Passion of the body and of the imagination

I found Smith's distinction between the passions "which take their origin from the body" and those "which take their origin from a particular turn or habit of the imagination" to be very interesting. Smith claims that passion related to bodily needs are/should be far less sympathized/advertised than passions related to the imagination. He writes that "The true cause of the peculiar disgust which we conceive for the appetites of the body when we see them in other men, is that we cannot enter into them." On the other hand, Smith claims that we sympathize more with intangible occurrences because, "our imaginations can more readily mould themselves upon his imagination, than our bodies can mould themselves upon his body."

I struggle to relate to this idea. It seems almost counterintuitive that we sympathize more with "imagined" grief and happiness than tangible grief and joy. I understand the sentiment of his argument, but feel that I often am more inclined not to sympathize with perceived emotions for the fact that they are formed internally and are not real. Perhaps this is a perverse way of thinking and Smith would claim that I am invirtuous, but to truly adopt the role of a completely impartial spectator in these cases is really, really hard. If you're hungry, I can recall a time when I was hungry and easily relate. (While I agree pain is temporary and we often forget about these experiences much easier than imagined emotional ones, it seems almost irrational. Still, I maintain that in identifying with other's sentiments, it is easier to take the role of the impartial spectator on those that originate from the body). If you're heartbroken over a relationship, I cannot truly understand how you feel as I was not there for all the moments you and your partner shared. (I note that he says we relate to love's secondary emotions, but regardless, find sympathy difficult.) The notion that the bulk of our sympathy arises from imagined feelings is almost unsettling and existential. This point drives home when Smith talks about death: "It is from this very illusion of the imagination, that the foresight of our own dissolution is so terrible to us, and that the idea of those circumstances, which undoubtedly can give us no pain when we are dead, makes us miserable while we are alive." While he thinks this "dread of death--the great poison of happiness" is necessary to protect society, it is interesting to think about the monopolizing effects imagination can hold on us.

I also think this idea is dependent upon the society you are in. Many cultures do not place emphasis on expressing "imagined emotions" while others dictate the opposite. In primitive societies, I would imagine basic human bodily needs were the primary things discussed. In modern Western societies, we see the emergence of the emphasis on emotional connectivity. Do you think this idea is dependent on political structures, social factors, material luxuries, etc?