, you have make an effort to put yourself out, and connect with somebody about something that doesn't affect you.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Ellen and Holly that not all suffering deserves compassion. While suffering may be good, I don’t think it is good to suffer alone. And who is to decide what suffering is worthy of compassion and what suffering isn't? I think that virtues are universal. If we owe compassion to person A, because they are suffering, then we also owe compassion to person B, even if they are suffering for a different reason.
I really like compassion as a virtue. It seems to me to be one of the most selfless and giving of any of them. It's like emotional generosity, and I think that a lot of the time it is easier to give materially than to give emotionally.
JJ Ruwe