A wolf behaves differently than another wolf. Yet they are both wolves. Even the same wolf expresses differently in different contexts or in arbitrarily similar contexts at different times. Yet he never stops being a wolf. Even a wolf in a cage is a wolf.

To say otherwise is to say there is no such thing as wolf or that there is a single platonic wolf and all other wolves are inauthentic. Either of these may be true, but I doubt there is much practical advice in this idea for learning to deal with a lack of boundaries created by empathetic confusion.

> To say otherwise is to say there is no such thing as wolf

I am not saying otherwise. There is no such thing as a wolf.

Yet there is.

Our language is a tool we use to categorize an infinite reality. Like you said, there are an infinite amount of wolves, but we reduce them using language. There is nothing wrong with this until we start thinking our language is the reality.

So where is the border between wolf and dog? If A wolf is nice too a human do we suddenly call it a dog? Does not the very distinction of a wolf and a dog rely, not on the species, but on the human? Does a dog think still think it is a wolf? Is a dog just a wolf that tricks us so it can get free food and shelter?

We do the same thing with empathy. By defining it with language we reduce it and confine it which it cannot be reduced or confined. Like everything else, empathy is infinite and unlimited in its expression.