So she says biologically there are bodily sensations - what it feels like to be aroused or otherwise moved physiologically in preparation for anticipated action. And then emotion language is how we make sense of what is going on in a socially accepted fashion. — apokrisis

I don't know what to make of your phrasing it this way, that emotion language is how we make sense of what is going on in a socially accepted fashion.

I've understood that emotions are, generally speaking, like conditioned responses that help regulate what Barrett refers to as the 'body budget', conserving (parasympathetic) energy as conditions warrant and providing more (sympathetic) energy in other circumstances, via the endocrine system or whatever.

When you say "emotion language" it's not clear if you mean an emotion concept or the expression of it. We both know the concept of an automobile, for instance, so I can intentionally communicate the concept by vocalizing or writing the word pretty reliably. That's a clear use of language. I can also intentionally communicate an emotion concept like fear using words. If I feel fear and express it bodily in the normally recognizable way I wouldn't be doing it intentionally. So even though it may be useful communication is it correct to think of it as a use of language in the absence of intent? I also don't understand the dimension of social acceptability as it relates to emotion concepts and their expression.

But I am saying that our emotions are like the sense of sight and that they are the only things that can allow us to see the value in our lives. — TranscendedRealms

Emotions are not a 'sense' - they are reactions to stimulus. I can perceive value in something in the absence of a corresponding positive emotion. For example, sometimes I feel great joy when I look at my son, and other times, the feeling can be quite neutral. There has been no change in the value of my son to my life, yet my emotional reaction can be substantially different. It is dependent on a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the encounter, and my emotional state preceding the encounter.

I don't know what to make of your phrasing it this way, that emotion language is how we make sense of what is going on in a socially accepted fashion — praxis

Unconvincing. What's not to get about her examples of Tahitian sadness or learning how to know the feeling labeled schadenfreude?

Unconvincing that I don't know what to make of your phrasing? Well, I convinced myself, for what that's worth.

Perhaps I may have at least convinced you of my interest in better understanding what you wrote.

You just seem very hostile. If you want to understand something, try to pin-point the difficulty you are having a little more crisply. Put your emotions aside.

If you accept emotion is constructed, then the question is constructed by who? The individual might eventually learn to construct the experience for themselves, but only after being suitably taught. Who does the teaching and so whose purposes are being ultimately expressed? Society. Culture. The community that ultimately owns the language.

So what's not to get?

If you want to understand something, try to pin-point the difficulty you are having a little more crisply. — apokrisis

It's not like I didn't put effort into doing just that with the following quote.

I've understood that emotions are, generally speaking, like conditioned responses that help regulate what Barrett refers to as the 'body budget', conserving (parasympathetic) energy as conditions warrant and providing more (sympathetic) energy in other circumstances, via the endocrine system or whatever.

When you say "emotion language" it's not clear if you mean an emotion concept or the expression of it. We both know the concept of an automobile, for instance, so I can intentionally communicate the concept by vocalizing or writing the word pretty reliably. That's a clear use of language. I can also intentionally communicate an emotion concept like fear using words. If I feel fear and express it bodily in the normally recognizable way I wouldn't be doing it intentionally. So even though it may be useful communication is it correct to think of it as a use of language in the absence of intent? I also don't understand the dimension of social acceptability as it relates to emotion concepts and their expression. — praxis

You're free to ignore this of course.

If you accept emotion is constructed, then the question is constructed by who? The individual might eventually learn to construct the experience for themselves, but only after being suitably taught. Who does the teaching and so whose purposes are being ultimately expressed? Society. Culture. The community that ultimately owns the language. — apokrisis

I believe it could be, but it's not my understanding that emotion concepts are deliberately or consciously taught.

If you're suggesting that societies intentionally and purposefully teach these concepts, what is the purpose in doing so?

Actually, please read my opening post again because it clears this objection up you are having. I have now modified my opening post to fully convey my theory that is both brief and gets my point across.

Actually, please read my opening post again because it clears this objection up you are having. I have now modified my opening post to fully convey my theory that is both brief and gets my point across.

@TranscendedRealms

What do you think of the idea that, rather than a sense, emotions are more like a filter for our senses, shaping and distorting our mental simulations according to its predictions and the immediate needs of our mind/body?

I believe it could be, but it's not my understanding that emotion concepts are deliberately or consciously taught. — praxis

It is you who introduced these further distinctions of "deliberate" and "conscious". Why do you think they are necessary qualifications?

If you're suggesting that societies intentionally and purposefully teach these concepts, what is the purpose in doing so? — praxis

As I've said, the purpose is adaptive. It is the way societies create the kind of self-regulating individuals that can then perpetuate that particular collective social style.

Really, you seem to be doing your best not to understand. You said you were enthusiastic about the constructivist point of view, and yet you don't appear to get the first thing about it.

It is the way societies create the kind of self-regulating individuals that can then perpetuate that particular collective social style. — apokrisis

Like for example a culture that one might say is 'fear based', as opposed to a culture that has more of a compassionate style?

You said you were enthusiastic about the constructivist point of view, and yet you don't appear to get the first thing about it. — apokrisis

This actually made me chuckle a bit. It's fine if this sort of thing amuses you. I would advise that you try to be more subtle though.

Like for example a culture that one might say is 'fear based', as opposed to a culture that has more of a compassionate style? — praxis

Yep. It is pretty obvious that there are many cultural styles around the world. There are crib sheets for business travellers to help them understand the cultures they might want to engage with. So differences can be boiled down to a bullet point list of social values like...

New Zealand: ingenious, fair, restrained, modest, earthy and informal.
USA: self-reliance, speed, control, equality, speaking up, law and order, and capitalism.
China: face, family, relationships, hierarchy, prosperity, harmony and nationalism.
Switzerland: follow the plan, slow but sure, Swiss-made, consensus and order.

So there is an emotional style that speaks to a set of shared values and serves as the expected way to behave. If you can't show these virtues in your "feelings" - in the way you feel you want to act - then you can expect social consequences meant to correct that state of affairs.

In the US, you've got to speak up. In China, you've got to pipe down. As the general rule. And you can see how each emotional style relates to a social history. The qualities that best suit a pioneer settler community would be quite different from those that help perpetuate a feudal agrarian society.

So there is an emotional style that speaks to a set of shared values and serves as the expected way to behave. — apokrisis

Good point. Heidegger, it is sometimes argued, was saying this in his writing on the phenomenon of being-in. Just as an individual person has its mood, so does the broader society.


I think it's pretty obvious that the dominant mood of the USA right now is anger. I won't elaborate on why, but I am sure you can figure it out!

This is an important notice to everyone here. I have now modified my post to not only make my theory more coherent, but to also make it better. Therefore, go ahead and reread my opening post again one last time.

I think it's pretty obvious that the dominant mood of the USA right now is anger. I won't elaborate on why, but I am sure you can figure it out! — Brian

It's also currently deeply polarized in sets of values, liberal vs conservative, yet none contest the shared indentity of Americans. Well, with minor exceptions, like the birther thing.

These value judgments (thoughts) instead make us feel positive or negative emotions and it is through these emotions that we either see good value (positive emotions) or bad value (negative emotions) in regards to certain things or situations. — TranscendedRealms

Doesn't this statement go against your argument that emotions are a sense independent of thought?

I said that emotions are a sense dependent upon thought. When you have a thought (value judgment), then we could consider this to be nothing more than just a word/phrase going through your mind. It would just be an idea such as that the sunset is something beautiful to you. However, once this thought makes you feel a positive emotion, then this value judgment has taken on a form that is beyond any idea or words to make that sunset something beautiful to you beyond words. That value judgment is now an actual emotional state. It is like turning the word "good" into some divine life force or energy that is literally good. This divine energy will take on different forms (feel different). For example, if you felt a positive emotion from the idea of a sunset being beautiful to you versus the idea of going on a vacation, then these feelings will be different. So, you would be perceiving different qualities of goodness. Objects themselves do not possess intrinsic goodness or badness. Rather, we perceive good and bad value towards objects through our emotions.

Knowing the differences between different communities' values requires isolating and recognizing the shared values in each of the different communities and then comparing the community sets to each other.

A bullet point list of values for any given community of people presupposes either that each community member values each bullet point, or community values do not require being shared by community members. The latter is absurd, nonsensical, and renders the notion of community value utterly meaningless.

If we have a bullet point list claiming to highlight the differences in different communities' values, it had better well be grounded upon isolating and recognizing the values remaining extant within each community after all the individual particulars are removed.

The purported list of bullet points heretofore does not accomplish the aforementioned task, and thus does not have the justificatory ground to warrant it's assertion, let alone assent to the belief that it is true.

Just some random dude's opinion...

X-)

No citation necessary for those capable of critically thinking.

The purported list of bullet points heretofore does not accomplish the aforementioned task, and thus does not have the justificatory ground to warrant it's assertion, let alone assent to the belief that it is true. — creativesoul

Sounding like a drunk lawyer here. Is it a joke?

[...] This means that our emotions do not have some sort of mind control effect on us and make us perceive, through our thinking, our lives having value to us. It is purely the emotions themselves that allow us to see the value in our lives. [...]

[...] So, continuing on here. Most people would tell me that feelings are nothing more than just feelings and that it is our thoughts (value judgments) that make our lives valuable to us. I am actually reversing this. I am saying that thoughts are nothing more than just thoughts and that it is instead our emotions that make our lives valuable to us. — TranscendedRealms

Howdy.

Wanted to express two positions related to the title of this thread.

First, emotions come in different forms. We linguistically often express this difference by affirming either a) “I feel […; e.g., giddy]” or b) “I am […; e.g., giddy]”. Giddiness either way is an emotion. But, in instance (a) it is apprehended by the “I” in question as present within its own mind as one apprehends—via analogy—the tactile touch of a surface that is nevertheless other than that which apprehends (or perceives, in the broad sense of the word). Whereas in instance (b) the emotion is no longer something apprehended by the “I” in question but is instead one momentarily inseparable property of the respective “I”. [I’m using the term “I” to try to avoid the vagueness of the term consciousness.]

Point being one form of emotions consists of emotions felt/perceived by that which is aware of these emotions and that another form of emotions consists of emotions that are an enactively present component of that which is aware—via which apprehensions of other (including form “a” emotions) are made. Of course there’s overlap between forms (a) and (b) of emotions, but the disparity still exists.
With the former form (a), just because one feels emotion X does not then necessarily entail that one is in any way X; for instance, I could feel pangs of envy but immediately shun these creeping up emotions, myself as awareness/”I” at this juncture not being envious but, rather, antithetical to experiencing envy (though I will at such juncture indeed sense envy as one brewing—and, in this scenario, hopeful soon obliterated—emotion within my total being of mind). It would not be till I emotively deem envy an appropriate response to the here unaddressed stimuli that I would become envious, thereby now being a momentarily envious person in my intentions and outlooks.

I agree that it’s a very complex issue (as well as are issues of self when addressing the ever-changing "I" in conjunction with its total mind and body from which the "I" can well be stated to emerge). Nevertheless, my basic observation here is that there is a difference between “perceiving” one’s own emotions and enactively being momentarily undifferentiable from, or fully unified with, the emotion(s) in question.

Secondly, I for one strongly uphold that emotions consist of (mostly unconscious) reasoning. Enactive emotions—take your pick: love, anger, attraction, repulsion, etc.—entail that so doing x, y, and z, (be these general or specific) will result in some conclusion that you desire to obtain (typically for some reason). Here we have inference that is actively lived: premises accepted as true, one or more general goals/conclusions pursued, and the means by which one moves from these premises to the given conclusion—not in abstract theory but in concrete practice. Perceived emotions—or form (a) of emotions aforementioned—hold the same reasoning to them, but they emerge from fully un/subconscious portions of one’s mind in manners that you are not yet fully converged with, holding premises and conclusions you are not yet fully aware of consciously.

Conscious reasoning is driven by desire; desire is of itself an emotion (not an inference). So thought, when defined as conscious reasoning alone, is itself a tool through which we seek to actualize our enactive emotions (emotions we’re momentarily undifferentiable from … the “I am curious” type of emotion; and not the “I feel some tangential curiosity but am far more interested in doing something else (due to a conflicting emotion which I currently am one with)” type of emotion).

For the record, David Hume was the first to my knowledge to express this position of all abstract thought being governed by (often enough competing) emotive drives.

Don’t know if this will help out in better clarifying your outlook as offered in the OP. But, in summation of this post, imo there is no sharp threshold between emotion and thought. What we may think of as pure emotion is unconscious thought—either goading us as total beings or, else, with which we become fully converged with in our actions and outlooks—and what we may think of as pure thought is always itself a vehicle driven by some emotive state’s purpose.

Still, at the end of the day, for the record, I agree with you that emotions (specifically type “b” emotions) are primary and conscious reasoning secondary—such as in obtaining value judgments. This, though, is not to say that conscious reasoning is not often crucial in helping us discern what is from what isn’t … as well as what ought to be from what ought not to be. Nor am I suggesting that emotions and thoughts are not mutually entwined.

You demonstrate poor emotional grainularity or EQ, apo, failing to recognize satire pointed directly at you.

You seem upset about something.

I feel alright. A little hungry and depleted at the moment but that will be remedied shortly. How do you feel? Are you unmove by public ridicule?

So are you agreeing with creative's argument? Or is that what you are labelling a satire. :)

Creative says we can't extract traits from population samples. Which would be news to most folk. Is that a position you also mean to defend here?

Denial... interesting.

It was a simple question and you don't seem to want to answer.

Why don't you just come out and explain what is bugging you so much. I mean in terms of the philosophical positions being taken. Your personal neuroses count for nothing. But I am asking you directly what argument you mean to defend here - or pick a fight about.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a bit drunk and was just messing with you.

Yeah sure. That's totally believable.

But I am asking you directly to make it clear what you might think be our essential point of difference in this thread. Time to put up or shut up.

Alright, I'll try to piece something together.

Earlier you wrote...

So there is an emotional style that speaks to a set of shared values and serves as the expected way to behave. If you can't show these virtues in your "feelings" - in the way you feel you want to act - then you can expect social consequences meant to correct that state of affairs. — apokrisis

In regard to creativesoul's creative post, we don't know if you felt appropriately. I suppose we may be able to tell in future behavior?