• Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    The particular topic of this thread is aimed at looking at emotions as an aspect of psychology and philosophy. My own interest is the way in which emotions may arise, as aspects of physiology and ideas, is to what extent may they be reframed and worked upon? The dichotomy of this arises from ideas of physiology, neuroscience, cognitive behavioural therapy and neurolinguistic programming, which is based in psychology, but it goes back to the underlying ideas of mind and consciousness.

    I have been reading on the philosophy of Stoicism and ideas of temperance in, 'Renaissance Wisdom: How to Flourish in the Modern Day', Shane Sorenson(2022). He looks at what extent emotions can be understood philosophically. He says,
    'Our emotions can be a valuable tools. Given to us by nature, our emotions can alert us to danger, show us our attachments, and help focus on things that are important in life. But emotions, if allowed to run unchecked can lead to us to our own destruction. Pain can lead us to danger or loss, but it can also lead us to down the road to torment and despair. Love can set us free, but also lead to paranoia or anguish. Desire can awaken us to our potential, or it can lead to greed and obsession. Anger can spur us into action, but it can also lead us to death or destruction. Fear can show us obstacles and help us plan, or it can paralyze us into inaction. Emotions are good if they are useful or beneficial- after that the emotions are more of a distraction from happiness than anything else.'

    Reading this passage has given me a lot to think about, especially how emotions are reflected upon. To what extent are they biologically based or upon ideas,or values? To what extent may they be understood psychologically and worked upon as ideas in philosophy? Such an approach may be seen in cognitive behavioural therapy and neurolinguistic programming.

    Ideas of cognitive behavioural therapy draw upon ideas in philosophy, including Stoic philosophy. However, at this stage, I am wondering how the nature of emotions may be considered philosophically. It may lead to questions of phenomenology as well as the role of consciousness in thinking and its interpretation. I see this as an important area of philosophy, and for anyone else who sees its value, what do you think about emotion and its significance?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    Thank you for your reply and I have read some, but not all of the book. The idea of fast and slow thinking may be of significance for emotion and its processing. It may involve basic reactions, which may be about instinctual aspects of emotions, in contrast to emotions based on long term processes and memory formation. It is an interesting area, involving reflection and self-reflection..
  • Wayfarer
    22.8k
    Reading this passage has given me a lot to think about, especially how emotions are reflected uponJack Cummins

    Something I've noticed is that there is almost no reference to 'emotions' in classical texts, whereas there are very frequent references to 'the passions'. You will know if you read Stoic literature, that 'the passions' are something to be subdued, and that 'subduing the passions' is one of the marks of wisdom. I don't think they're praising callousness or mere indifference to suffering, but the ability to rise above feelings, emotions and moods. 'Constancy of temperament' was a highly prized virtue in the classics (reflected in the name 'Constance').

    I wonder if what we call 'emotion' is in some way equivalent to what was meant by 'the passions' in those sources. I did learn, from practicing mindfulness meditation, that emotions always pass, and that's an important thing to learn. Because when you're feeling down, when you're possessed by negative emotions, which happens to all of us, it seems, in that state, that everything seems grey, in all directions. But once you learn that it is an emotion that will pass, it makes it easier to deal with.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    Please be more precise: what is (your) philosophical question – perplexity – about "emotions"?
  • AmadeusD
    2.6k
    I wonder if what we call 'emotion' is in some way equivalent to what was meant by 'the passions' in those sources.Wayfarer

    I doubt this will come as novel but that’s exactly how I read Hume.
  • AmadeusD
    2.6k
    s Please be more precise: what is (your) philosophical question – perplexity – about "emotions"?180 Proof

    Why is “your” in parentheses?
  • AmadeusD
    2.6k
    Context180 Proof

    Errr. Okay lol.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Yes it is interesting that ancient texts refer to passions as opposed to emotions. It may be because the chemical basis was not fully understood. Even more recently, Robert Burton's 'The Anatomy of Melancholy' considered melancholy as connected with humors.

    It was really in the twentieth century that knowledge of the brain, and the endocrine system as well as other chemicals were understood scientifically. This enabled advances in psychiatry, especially the development of antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Of course, it may be to the extent that antidepressants are prescribed by GPs. However, people react differently to them which may be partly about unique aspects of brain chemistry. But, it is not simply about literal chemicals as such or people would not seek talking therapies. Such therapies, including psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapies involve mental processing. It is likely that the thoughts about experiences bring changes on a chemical basis too.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I guess one way in which I could phrase a specific question would be what are emotions made of? That is because they have a biological basis but go beyond that. They are integral to human experiences and the nature of attachment. That is why early childhood experiences and social factors come into play.

    People experience emotions so differently but with parallels. Most people can identify with basic aspects, such as sadness and joy. Nevertheless, there are such variations, such as some people who feel depressed all the time. Also, some people have more dramatic mood swings than others.

    There is also the question of how much control do we have of our emotions and are we enslaved by them? We may try to suppress or repress them but it may not fully work. Even biological interventions don't work always. The basis of emotions are not fully separate from self-knowledge. It may be that the achievement of self-knowledge is equatable with understanding of one's emotions, through being able to name and articulate about mental states. Yet, even with awareness of these, it does not lead to self-mastery necessarily. I wonder about whether self-awareness and reflective consciousness is a basis for some kind of emotional freedom, such as through mindfulness. It may be that certain individuals are less victims of emotions and that the development of higher states of consciousness are based on integration of emotional experiences.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    I guess one way in which I could phrase a specific question would be what are emotions made of?Jack Cummins

    They aren't made of anything. In the sense that walking isn't made of legs.

    You'd probably get a lot out of "How Emotions Are Made" by Lisa Feldman-Barrett.
  • Joshs
    5.8k


    our emotions can alert us to danger, show us our attachments, and help focus on things that are important in life. But emotions, if allowed to run unchecked can lead to us to our own destruction. Pain can lead us to danger or loss, but it can also lead us to down the road to torment and despair. Love can set us free, but also lead to paranoia or anguish. Desire can awaken us to our potential, or it can lead to greed and obsession. Anger can spur us into action, but it can also lead us to death or destruction. Fear can show us obstacles and help us plan, or it can paralyze us into inaction. Emotions are good if they are useful or beneficial- after that the emotions are more of a distraction from happiness than anything else.'Jack Cummins

    In the above quote, emotion is considered as some kind of substance that is added to the mix of mentation and behavior, as though we could imagine functioning without it. Emotion does this and that, adds this and that, provides us with this and that. I want to offer this question:Is there any aspect of cognitive function that can be made sense of if we imagine removing the thing we’re calling ‘emotion’? What if, instead of artificially extracting from experiencing some mysterious entity we label emotion and then asking about its nature, we abolish the distinction we have been making between affect, will and cognition and instead see affect as an inseparable dimension or aspect of all human functioning?
  • Joshs
    5.8k

    You'd probably get a lot out of "How Emotions Are Made" by Lisa Feldman-Barrettfdrake

    Feldman-Barrett’s alright, but predictive processing approaches are a bit behavioristically reductive for my taste. I find Matthew Ratcliffe’s work to be among the best of the current crop of writings on affectivity, mood and emotion. He combines the phenomenological work of Sartre, Husserl and Heidegger, the Pragmatism of James and Dewey and cognitive enactivist approaches like that of Evan Thompson.
  • Joshs
    5.8k


    You will know if you read Stoic literature, that 'the passions' are something to be subdued, and that 'subduing the passions' is one of the marks of wisdom. I don't think they're praising callousness or mere indifference to suffering, but the ability to rise above feelings, emotions and moods. 'Constancy of temperament' was a highly prized virtue in the classics (reflected in the name 'Constance').


    I wonder if what we call 'emotion' is in some way equivalent to what was meant by 'the passions' in those sources. I did learn, from practicing mindfulness meditation, that emotions always pass, and that's an important thing to learn. Because when you're feeling down, when you're possessed by negative emotions, which happens to all of us, it seems, in that state, that everything seems grey, in all directions. But once you learn that it is an emotion that will pass, it makes it easier to deal with.
    Wayfarer

    This take on the emotions seems to be the foil for Heidegger’s integrative approach to affect, feeling, mood and emotion:

    people will reply:… Attunements-joy, contentment, bliss, sadness, melancholy, anger-are, after all, something psychological, or better, psychic; they are emotional states. We can ascertain such states in ourselves and in others. We can even record how long they last, how they rise and fall, the causes which evoke and impede them. Attunements or, as one also says, 'feelings', are events occurring in a subject. Psychology, after all, has always distinguished between thinking, willing, and feeling. It is not by chance that it will always name feeling in the third, subordinate position. Feelings are the third class of lived experience. For naturally man is in the first place the rational living being. Initially, and in the first instance, this rational living being thinks and wills. Feelings are certainly also at hand. Yet are they not merely, as it were, the adornment of our thinking and willing, or something that obfuscates and inhibits these? After all, feelings and attunements constantly change. They have no fixed subsistence, they are that which is most inconstant. They are merely a radiance and shimmer, or else something gloomy, something hovering over emotional events. Attunements-are they not like the utterly fleeting and ungraspable shadows of clouds flitting across the landscape?”

    “Attunements are the fundamental ways in which we find ourselves disposed in such and such a way. Attunements are the 'how' [ Wie] according to which one is in such and such a way. Certainly we often take this 'one is in such and such a way'- for reasons we shall not go into now-as something indifferent, in contrast to what we intend to do, what we are occupied with, or what will happen to us. And yet this 'one is in such and such a way' is not-is never-simply a consequence or side-effect of our thinking, doing, and acting. It is-to put it crudely-the presupposition for such things, the 'medium' within which they first happen. And precisely those attunements to which we pay no heed at all, the attunements we least observe, those attunements which attune us in such a way that we feel as though there is no attunement there at all, as though we were not attuned in any way at all-these attunements are the most powerful.

    At first and for the most part we are affected only by particular attunements that tend toward 'extremes', like joy or grief. A faint apprehensiveness or a buoyant contentment are less noticeable. Apparently not there at all, and yet there, is precisely that lack of attunement in which we are neither out of sorts nor in a 'good' mood. Yet even in this 'neither/nor' we are never without an attunement. The reason we take lack of attunement as not being attuned at all, however, has grounds of a quite essential nature. When we say that a human being who is good-humoured brings a lively atmosphere with them, this means only that an elated or lively attunement is brought about. It does not mean, however, that there was no attunement there before. A lack of attunement prevailed there which is seemingly hard to grasp, which seems to be something apathetic and indifferent, yet is not like this at all. We can see once more that attunements never emerge in the empty space of the soul and then disappear again; rather, Dasein as Dasein is always already attuned in its very grounds. There is only ever a change of attunement.

    We stated in a provisional and rough and ready manner that attunements are the 'presupposition' for, and 'medium' of thinking and acting. That means as much as to say that they reach more primordially back into our essence, that in them we first meet ourselves-as being-there, as a Da-sein. Precisely because the essence of attunement consists in its being no mere side-effect, precisely because it leads us back into the grounds of our Dasein, the essence of attunement remains concealed or hidden from us; for this reason we initially grasp the essence of attunement in terms of what confronts us at first, namely the extreme tendencies of attunement, those which irrupt then disappear. Because we take attunements in terms of their extreme manifestations, they seem to be one set of events among others, and we overlook this peculiar being attuned, the primordial, pervasive attunement of our whole Dasein as such.” (Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics)
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Is it to be expected that there will be much, or anything, common to all emotions?

    It does seem to me that I discover my emotional condition from outside. When someone says "I feel angry", they might do so with sadness, or with surprise as often as they say it angrily. The tone of the discussion is thus far neutral to the point almost of indifference, as if emotion is too near, even for the most myopic self observer to bring into focus. Rather as one has to take off one's spectacles to see whether they are rose tinted or some other colour. As the old joke has it, when two psychologists meet on the the street one says to the other, "How am I?" - "You're fine, how am I?" That's not much of a bridge over troubled water, is it?

    Is it even possible - and this is a heresy - but has philosophy any business to have a view at all? Might one not be just slightly inclined to tell Sophia to butt out of one's sensibilities and mind her own business?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    I guess one way in which I could phrase a specific question would be what are emotions made of?
    — Jack Cummins

    They aren't made of anything. In the sense that walking isn't made of legs.
    fdrake
    :up:

    You've made some 'empirical observations' but still have not yet raised a philosophical question as far as I can tell.

    I've noticed is that there is almost no reference to 'emotions' in classical texts, whereas there are very frequent references to 'the passions'.Wayfarer
    Yes, this is what a modern such as Spinoza means by affects – 'passions', or passive reaction – which is the focus in two sections of his Ethics: III. Of the Origin and Nature of the Affects and IV. Of Human Bondage, or the Power of the Affects. No doubt he was influenced by the Stoics (as well as the Epicurus). Antonio Damasio's neuroscience research surveys and largely corroborates much of Spinoza's speculations on "emotions" in the book Looking for Spinoza (2003).
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    They aren't made of anything. In the sense that walking isn't made of legs.fdrake

    Haha… great line!
    (I’m still internally debating the question it was answering… but I appreciate a good turn of phrase).
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    I find Matthew Ratcliffe’s work to be among the best of the current crop of writings on affectivity, mood and emotion. He combines the phenomenological work of Sartre, Husserl and Heidegger, the Pragmatism of James and Dewey and cognitive enactivist approaches like that of Evan Thompson.Joshs

    Interesting! Thanks. :up: I hadn’t heard of him. Any suggestions for a starting point in his writing?
    This book looks like an interesting combo of philosophy and psychology.
    (Couldn’t find a Wikipedia page about him… )
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Is it to be expected that there will be much, or anything, common to all emotions?

    It does seem to me that I discover my emotional condition from outside. When someone says "I feel angry", they might do so with sadness, or with surprise as often as they say it angrily. The tone of the discussion is thus far neutral to the point almost of indifference, as if emotion is too near, even for the most myopic self observer to bring into focus. Rather as one has to take off one's spectacles to see whether they are rose tinted or some other colour.
    unenlightened

    Interesting… could you please explain more. I think you are perhaps referring to a person’s judgement of their emotions? Thus diving deeper into their identity, worldview, ethics, etc…

    Or maybe the opposite: the feelings stand alone and ‘speak for themselves’?

    As the old joke has it, when two psychologists meet on the the street one says to the other, "How am I?" - "You're fine, how am I?" That's not much of a bridge over troubled water, is it?

    Is it even possible - and this is a heresy - but has philosophy any business to have a view at all? Might one not be just slightly inclined to tell Sophia to butt out of one's sensibilities and mind her own business?
    unenlightened

    More delightful turns of phrases!
    It’s like the whipped cream and sprinkles on top of the coffee! :grin: :ok:
    (But I’m not brave enough to tell Sophia to “butt out!” She’d clobber me! :sweat: )
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I am surprised that you make a clear division between philosophy and psychology, especially as the two wre originally linked clearly until the twentieth century. It seems too binary, especially as ideas merge between disciplines, especially in connection with systems approaches..

    Besides, I just googled the topic of philosophy of emotions and found that there are many books on it. It seems like you wish to take the psyche out of philosophy, which would be as restrictive taking art out of philosophy.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    On the contrary, Jack, I make a distinction between philosophical questions and non-philosophical observations such as you've made. I find your OP confused is all and I'd like some clarity. My own references to Spinoza et al shows that I find psychology a worthy topic in philosophy (and vice versa); you just haven't yet raised a philosophical question about any psychological concept.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    Matthew RatcliffeJoshs

    I'll be reading Rethinking Commonsense Psychology the next couple of months. I may rant about it at you.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Even if you see my outpost as confused it is still an area of philosophy. If I wasn't a little confused when I wrote it may be I wouldn't have needed to write it. I am sure that many outposts have areas of confusion and questions which are only on the periphery of philosophy. Asking a really good question can be a difficult art and it can be hard to always frame questions with clarity because there are fuzzy areas of thought, just like fuzzy emotions. It is even through discussion that the exact nature of the essential questions emerge.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    I am wondering how the nature of emotions may be considered philosophically. It may lead to questions of phenomenology as well as the role of consciousness in thinking and its interpretation. I see this as an important area of philosophy, and for anyone else who sees its value, what do you think about emotion and its significance?Jack Cummins
    For Emotions to be considered philosophically, you might need to use a more appropriate term, such as "Feelings". Emotions are typically construed as the "passions" that motivate people to behave irrationally : anger, hate, excitement, etc. Although closely related to Emotions, Feelings are viewed as less physical and more psychological : love, sentiment, notion, opinion. Hopefully, you can think of a better term for philosophical treatment, to emphasize the mental over the physical foundations. :smile:

    PS__ Ironically, I have to agree with , that you need to express your philosophical question in terms of psychological concepts.

    PPS__FWIW, I think 's post above may be the most appropriate & succinct philosophical answer you'll get.


    Emotions are psychological states that include subjective, physiological, and behavioral elements.

    The feeling is a conscious experience created after the physical sensation or emotional experience, whereas emotions are felt through emotional experience
  • Joshs
    5.8k


    Matthew Ratcliffe
    — Joshs

    I'll be reading Rethinking Commonsense Psychology the next couple of months. I may rant about it at you.
    fdrake

    I look forward to your rant.
  • Joshs
    5.8k
    I find Matthew Ratcliffe’s work to be among the best of the current crop of writings on affectivity, mood and emotion. He combines the phenomenological work of Sartre, Husserl and Heidegger, the Pragmatism of James and Dewey and cognitive enactivist approaches like that of Evan Thompson.
    — Joshs

    Interesting! Thanks. :up: I hadn’t heard of him. Any suggestions for a starting point in his writing?
    This book looks like an interesting combo of philosophy and psychology.
    0 thru 9

    Feelings of Being is a good starting point, since it captures his fully developed notion of moods like grief and depression.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Yes, I am inclined to think that mastery of emotions can be learned but is a rare achievement, such as the consciousness of monks and for spiritual masters. For most of us, behaviour is hard enough to control fully, which may be due to emotions, and mastery of the actual emotions is so much more difficult.

    If anything, I would like to be able to attain more mastery of emotions because I often get low in mood and anxious. I do some meditation but sometimes don't feel up to it, although I do meditate at times when I can't manage to sleep. Of course, those who master the emotions have probably extremely accomplished in the practice of meditation and it is also bound up with a whole lifestyle approach. Also, it may be a people think that it is about emotional detachment as opposed to a deeper state of awareness.

    I did read a book on neurolinguistic programming and find the idea of reframing as a useful one for the nature of emotional processing. However, it is probably an approach which requires in depth training.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I definitely think that you have a point about the way feelings may have been a better term to consider. Probably, the reason why I used emotions is because feelings conjures up sentimentality. Also, maybe I was subconsciously writing in accordance with the male stereotype bias about against talking about feelings , while emotions sounds more rough and raw.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    Confusion =/= perplexity. 'Clarity of the latter' (inquiry) is not the same as 'more of the former' (word salad). :roll:

    Anyway, I recommend reading Parts III & IV of Spinoza's Ethics for a philosophical examination on "emotions, feelings, passions" etc.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Actually, I wish to get hold of a copy of Damasio's 'Looking for Spinoza'. I have read about it and from what I remember of this was how embodiment is important. As far as I see, one important aspect of embodiment in relation to emotions is how it is distributed through the body through the nervous system as opposed to being located in the head/brain.

    It makes sense to see the emotions as connected to the whole body and sensations, such as in the feeling of having 'a broken heart'. Also, when the body feels out of sorts the quality of the emotional life is impacted negatively. For the last couple of weeks I think I have had a virus and I have felt more depressed than usual. This is likely to being zapped of energy.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I have a copy of Spinoza's 'Ethics', which I have been crawling through for ages. So, I will have a look at it, even though I don't find his writing to be very inspirational..
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.