The three commentaries on “Why We Should Reject the Restrictive Isomorphic Matching Definition of Empathy” mostly concurred with our critique of that widely adopted definition of empathy. Yet, commenters also raised important questions relating to the clarity and operationalizability of our recommended alternative: returning to a classical conceptualization of empathy as a dynamic, functionally oriented, multi-faceted unfolding process. To help contextualize these issues, we provide an extended analogy between empathy research and creativity research, areas of study which are conceptually linked (...) and have faced similar conceptual and methodological obstacles. In doing so, we highlight the challenge of distilling empathy down to a firm operationalizable definition without losing sight of the general meaning and real-world value of the construct. (shrink)