Philosophy Marcel Sympathy

Sympathy is defined as harmony of or an agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another. Moreover, it is also defined as the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble- a fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration. The word sympathy as many would have known is synonymous to the word empathy. And empathy as a noun is defined as an understanding and entering into another's feeling. The meanings of these two words have become so intertwined with each other that people often used them interchangeably to mean the same thing. Also, these two words have often been used in accordance with strong emotions caused by suffering, pain and grief. These emotions shake the very foundation of our selves. That's why when terrible things like accidents, death and other painful misfortunes befall to someone who is close to us, we would often say that "I know what you're going through" or "I sympathize to what you're experiencing right now" and even "Don't worry, it will be alright, I have gone through that feeling before" and all that other one liners that we say even if we don't mean them. But amidst all of these, is it even possible to say the word sympathy to someone alien to us who is going through a very difficult time when we haven't even experience what he/she is experiencing? Or even if we did experience what he/she is going through, would it be safe to say "I understand and I sympathize, even if I don't know you"? As human beings do we even have the right to say the word "I sympathize" to someone whom we haven't even met?

If my answer to all the questions is yes, then I am implying that I can offer sympathy not only with my mind because I ought to but also because I can feel everything. This goes to show that there is no contradiction between what I really feel and what I know I ought to feel. But if this is the case-if one had to be touched by every human misfortune, then life would be very woeful for me. Life would be a living tragedy- filled with sorrow, defeat and despair. Life would become a very limiting life.

Fortunately, it doesn't happen that way. As Marcel pointed out in his essay The Ontological mystery, when we are faced with such alienation and sympathy is solicited from us, in the end what remains is just an uncomfortable awareness that these are people I do not know. And with this, contradiction will certainly arise between what I know I ought to feel (which is to sympathize) and what I really feel which is nothing. Ultimately, this will just be another case for me and that I can choose not to be involved with it because it doesn't even concern me. It is one of the many situations thrown in front of me and that with all the other problems in life, I can postpone it and thus, treating it objectively.

This kind of thinking is the problematical way of thinking that Marcel is pointing out in his essay. He said that people somehow live in a cocoon, in a shell where we open up to what interests us and then hardens even more to what doesn't concern us. We evaluate the world in this kind of thinking. We are so limited in a sense that we only live in accordance to what we think is living-we can choose between what we are responsible for and what we are not. Marcel said that we are somehow imprisoned and caged because of this kind of thinking. An automatic division occurs between what we like and what we don't. Unfortunately, as I said, we only open ourselves to what we like. We seldom have a personal investment that's why we can detach the problematic situations. This also becomes a very egocentric way of living because we choose that the world revolves on us. We select things and people that we like and somehow scatter them around the center which obviously for this matter is the self. For this kind of thinking, the self is like the sun- the center holding all the other planets which revolve on it.

But sooner or later things will fall at the same time and the center cannot do anything about it. It can no longer hold the things in position. In connection, what if the question earlier is phrased differently- "Can we say I sympathize to someone close to us- a friend maybe who is going through a rough time because his/her family is breaking apart?"

Fortunately, Marcel said that encounter is the one responsible for breaking down the framework of this very egocentric way of living. Encounter helps us re-establish our boundaries. Moreover, this encounter is often what we regard as the presence which is lacking in the first situation. When we are faced with this situation, we cannot help but feel something. This feeling of something is what we use to say "I sympathize." But how can we be certain that this feeling of something is enough to say "I sympathize."?

Sure, we are certain that we feel something. And that the knowledge of the experience can somehow strengthen this feeling of attachment. But even if we did experience the same thing and that I think that I am feeling the same feeling, it still doesn't match the exact experience he is having. At this point I can safely say that I can say "I sympathize." but only to a certain extent. The reason behind this is that no matter how similar the situation is, no matter how similar I think the feeling is, it will still boil down to the fact that it is not my body that