In this class, we read Adam Smith's essay on sympathy. Smith's main premise was that sympathy wasn't necessarily a purely altruistic function, but that it was necessary for humanity to function. Smith says, "How selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him." He asserts that the "greatest ruffian" can even feel sympathy. Essentially, we can never truly feel what another person feels, but when we see someone in pain, we naturally imagine ourselves in the same situation and how we would feel.
Smith later applies this to capitalism and how it functions, but the part that was most interesting to me is how it can be applied to Henry. Henry no doubt has a powerful rhetoric, but instead of thinking of his rhetoric as the end result perhaps his speaking ability stems from the fact that he can sympathize better than other individuals. His ability to sympathize gives him the power to sway people rhetorically. I think this solves my problem of wanting to present Henry as both bad and good because as Smith defines sympathy, everybody is able to practice it, so therefore, Henry can have both characteristics.
Smith later applies this to capitalism and how it functions, but the part that was most interesting to me is how it can be applied to Henry. Henry no doubt has a powerful rhetoric, but instead of thinking of his rhetoric as the end result perhaps his speaking ability stems from the fact that he can sympathize better than other individuals. His ability to sympathize gives him the power to sway people rhetorically. I think this solves my problem of wanting to present Henry as both bad and good because as Smith defines sympathy, everybody is able to practice it, so therefore, Henry can have both characteristics.
Any feedback is seriously appreciated. Thanks for your patience everyone!
