RISING ABOVE ? I CANNOT GIVE AN OPINION

Returning to the matter of sympathy I am somewhat in a quandary. I am, after some thought, finding it difficult to form an opinion. There are several questions that arise. One is whether there is a distinction between sympathy and empathy? Another is whether, when in sympathy with another person’s situation, the opinions one forms as a result of being in sympathy, are sufficiently informed? Or whether one’s opinions on any matter are sufficiently informed.

So far as empathy is concerned, I am informed that it is the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another, or, the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself.

As to sympathy it is being in harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons, or on the part of one person with respect to another. Or further, the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions, or, still further, the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration; a relationship between persons in which the condition of one induces a parallel or reciprocal condition in another.

What Adam Smith does is effectively bring the whole lot together under the name of sympathy. In his lecture M. Rateau emphasized the question of levels or strength of feeling felt by the sympathizer towards the person concerned.  The sympathizer cannot possibly reach the same intensity of feeling as the person concerned. The feelings felt by the sympathizer being one step removed as it were. Smith then argues that the intensity of feeling in the sympathizer increases where the person concerned appears to be in more control of their feelings, caused by whatever situation initiated their great distress or joy in the first place. Indeed, there could come a point at which the person concerned is so cool as to cause the sympathizer to become more agitated by the lack of distress or joy shown by the person concerned.  In general, however, the sympathizer seems to be more drawn in as the person concerned seems able to cope with their feelings. It is seen as being brave, which is viewed as a virtuous quality and consequently more attractive.

To illustrate this point, M. Rateau brought up the matter of Socrates; his acceptance of the verdict against him, his acceptance of the sentence, his refusal to leave town and his acquiescence in drinking the hemlock, all as a result of his determination to obey the law and maintain his principles. We sympathize with his plight and admire his actions as beyond the ordinary. He is seen as a man of integrity, brave, virtuous and principled. The representational painting by Jacques-Louis David amply demonstrates the situation, with Socrates exclaiming to the last and his followers showing various and great levels of distress, in sympathy.

The death of Socrates (1787) by J-L David

Rising above a situation does seem to be viewed as an attractive quality. A person seen fighting back the tears often brings people closer, encouraging them to ‘let it all out’ with supportive pats on the back and hugs.

However, is rising above always the thing to do. Might is not be considered an act of stupidity, or indeed carry with it some level of deception, particularly if the rising above is of no real consequence? There can be situations where rising above is the easier course of action. Surely it is a matter of degree and situation.

In the matter of Socrates, he was accused of moral corruption and impiety. The moral corruption concerned the ‘moral corruption of Athenian youth’. As to the impiety, it consisted of “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”.

In the event, friends, followers, and students encouraged Socrates to flee Athens, which action the citizens expected; yet, on principle, Socrates refused to flout the law and escape his legal responsibility to Athens. Apparently, faithful to his teaching of civic obedience to the law, the 70-year-old Socrates executed his death-sentence, and drank the hemlock, as condemned at trial. Yet, it was brought out at trial that at least two of his young followers participated in acts against the democratic government in favour of dictatorships. Not exactly faithful to civic obedience of the law.

Indeed, in 2012, in The New Trial of Socrates an international panel of ten judges held a mock re-trial of Socrates to resolve the matter of the charges levelled against him by Meletus, Anytos, and Lycon, that: “Socrates is a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and he believes in other new divinities of his own”; by split decision, five judges voted “Guilty” and five judges voted “Not guilty”, which acquitted Socrates of corruption of the young and of impiety against the Athenian pantheon. Limiting themselves to the facts of the case against Socrates, the judges did not consider any sentence; the judges who voted the philosopher guilty said that they would not have considered the death penalty for Socrates. The original Athenian jury consisted of some 500 worthies of the city. The guilty verdict was by majority, and it appears the imposition of the death penalty was by way of an even greater majority.  Bearing in mind these events took place in 399 BC, 2415 years ago, clearly views were a bit harsher.

Much of this was unknown to me. Also Socrates was 70, quite an advanced age in 399 BC, although according to some research, that was about average for the ancient Greeks and in some cases they lived even longer. Nonetheless, living longer may not have been right for him. Given all the surrounding circumstances, was he so brave or just accepting the inevitable, or is the mere act of acceptance an act of bravery to be applauded and viewed as virtuous.

So my dilemma and concern about forming an opinion without sufficient information, or to paraphrase Herr Doctor Winkel “I cannot give an opinion, the effects would have been the same.”

There may be a small prize for people who can tell me who Dr Winkel is.