>
The word "empathy" has a somewhat eerie ring to it, as if it were a magical capability. At least in its most common understanding as "the ability to feel what another person feels".
> Fun fact: that's impossible. You can never be sure what another person is feeling, because you are not that person. They, and only they, are the sole authority on their feelings.
That's because that definition of empathy is wrong and distorted to almost be a synonym of telepathy.
A twentieth-century borrowing from Ancient Greek ἐμπάθεια (empátheia, literally “passion”) (formed from ἐν (en, “in, at”) + πάθος (páthos, “feeling”)), coined by Edward Bradford Titchener to translate German Einfühlung.
Identification with or understanding of the thoughts, feelings, or emotional state of another person. ex: She had a lot of empathy for her neighbor; she knew what it was like to lose a parent too.
> Instead, I choose to understand empathy as opening up to the fullest extent possible: removing all filters, prejudices and opinions, listening to what another person has to say, and being with them in a mindful way.
That's active or good listening but being with them in their emotional state (whatever that means) isn't yet the definition of trying to understand how they feel and how they think about the topic at hand. Emptying yourself means you can't rely on your own life experience to better understand the other one. (Not a fan of how Rosenberg rephrased that though non violent communication is really useful in some settings while in otheres you have to act upon feelings being conveyed to you).
