This isn't a bad piece, but it somewhat oversimplifies these concepts. For example, "compathy" is more directly "viscerally feeling what another feels" while "empathy" is more accurately defined as the intellectual or emotional capacity for engaging in compathy. That capacity can be grounded in actually feeling what the observed other feels -- which, arguably, is impossible if the observed is experiencing something the observer has no shared personal experience with -- or by feeling what an observer imagines the observer would feel if sharing the personal experience of an observed. Actual empathy _requires_ that one is "able to understand what the person is feeling" -- which is what this piece uses as the (somewhat imprecise) definition of "sympathy".
Similarly, "sympathy" is more accurately defined as "(the expression of) understanding of what the person is feeling" ... one need not actually understand the feelings of another to engage in sympathy (ie, most sympathy does not require actual empathy, but actual sympathy does require actual empathy), and often actual compassion (which derives from actual empathy) requires one to not engage in actual sympathy.
Nevertheless, good to see an attempt to unpack these terms.
> “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”
... and try to recognize that what is desired, but not attained (happiness) is not as important or impactful as what is practiced, but not mastered (compassion).
There are a frustrating number of conflicting definitions of all three (compassion, sympathy, empathy) terms but I share your definitions.
and often actual compassion (which derives from
actual empathy) requires one to not engage in actual
sympathy.
I think this is a great insight. For example, in order to care for somebody compassionately in a medical setting, a doctor or caregiver might at times need to actually shut off their sympathy and/or empathy so that they can perform compassionate acts.
Example: a doctor or nurse performing the excruciating treatments needed by a burn victim. Especially one who is too young or incapacitated to know what's happening. One imagines you'd need to temporarily shut off one's sympathy and empathy in order to perform the care which is ultimately going to be the most compassionate thing in the long run.
I think that's empathy - which may also result in antipathy and revulsion, e.g. one may empathetically understand why some person would want to own slaves or sit atop a strict hierarchical-religious power structure, as they like the feeling of having absolute power over others, while strongly disliking such motivations and having no sympathy for people who engage in that behavior.
Similarly, "sympathy" is more accurately defined as "(the expression of) understanding of what the person is feeling" ... one need not actually understand the feelings of another to engage in sympathy (ie, most sympathy does not require actual empathy, but actual sympathy does require actual empathy), and often actual compassion (which derives from actual empathy) requires one to not engage in actual sympathy.
Nevertheless, good to see an attempt to unpack these terms.
> “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”
... and try to recognize that what is desired, but not attained (happiness) is not as important or impactful as what is practiced, but not mastered (compassion).