What empathy is and isn’t

Re “Is empathy overrated?” Opinion, Jan. 17

Paul Bloom employs a primitive concept of empathy, far removed from Leslie Jamison’s nuanced account, which he quotes approvingly but perversely. Empathy, as she argues, is not taking over someone else’s emotion; it is a border crossing, a visit to someone else’s country.

Yes, emotions can lead us wrong, but so can logic. In fact, the logical contradictions resulting from Bloom’s proud refusal to define terms in his book are a banner example.

To put emotions “in their proper place,” let’s listen to Jamison’s concluding words: “I don’t believe in a finite economy of empathy .... I want our hearts to be open. I mean it.” Laurence Scheindlin

Los Angeles

Empathy can of course cause an erroneous decision just as any motivation can, especially so if it is based on emotion. Bloom refers to the emotion part of empathy not its other half.

Webster’s defined empathy as the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of another. Either can motivate a person, but I believe it is the “intellectual identification with” that motivates a person to rationally solve the many problems affecting people. Richard Rigney

Long Beach