Empathicalism

I can't say for sure, but based on my modest research (solely via the internet), I have come to be rather certain that the philosophy of "empathicalism" is fictitious, even if it's not, it has a relatively low number of disciples.

What's "empathicalism" you may wonder. Well, maybe the excerpt below would be of some help.

FA : Oh? What's empathicalism?
AH : The most sensible approach to true understanding and peace of mind.
FA : Sounds great, but what is it?
AH : It's based on empathy. Do you know what the word "empathy" means?
FA : No, I'll have to have the beginner's course on that one. Empathy. Is it something like sympathy?
AH : Oh, it goes beyond sympathy. Sympathy is to understand what someone feels. Empathy is to project your imagination so that you actually feel what the other person is feeling. You put yourself in the other person's place.

[ FA: Fred Astaire; AH : Audrey Hepburn ]

The philosophy of empathicalism was popularised in the movie "Funny Face" and is supposedly founded by a certain Prof. Flostre who lives in Paris. As explained in the above mentioned portion of the script, empathicalism is an altruistic philosophy which advocates putting one's self in another's shoes. In other words, its proponents are encouraged to not only "feel" the plight (or even joy) of others but also to manifest and live it in their own lives. Though not further elaborated in the movie, I think it's a safe assumption that the main goal is to inculcate a just and responsible society - one that takes into consideration all aspects of the society before deciding on a particular matter.

Lets just say, hypothetically of course, that this philosophy is not a mere work of fiction and that it has an actual working machinery to spread its ideology. How would it be received worldwide? Is it going to gain momentum like republicanism did post-World War I or will it be shun like communism post-Soviet Union? What would the people of this world think about it?

In the instance that it gains favourable recognition, it may probably be the next "it" thing after the modern democratic establishment became the flavour of the day circa late 19th century to mid 20th century. It will be akin to the flower children movement of the 1967's "summer of love" but on a much grander scale. Pacifism will be a sheek trend to follow. "Cold War, what's that?" they may ask. All everybody would know and understand is to "love thy neighbour", to put his or herself into that "neighbour's" shoes and therefore "love" them for who they are, no judgments passed.

But that is not the reality is it? It's not even close to what we have and are familiar with. The world we know is sceptical and unrelenting. It is what it is and we will have to just deal with it, whether or not it suits our individual circumstances.

Occidental ideals of democracy may fit the social norm of their Judeo-Christianity dominated society. Freedom House has even make it a point to "rate" the level of democractic freedom being exercised in the world. My qualms are not against democracy, but more so towards the staunch loyalist of the unilateral autocratic brand of democracy. You know, the ones that are eager to denounce countries that do not subscribe to their mould of democracy. The ones that would instantly march down on the streets to protest things that they have not seen or understand the complexity of it.

Lets take Tibet for example. To begin with, I'm not saying that I support the Chinese governments actions thus far. But I wonder whether the street protesters worldwide have taken into consideration of the Chinese government's standpoint. Have they considered it? Or did they just take one side of the story and blocks any arguments that do not favour that side of the story?

The US government and its allies dictates that the war on terrorism is a global crusade, targetting primarily on Middle Eastern nations. The rest of the world either has to support it or be deemed terrorists (or nations harbouring terrorists) themselves. It's plain and simple, my (American) way or the highway (to eternal damnation). Iraq for instance, as tyrannical as Saddam Hussein was, he managed to put the the country under control. Daily bombings and murders were unheard of during his tenure. It is only after the incursion of the US troops that such things became staple. His detractors would argue that he marginalised, repressed and even persecutes the Iraqi Shi'ites. But doesn't the democracy as being "introduced" by the US also marginalises the minority as democracy is after all generically defined as the rule of the majority?

Again, I reiterate my stand on democracy. I support it as an instrument of government as I see not a better alternative. However, democracy is not immaculate in nature and therefore has many rooms for abuse and misinterpretation; as do many other things. This is why "empathicalism" would be a pleasant alternative eventhough as a political ideology, it may appear to be somewhat frivolous.

Truth be told, we don't even need an institutionalised philosophy of "empathicalism" to be a proponent of it. All that is needed is the God-given empathy within all of us. Being considerate of others does not make you a weakling as some may argue that a man ought to pick a side and not stand on the fence. Being considerate means to have a formed ideas of one's own but to tolerate and understand those that do not conform to his or her own.

Well, madammes et messeurs, that is all I have installed for you kind readers for now. Till we meet again in this cyber realm.



Au revoir!