Offendees

Yes.

I have always understood that sympathy is from the outside looking in and empathy is being willing (mentally) to be in there with them. The difference between "How awful for you, poor you" and "I understand how difficult this has been for you".

To empathise you need to be able to properly reflect on the situation the person is in and to use how they are describing the situation to be able to repeat back, in your own words, an understanding of how they must feel.

Sympathy can be closer to pity - you are not putting yourself in the other persons place but rather commenting in a possibly kind but abstracted, less involved way.

Yes.

I suspect it is Diana-itis. The aftermath of her death did trigger a lot of public display of emotion. Not being publicly touchy-feely started being taken as a sign of inner coldness.

That was to Elegran

You are also right about Dianaitis.

Sympathy is all that is needed in most cases.

I'm still waiting for 'compassion' to enter the fray...

Xed posts. I was replying to Thatbags (for some reason that came out as Rnathags)

it could have been worse.

Sympathy is all that is needed in most cases

I dont think that it is.
Durhamjen's link is excellent.

I would say that empathy is what is needed in most cases.

I used to be a volunteer with people with an debilitating and progressive condition. Among the other volunteers was someone whose son had the condition. She was very conscientious and caring, and would sit and talk to the patients -she knew what they were going through and did, definitely, have empathy with them. so much so that she and they would end up weeping together.

BUT - her very empathy wasn't good for patient morale! By the time their treatment for the day was completed and they went home, they were more depressed than when they had arrived. So were others who had been in earshot. Other volunteers who were a little more detached from the emotions engendered by the disease couild send the patients home with a memory of cheerful chat and laughs and discussions about ways to mitigate the symptoms.

Perhaps not quite as empathetic, but making more of a difference to their mood ?

Sympathy can convey a sense of superiority rather than the sense of understanding (and compassion or you would not be putting yourself it that place) that empathy will give.

I'm saving that one, elegran

I find that sense of superiority idea with regard to sympathy rather strange, gg. It's not an idea I've come across before. Could you give an illustration, perhaps?

Sympathy - directly from Late Latin sympathia "community of feeling, sympathy,"

Empathy - coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) as a translation of Greek empatheia "passion, state of emotion,"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

I would say that the volunteers who were a little more detached were
more empathetic, as they were more in tune with what the patients actually needed.
They had put themselves in the shoes of the patients better than the crying woman did.

I don't see any sense of superiority in sympathy, either. Maybe it is because empathy is now regarded as a more "close-up" attitude, and so better than "mere" sympathy.

So you don't buy "empathy" in its sense of sharing feelings?

Where is the sense of superiority when you have sympathy for someone or something?Nope, never noticed that at all.
I think you are correct Elegran, empathy is more the new buzzword, without any real understanding of the word.

I suspect that the words sympathy and empathy simply became conflated and people latched on to the word empathy because they thought it made them sound more caring, more sensitive and nicer people.

I have used this example before so apologies to those who already know. I have a friend whose child was killed by her partner. I can be empathetic about how a mother feels towards an only child but I cannot begin to share the feelings of one whose child is not only dead but died in such a horrifying way. To suggest that I could would be the ultimate in arrogance as my only child has grown to adulthood and is alive. I can empathise with her sense of betrayal as I once had a violent partner – but only to a limited degree as her partner's actions were unbelievably worse. I can sympathise with her feelings of guilt and understand that she feels she failed to protect her child, but I cannot empathise because I believe she is mistaken. I can sympathise with her confusion and even sorrow on the day the man involved was executed for his crime (in the USA) but I have no remotely similar experience on which to draw that would allow me to empathise.

I can only say that I can empathise with something I myself have gone through and sympathise with a situation that I can imagine and know how I would hope I would feel. Is this too simplistic?

Elegran you posted the best explanation of empathy I have ever read and absent's sad example of her friend backs it up well.
thatbags interesting article (the American university one)

I agree with the first paragraph of your post, absent. Well put.

I might be pointing out the obvious, but there is another very big difference between the two words - 'sympathy' is only applicable for circumstances that fall at the sad/difficult end of the range of events or emotions, whereas 'empathy' can occur anywhere at all on that range, can't it?

Actually, I am not convinced that you have to have personally experienced something in able to be able to empathise, and none of the definitions that I've looked at mention that. Isn't the ability to understand and share another person's feelings simply an ability that some people possess quite naturally? Not that it seems to be very widespread - I don't see many that many signs of empathy between those with opposing views over on the politics threads