Assuming that we can communicate well enough to be assured that what you mean by joy, for instance, is the same as what I mean, then we can say that empathy -- the state of witnessing from two or more perspectives simultaneously -- is real. We feel it. But is it real in only a psychological sense?
Ontologically, is it possible for us to hold side by side and at once both our being as subject and object? Psychologically, it feels like we can, and once doing so we find it relatively easy to incorporate other subjects. But metaphysically how do we posit perceiving both at once without an eternal regressing to a subject doing the observing?
Pursuing this question can induce the above-mentioned state, though not often can it entirely escape the peril of subject/object, as Sartre and others have testified to. This doesn't lead the pursuit of empathy to ruin but only to incompleteness. And importantly there are still grounds along both existential and Christian lines that suggest we can avoid, or need not fall into, an eternal regressing.
An area where FC runs into problems, however, is in proposing the consequences of empathy. Holding multiple subjects in simultaneity should induce understanding, and ultimately peace and harmony. None are in great evidence.
Perhaps we're being too hard on FC. The path to transcendence and understanding is never an easy one to embark upon willingly, and even when the means for forward progress are fully disclosed, using them takes a strong effort that nonetheless leaves most us fragile and easily distracted from the goal. Just as Christians are easily pulled from their path, so too do those who would use communication to reach a new level of understanding readily go adrift. FC was aware of this.
What's more, central to his thought was that this move to know and be known is evolutionary. Over time the building blocks of our civilization -- economics, politics, technology -- should all support improved means to increase the frequency and duration of empathy, precisely because in part we pursue those improvements so that we can know and be known.
But if this drive is so central to the nature of change, why aren't the positive consequences more manifest? That's an especially important question today, when our technological advances seem so well suited for a proliferation of empathy. We can't ignore the possibility of a lull and/or digression in our evolution. But it is still difficult to overlook the fact that our tech tools are more often being used for voyeurism and to objectify.
