People do not necessarily do something good (for which they may be perceived as being empathically acting) becasue it is "good, but because it makes them feel good themselves.
And yesterday or the day before a short article caught my attentiuon in a German newspaper, an empirical study done by a German university in cooperation with a British university and Germany's biggest serious online partner agency, basing on a dataset of 200,000 entries. They say the empirical finding is overwhelming that religions do not make people feel good and more optimistic and "safe" in life, but thast people may feel like that indeed if they are in the company of other people sharing their views. And these views can be religious of this or that kind, or completely areligious. It is about the shared opinion, the similiarity of the other.
And when you see somebody jumping into the water to rescue somebody drowning - why does he do that: is it due to empathy or due to a "phobia" of seeing somebody dying, or is it because the rescuer knows the drowning person is a rich multimillionaire who can pay him a fat reward, or is the rescuer hoping to collect some good karma or some heavnly cash hat will help him to pass the gate to poaradise once he has died?
And from my experiences of having been in so many therapy training sessions when I studied psychology, and having heared so many students and psychologists and social helpers: I would claim that many who will be seen as helpful or empathic, in fact are just acting in conformity with this or that form of deamnds expected from that, namely expectations that in a way could be seen as politically correctness issues, and since they are not aware of that they fall under the rule of such demands and then obey it's dogma more or less unconditionally. After I got my diploma and worked - for free - iun several projects for some time, I quit psychology for several reasons, idealistic and pragmatic reasons - and I have my reasons why I never have wept a single tear about that decision.
Beyond that, hjaving seen some bits of the world and having the better part of my statistical life expectancy behind me, I would never ever claim again - like I did as a late teen interested in Buddhism - that man in principle is good and a "creature of light". I think you can trust and place your money on the darkness also being part of man always showing up in this way or the other, and so I only believe in
some good in
some people.
Everything in the world seems to be dualistic, andf the older I get, the more I realise how far the valdity of that claim indeed goes. Look up, and you define by that: down; say "good" and realise that only has a meaning when you define "bad"; construct something and see it falling apart sooner or later; what exists, will seize to exist; where nothing seems to have been, suddenly something appears; every action has reaction and what force you inflict inevitably returns.
One should be careful to deal and to think in absolutes - especially when aiming at terms like "good", "well", "social", "just" - and also this "empathy". These terms often can - and do - bring out the worst in man.
Now, should I go and collect some Dr. House quotes about the good and empathic in man...?
