The Anti-Empathy Movement & the End of the Iliad
Feb 27, 2026
5min read
It is 2026, and the mood has changed. Just a few years ago, everyone was talking about 'radical empathy' and trying to feel what others felt. But now, we are seeing the rise of the Anti-Empathy Movement. You have probably seen the trending videos. People are tired. After years of digital noise and emotional burnout, many students and professionals are choosing to 'switch off.' They are trading messy human feelings for cold logic and data-driven decisions.
This shift is starting to change how we teach literature, especially the classics. Take Homer’s Iliad, for example. For centuries, the ending of this epic was considered the ultimate lesson in human connection. In the final pages, King Priam sneaks into the Greek camp to beg Achilles for his son’s body. These two enemies, who have every reason to hate each other, end up crying together. They share a meal and find a moment of peace. It is a powerful scene about seeing the humanity in your rival.
But in today's classrooms, some people are calling this ending 'outdated' or 'illogical.' Under the new Anti-Empathy mindset, Achilles’ choice to give the body back looks like a mistake. Why would a warrior help his enemy? Why would a king risk his life for a moment of shared grief? When we prioritize efficiency and detachment, the ending of the Iliad starts to lose its meaning. It becomes a story about a 'glitch' in logic rather than a breakthrough in spirit.
The Anti-Empathy Movement argues that emotions just cloud our judgment and slow us down. They believe that in a world run by algorithms, we need to be as objective as possible. But education is about more than just processing information. It is about understanding the core of the human experience. If we stop being able to feel for Priam and Achilles, we aren't just losing a story. We are losing the ability to bridge the gaps between us.
As we move further into 2026, we have to decide what kind of thinkers we want to be. Being smart is great, but being cold might be a step backward. If we lose our connection to the ending of the Iliad, we might find ourselves living in a world that is more efficient, but much lonelier.
This shift is starting to change how we teach literature, especially the classics. Take Homer’s Iliad, for example. For centuries, the ending of this epic was considered the ultimate lesson in human connection. In the final pages, King Priam sneaks into the Greek camp to beg Achilles for his son’s body. These two enemies, who have every reason to hate each other, end up crying together. They share a meal and find a moment of peace. It is a powerful scene about seeing the humanity in your rival.
But in today's classrooms, some people are calling this ending 'outdated' or 'illogical.' Under the new Anti-Empathy mindset, Achilles’ choice to give the body back looks like a mistake. Why would a warrior help his enemy? Why would a king risk his life for a moment of shared grief? When we prioritize efficiency and detachment, the ending of the Iliad starts to lose its meaning. It becomes a story about a 'glitch' in logic rather than a breakthrough in spirit.
The Anti-Empathy Movement argues that emotions just cloud our judgment and slow us down. They believe that in a world run by algorithms, we need to be as objective as possible. But education is about more than just processing information. It is about understanding the core of the human experience. If we stop being able to feel for Priam and Achilles, we aren't just losing a story. We are losing the ability to bridge the gaps between us.
As we move further into 2026, we have to decide what kind of thinkers we want to be. Being smart is great, but being cold might be a step backward. If we lose our connection to the ending of the Iliad, we might find ourselves living in a world that is more efficient, but much lonelier.
