Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

From ancient consolation and negative care to modern empathy and the neurosciences

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A historical understanding of the virtue of consolation, as contrasted to empathy, compassion, or sympathy, is developed. Recent findings from neuroscience are presented which support and affirm this understanding. These findings are related to palliative care and its current practice in bioethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Biblical scholars frequently use the term “paraenesis” (or paranesis) for this sort of hortatory text; but the word has “connotations of antiquity and technical precision” and does not have a long-standing, integral relationship with the biblical texts, making it somewhat less than useful today. On this, see [6].

  2. One notes a strong link between consolation and common human need in the work of Maurice Lamm, Professor of Professional Rabbinics at Yeshiva University, who wrote, “Shiva [the Jewish response of consolation to grieving] responds torudimentary needs that are common to us all … in moments of profound despair” [7, p. 44; emphasis added].

  3. Gaita has developed these themes in [8].

  4. s.v. “Humanitas” in [9]; see also [10].

  5. Glover has employed humanity as a way of countering the human destruction experienced in the last century in [11].

  6. For an explanation of how the virtue of humanity is a presupposition for empathy and sympathy, see [13].

  7. For the scientific literature on mirror neurons, one could begin with a report on investigations on mirror neurons conducted by the University of Parma group reported in the scientific literature in [14]. Rizzolatti and Sinigaglia offer a comprehensive review of the subsequent, complex scientific literature on how the human mirror neurons contribute to our empathic understanding of the actions and emotions of others in [15]. For a popular, yet well informed, explanation of the implications of the mirror neurons for human social interaction, see [16].

  8. See also [17].

References

  1. Boethius, A.M.S. 1969. The consolation of philosophy (trans: Watts V.E.). New York: Penguin.

  2. The American heritage dictionary of the english language. 1992. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  3. Wahrig, G., and U. Hermann, eds. 1980. Deutsches wörterbuch, Rev. ed. Munich: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spiro, Howard, Mary G. McCrea Curnen, Enid Peschel, and Deborah St James, eds. 1993. Empathy and the practice of medicine. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holloway, Paul A. 2001. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical sources and rhetorical strategy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Esler, Philip F. 2003. Social identity, the virtues, and the good life: A new approach to Romans 12:1–15:13. Biblical Theology Bulletin 33(2): 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lamm, Maurice. 2005. Consolation: The spiritual journey beyond grief. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gaita, Raimond. 2000. A common humanity: Thinking about love and truth and justice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis, C.T., and C. Short, eds. 1879. A latin dictionary founded on andrews’ edition of freund’s latin dictionary, 868–869. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Veyne, Paul. 1993. Humanitas: Romans and non-Romans. In The Romans, ed. Andrea Giardina, (trans: Lydia G. Cochrane). 342–369. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Glover, Jonathan. 2001. Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamrick, William S. 2002. Kindness and the good society: Connections of the heart. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deonna, Julien A. 2006. Sympathy and empathy. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, vol. 9, 2nd ed, ed. Donald M. Borchert, 344–345. Detroit: Macmillan-Thomson Gale.

    Google Scholar 

  14. di Pellegrino, G., L. Fadiga, L. Fogassi, V. Gallese, and G. Rizzolatti. 1992. Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research 91(1): 176–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Corrado Sinigaglia. 2008. Empathie und spiegelneurone: Die biologische basis des mitgefühls. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Iacoboni, Marco. 2008. Mirroring people: The science of how we connect to others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gallese, Vittorio. 2003. The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology 36: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2011. Science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gallese, Vittorio. 2006. Embodied simulation: From mirror neuron systems to interpersonal relations. In Empathy and Fairness, Novartis Foundation Symposium 278, ed. Greg Bock and Jamie Goode, 3–19. Chichester: Wiley. http://www.unipr.it/arpa/mirror/pubs/pdffiles/Novartis2007.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

  20. Stein, Edith. 1964. On the problem of empathy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Verducci, Susan. 2000. A conceptual history of empathy and a question it raises for moral education. Educational Theory 50(1): 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reich, Warren T. 1989. Speaking of suffering: A moral account of compassion. Soundings 72(1): 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Havens, Leston. 1976. Participant observation. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to the Lilly Endowment for support of the Project for the History of Care, which I established in the Theology Department of Georgetown University—support which made possible my research on this topic; the Centro per le Scienze Religiose at the Università degli Studi di Trento in Italy for sponsoring my research on this topic; the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia, and the Australian Catholic University for supporting my composition of this lecture and for appointing me Honorary Distinguished Research Fellow for purposes of offering a public lecture on this topic; and the Plunkett Centre for Ethics for permission to reprint this lecture from its Bioethics Review, with some modifications.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Warren T. Reich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reich, W.T. From ancient consolation and negative care to modern empathy and the neurosciences. Theor Med Bioeth 33, 25–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9212-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9212-6

Keywords

Navigation