Abstract

From the example of the acrobat used by Lipps, Stein refuted Lipps’ concept of empathy by her own empathy dened by primordiality and non-primordiality, and then creatively dierentiated between Einfühlung and Einsfühlung. is distinction aected Scheler so much that he revised and expanded his work on sympathy. In particular, he added the fourth type of Einsfühlung in the classication of intersubjective emotional acts. But Scheler’s Einsfühlung is quite dierent from Stein’s. He took Einsfühlung as a heightened form of infection [Gefühlsansteckung]. By Makkreel’s misunderstanding that Scheler’s Einsfühlung is an intensication of Einfühlung, we point out what Scheler means by the term of Einfühlung, and that Nachfühlung is identical with Einfühlung in Stein’s sense, which is armed by the words of both authors. While Stein’s Einsfühlung becomes possible only through Einfühlung, Scheler’s Einsfühlung excludes Nachfühlung. But Stein’s Einsfühlung is more similar with his Miteinanderfühlen. For Scheler, it is based on Nachfühlung although Nachfueühlung seems to be undierentiated from it here. Stein and Scheler accomplished their own theories in dierent directions in interaction