It could be Pre-reflective with knowledge, but when analysis doesn't
kick in yet.
Boris Shoshensky

---------- Original Message ----------
From: armando baeza <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Worringer and his predecessors
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:54:16 -0700

I understand it as ;
There is no empathy without previous knowledge in our mind.
"Empathy is Pre-reflective" sounds like the opposite" to me.
mando

On Jul 19, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:

> Husserl's student Edith Stein described Einfuhlung (empathy) as a
> blind mode
> of knowledge that reaches the experience of the other without
> possessing it.
> Einfuhlung is not the same as Verstehen or human understanding, which,
> as Dilthey pointed out, requires the use of  one's mental powers,
> and cannot
> be reduced to a mere mode of feeling. To understand is not to
> apprehend
> something empathetically.
> Whereas understanding is reflective, empathy is prereflective.
> Boris Shoshensky
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Worringer and his predecessors
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:32:32 GMT
>
>> It (empathy)  has always seamed simple to me, Am I wrong?:
> Things or objects reflect the experiences in the mind's knowledge of
> those things and objects as individuals or like minded
> groups.   ...Mando
>
>
>       ************
>
> That's  Vernon Lee's definition of empathy, and it would have a
> very wide
> application: "Empathy can be traced in all modes of speech and
> thought"
>
> Theodor Lipps restricts his discussion to  empathy in aesthetic
> enjoyment,
> where "empathy is the fact that the antithesis between myself and
> the object
> disappears, or rather, does not even exist"... "the object (of
> esthetic
> pleasure) is the strong, proud, free ego; not the ego as such, but
> just so
> far
> as it objectifies itself, that is, so far as it is bound up with the
> sensuously perceived figure"
>
> Worringer quoted  Lipps with   "Esthetic enjoyment is objectified
> self-enjoyment", and then focused on the kind of example that Lipps
> offered
> (of a dancer moving his arm) to further narrow the scope of empathy as
> follows: "The need of empathy may be regarded as the presupposition
> of the
> artistic purpose only where this purpose inclines to
> the truth of organic life, that is, to naturalism in the higher
> sense". Then,
> Worringer introduced another phrase, "self-privation", which he
> suggested
> encompassed both naturalism (empathy) and it's opposite (abstraction).
>
> In our discussion that followed,  William told us that "it's not
> the majority
> case that contemporary art is antagonistic to empathy"
>
> But he also told us that "contemporary art aims to be outside the
> familiar",
> which would make it anti-empathetic by all of the above definitions.
>
> And that's why I asked William to explain what he means by 'empathy'
>
> (though I'm afraid he's not going to tell us)
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to find the right business program for you and take your
> career to
> the next level.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
> BLSrjnxP25gWEeNDLNAwTYQeadELgf
> vtDuOZQExTs81jTq1pIKoxdxpeDbq/

Reply via email to