• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Schadenfreude vs. Mudita

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Hello, guys. I would like to analyze the psychological, cultural, religious and anthropological patterns that characterize these two opposite sentiments that are hidden in the recesses of human psyche.

First of all, Schadenfreude. A word that literally means "joy for the damage, the disgrace (of others)". That is, an individual is happy when others are unhappy. Or he is unhappy when others are happy (as a consequence). It is probably the psychological scheme that results in sadism.

Secondly, mudita. A Sanskrit word that means to define the sentiment of joy for others' happiness. That is the individual is happy when others are happy. Or that their own happiness is directly proportional to other people's happiness. As a consequence, the person is sympathetic towards the others who are unhappy or suffer.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Before speaking of the religious implications of Schadenfreude, we must not forget that so many neurologists are now aware that the people who perfectly feel fine with it (and they consider it normal) have a brain whose lobes do not communicate that well with each other. And so this results in a sort of "isolation" of the emotional part of the brain (neurologists can explain it better than me).
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Hello, guys. I would like to analyze the psychological, cultural, religious and anthropological patterns that characterize these two opposite sentiments that are hidden in the recesses of human psyche.

First of all, Schadenfreude. A word that literally means "joy for the damage, the disgrace (of others)". That is, an individual is happy when others are unhappy. Or he is unhappy when others are happy (as a consequence). It is probably the psychological scheme that results in sadism.

Secondly, mudita. A Sansktit word that means to define the sentiment of joy for others' happiness. That is the individual is happy when others are happy. Or that their own happiness is directly proportional to other people's happiness. As a consequence, the person is sympathetic towards the others who are unhappy or suffer.

I don't feel happy at the misfortune of others. I don't feel sympathetic if their misfortune is a result of the willful choices they made.
In cases where I don't know the circumstances that caused the misfortune, which is most of the people on the planet, I'm mostly neutral. Neither happy about their misfortune nor sympathetic.

Otherwise, I am happy when I see others have a happy life. i.e. no sympathy needed.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I don't feel happy at the misfortune of others. I don't feel sympathetic if their misfortune is a result of the willful choices they made.
In cases where I don't know the circumstances that caused the misfortune, which is most of the people on the planet, I'm mostly neutral. Neither happy about their misfortune nor sympathetic.

Otherwise, I am happy when I see others have a happy life. i.e. no sympathy needed.
That's a sensible approach:)
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I do feel happy if others are happy. Especially at weddings. But in general, if someone gets a promotion or is successful because of their own merits, I am so happy for them.
I don't know if that is mudita. But I do know that is due to my thirst for justice. Just justice. Real justice. So if others are happy and they deserve it, I am overwhelmingly happy, I am much happier than them because it means justice is doable on Earth.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
First of all, Schadenfreude. A word that literally means "joy for the damage, the disgrace (of others)". That is, an individual is happy when others are unhappy. Or he is unhappy when others are happy (as a consequence). It is probably the psychological scheme that results in sadism.
You make much more out of Schadenfreude than there is. Schadenfreude is the spontaneous reaction to another's misfortune. It's seeing someone slip on a banana peel and laugh.
It is not a reaction to misery.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You make much more out of Schadenfreude than there is. Schadenfreude is the spontaneous reaction to another's misfortune. It's seeing someone slip on a banana peel and laugh.
It is not a reaction to misery.
I did not mean the literal German meaning. I meant the term used in modern psychology.:)
Schadenfreude - Wikipedia

And by the way ...it is much more serious than you have described it. Do you think it is normal that ancient Romans used to enjoy the spectacle of people being devoured by lions in the Colosseum?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You make much more out of Schadenfreude than there is. Schadenfreude is the spontaneous reaction to another's misfortune. It's seeing someone slip on a banana peel and laugh.
It is not a reaction to misery.

Besides, there is an excellent Polish professor who has been honorary member of the Nuremberg Trials. And she has written books about the relations between Schadenfreude, sadism, narcissism during Nazism.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I did not mean the literal German meaning. I meant the term used in modern psychology.:)
Schadenfreude - Wikipedia
Thanks, I didn't know that.
But that also means we have to be cautious when we talk about Schadenfreude. Most people feel it in the original meaning, it's why slapstick works. It is a moral feeling when the damage is a result from a wrongdoing. ("Instant Karma")
I don't see these as pathological or immoral.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Thanks, I didn't know that.
But that also means we have to be cautious when we talk about Schadenfreude. Most people feel it in the original meaning, it's why slapstick works. It is a moral feeling when the damage is a result from a wrongdoing. ("Instant Karma")
I don't see these as pathological or immoral.
This thread is for analyzing the religious implications of Schadenfreude, first.
There are entire psychological libraries about the link between this complex term and religions.
For example. Christians were persecuted by the ancient Romans and fed to the lions. Nero and the crowd did enjoy the spectacle. They did enjoy the excruciating pain of those people being eaten alive.
Was that Schadenfreude? Yes it was. That's the psychological term.
Was that pathological and immoral? Yes, absolutely. By our moral standards, and by our findings, it was.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Before speaking of the religious implications of Schadenfreude, we must not forget that so many neurologists are now aware that the people who perfectly feel fine with it (and they consider it normal) have a brain whose lobes do not communicate that well with each other. And so this results in a sort of "isolation" of the emotional part of the brain (neurologists can explain it better than me).
Schadenfreude is simply taking pleasure in the misfortune of another, it need not remotely represent a pathology. Sadism is an entirely different phenomenon, and again it can be pernicious but need not be, for instance some people derive a frisson from receiving and others inflicting pain that need not harm them physically.

I am dubious that schadenfreude requires a physical abnormality of the brain. Can you offer a citation for the claim?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Sadism is an entirely different phenomenon, and again it can be pernicious but need not be, for instance some people derive a frisson from receiving and others inflicting pain that need not harm them physically.

I am dubious that schadenfreude requires a physical abnormality of the brain. Can you offer a citation for the claim?
As Dr. Grande says in this video, the difference between sadism and Schadenfreude is that the first is present when the sadist takes pleasure in the pain that he/she is causing to another individual.
The second is present when a person takes pleasure in the pain caused by a third (I gave the example of the ancient Romans taking pleasure in watching the gladiators or slaves being fed to lions).
But the result is identical.

By the way, this is a religious thread. I am just investigating the religious and moral implications of this sentiment.

 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I do not think we can have one measure for all. I am 'Schadenfreude' for some and 'mudita' for others. :)

I understand. I am just glad that in Buddhism there is a term that we Christians are supposed to fully embrace (even if it is very difficult to put it into practice):)
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
As Dr. Grande says in this video, the difference between sadism and Schadenfreude is that the first is present when the sadist takes pleasure in the pain that he/she is causing to another individual.

So what? Schadenfreude would describe a reaction that would apply to a wide variety of situations, some harmless some perhaps not.

The second is present when a person takes pleasure in the pain caused by a third (I gave the example of the ancient Romans taking pleasure in watching the gladiators or slaves being fed to lions). But the result is identical.

Hardly, the result in the latter involves someone dying horribly, the result form the first could be mutual pleasure. Lumping them together in this way seems a facile attempt to suggest schadenfreude must always be harmful, when that needn't be the case.

By the way, this is a religious thread. I am just investigating the religious and moral implications of this sentiment.

Fine, though of course I don't believe there are any such repurcussion, but the fact that schadenfreude can be entirely harmless suggests what for beliefs that insist it must always have repercussions?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Was that pathological and immoral? Yes, absolutely. By our moral standards, and by our findings, it was.
I tend to agree but it isn't according to the wiki article. We feel satisfaction when a wrongdoer gets punished and that is seen as moral as it motivates us to punish crime. The Christians were seen as criminals, so their punishment was seen as justified. That's a theme that goes all through history and even today there are morally primitive countries which still use capital punishment.
We don't dismiss the satisfaction of seeing the bad guy punished, we only see it as immoral when the punishment doesn't meet the crime.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I tend to agree but it isn't according to the wiki article. We feel satisfaction when a wrongdoer gets punished and that is seen as moral as it motivates us to punish crime. The Christians were seen as criminals, so their punishment was seen as justified. That's a theme that goes all through history and even today there are morally primitive countries which still use capital punishment.
We don't dismiss the satisfaction of seeing the bad guy punished, we only see it as immoral when the punishment doesn't meet the crime.

Let's talk about Europe, all right?:)
In European penal systems death penalty and torture are strictly forbidden by the law. Why? Because even the worst criminal does not deserve to be harmed. That is why we are over the notion of Schadenfreude (since the Nuremberg trials).
Schaden means damage, harm, right? It is not the same as Leiden (psychological suffering).
The criminal may suffer in jail, but no harm is done to them.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
So what? Schadenfreude would describe a reaction that would apply to a wide variety of situations, some harmless some perhaps not.



Hardly, the result in the latter involves someone dying horribly, the result form the first could be mutual pleasure. Lumping them together in this way seems a facile attempt to suggest schadenfreude must always be harmful, when that needn't be the case.



Fine, though of course I don't believe there are any such repercussion, but the fact that schadenfreude can be entirely harmless suggests what for beliefs that insist it must always have repercussions?

Dr. Grande is a professional. He explains that in the psychological and psychiatrical field, Schadenfreude is not used to describe the situation when someone spills the coffee on themselves and everyone laughs, including the unlucky spilling person.
Dr. Grande explains that in his own field, Schadenfreude is exclusively used when someone takes pleasure in someone being harmed. The damage, the serious harm is supposed to be there, and that is why Schadenfreude has a sadistic component.
So, I am sorry, but Schadenfreude is actually harmful.
That video is clarifying.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Let's talk about Europe, all right?:)
In European penal systems death penalty and torture are strictly forbidden by the law. Why? Because even the worst criminal does not deserve to be harmed. That is why we are over the notion of Schadenfreude (since the Nuremberg trials).
A pretty arbitrary and small sample size.
But even then we still have the moral Schadenfreude when we have it in imaginary situations. We feel Schadenfreude when Hans Gruber gets dropped from the Nakatomi building even though the death isn't real. We laugh when Wile E. Coyote gets harmed by his own ACME contraption.
To get to the really immoral Schadenfreude we'd have to exclude all trivial cases (slapstick) and view retributional Schadenfreude with a grain of salt.
 
Top