Walk a mile in Omar's shoes

[coberst]

Walk a mile in Omar’s shoes

Homicide, the most egregious moral infraction possible, becomes common place in war. It seems to me that we take such homicides in war all too lightly.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child, caused by a suicide bomber, we feel immediate sympathy; often we will come to tears. But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt, through imagination and reason, to create an analogy that will allow us to understand why another behaves as s/he does. Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic emotional response.

The lack of understanding between our foe and our self can transform an argument or misunderstanding into a war of mass homicide. Using a quote from “To Kill A Mockingbird”: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war. Empathy can help us understand our political opponent so that we can reason together. Empathy is a rational means for reaching a solution to our problem.

Questions for discussion

Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

[/ QUOTE ]
She popped out a monster, and likely helped to develop his attitude with her religion that she's too cowardly to put aside. I have no sympathy, and no empathy for her.

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bombs do an even better job of preventing war. Nuclear weapon scientists have done more for peace than all the Nobel Peace Prize winners in history.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a false dichotomy.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't even a question.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

[/ QUOTE ]
Try to reason with a man who believes stoning a teenage girl to death for having sex is a righteous and God given activity.

[coberst]

I empathize with a person not to give approval or to condone the actions of that person, but to create a means whereby their actions have meaning to me. When their actions become meaningful to me I can thus walk in their shoes and perhaps through such empathy I will be able to act in a way that will improve the situation in which both that person and I am involved.

Empathy is the first step to comprehending and thus to solving situations in which I find my self. Ignorance is generally not bliss; ignorance is not the path to peace, harmony, or freedom.

[Phil153]

Empathy and ignorance are not the only options - this is something of a false dichotomy as well.

I think it's possible to understand someone from a strategic or academic viewpoint without seeing the world from their perspective, or caring what they're going through. And it's possible to do positive things based on a general principles, without understanding the other party at all. I'd go as far to argue most of the good in the world is done as a result of principles and not as a result of empathy.

[PairTheBoard]

Counselor Troi seemed to come in pretty handy in Star Trek Next Generation.

PairTheBoard

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy and ignorance are not the only options - this is something of a false dichotomy as well.

I think it's possible to understand someone from a strategic or academic viewpoint without seeing the world from their perspective, or caring what they're going through. And it's possible to do positive things based on a general principles, without understanding the other party at all. I'd go as far to argue most of the good in the world is done as a result of principles and not as a result of empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I imagine comprehension to be a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention), succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.

Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding. However, understanding is essential when dealing with matters of relationships between humans.

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.

I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.

I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.

Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.

Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy”.

I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had that experience? Could you tell me /us about it?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had that experience? Could you tell me /us about it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Here is a collection of my thoughts about the nature of understanding.


I imagine comprehension to be a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention), succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.

Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding. However, understanding is essential when dealing with matters of relationships between humans.

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.

I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.

I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.

Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.

Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy”.

I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.


We have little comprehension of ‘understanding’ because our schooling has taught us only to know. Understanding is a step beyond knowing and our society which values production and consumption has little use for understanding. Those who make public policy do not want a population that cares about understanding. The bull that understands will hook at the Matador rather than the cape.

Understanding is generally not valuable in our society and so we have little comprehension of what it is. However there seems to be one application for understanding. I have on several occasions heard a professor say that “you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it”. Here is one occasion that people can begin to comprehend the meaning of the concept. I suspect we all have a sense of what the professor is saying. So here is a ‘use’ for understanding and in this example we who only value that which is ‘useful’ can begin to gain a comprehension of the concept.


Our culture determines value based upon the question “Is there money-in-it”?

Knowledge is sufficient for things if there is money-in-it. Understanding is normally a necessary condition for things where there is no money-in-it.

Why is understanding a necessary condition for matters where there is no bottom-line payoff? The answer is that the ‘need to understand’ is generally the only motivation that will drive an individual to undertake the work necessary to understand. One must put in a good deal more work to understand a matter than to be knowledgeable of a matter. Ask any college professor if it is true that “you do not understand a subject matter until you try to teach it”.

I am convinced that writing an essay is a beginning step toward understanding. To write an essay about a subject matter is somewhat equivalent to teaching; writing an essay is a process of teaching an imagined reader.

Care enough to understand! Carl Sagan said “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”. Understanding is an art and craft that can be learned by practicing. ‘Understanding’ can be understood if it is worked at.

I suspect most of us have worked at playing golf or tennis or some other sport and have on occasion ‘glimpsed’ the sense of having ‘found’ the right process. Such is the reality of understanding.




I think it might be appropriate to say that the ‘eureka’ moment is the moment of understanding and this moment might also, in some cases, be the moment of birth for the paradigm. I remember reading a book about Darwin’s adventures and how they led him to his discovery of the paradigm of ‘natural selection’. I do not remember, however, if in that book they spoke about the ‘eureka’ moment when he ‘grasped’ the answer. I suspect that moment happened in early morning while still half asleep. It seems that great intellectual stuff happens while we sleep.


Let’s put it this way. We have two words; knowing and understanding. Do we all recognize that there are two very different experiences that we correlate for these two words? I find that I have two separate kinds of experience. I have a different experience that I call knowing from the experience that I call understanding.

I have an experience that I call knowing and I have that kind of experience very often. I have a different experience that I have very seldom but I recognize a difference between the two. When I look out the window I see the rain falling and I know it is raining. I read a book and I gain much knowledge about the Grand Canyon. I look out the window of the plane while passing over the Grand Canyon and I can talk to my neighbor in the next seat and I can tell him some of the things about the Grand Canyon that I know.

Suppose my friend and I spend three months camping and rafting in the Canyon. I suspect I will have an entirely different experience of the Grand Canyon after those three months than before. I will know a great deal more and I will have another experience that I can call understanding. These are two very different experiences. I suspect I can tell you that I did this and I can say that I understand the Grand Canyon and most people will comprehend that my experience exceeds or is different from knowing the Grand Canyon.

If you agree that these two words represent two different kinds of experience then the next question is—How are they different? I have made numerous attempts to explain what these two different experiences are—what is you explanation of the meaning of these two words or do you think we only need one word because there is no difference?


Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

I have concocted a metaphor set that might relay my comprehension of the difference between knowing and understanding.

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.

[gumpzilla]

I was hoping this was going to be a thread about The Wire.

[PairTheBoard]

That's interesting stuff coberst. I think I understand what you're getting at but I'm having a little trouble empathizing with where you're going with it.

I agree that in the Art of War/Peace, empathy with your Enemy/Potential Ally is of fundamental importance. The most dangerous situation is when your understanding of the enemy is so weak that he appears crazy to you. This is why acting crazy often works as a bluff for avoiding fights. People recognize the danger in a crazy person. You have no idea what he's going to do.

It's only common sense that in the Art of War you want to study your enemy. You want to know more than just facts about him. You want to know "what makes him tick". You want to really "understand" him. Only then can you form the most intellegent strategy to deal with him. Empathy with him as a human being is part of this study.

If you are also interested in the Art of Peace, empathy is just as vital. In fact, it now becomes a two way street. You want to find ways to promote his empathy for you.

I mentioned this in another post, but it is relevant to this discussion as well. Look at how they are handling the Terrorist situation in Indonesia. First of all, they benefitted from a Terrorist who spontaneously empathized with the innocent victims of his Terrorist Network. He applied his understanding of the Koran and realized that the Killing of Innocents is forbidden and that the Terrorists are perverting the Jihad of Islam. Since this epiphany, he has been working with the Indonesian authorities to round up memebers of his Terrorist Network.

Furthermore, the Indonesians are putting all the arrested Terrorists on public trial. Their crimes against humanity are thus broadcast and publicized. This provides the opportunity for potential terrorist recruits to empathize with the general public's view of these acts. Thus drying up the wellspring of the Network at its source.

Empathy is vital in the Art of War and Peace.

PairTheBoard