Are Emotions Cognitive?

[GEddie]

It’s not the how that some people may find rather stark and soulless, but the why.

“The why” lies behind our bodies as well as our feelings.

If we fully embraced our status as thinking bodies, rather than ghostly machine operators, there’d be no issue.

ICXC NIKA

 

[inocente]

There is a danger that knowing more about emotional states, psychology, the physical make-up of the brain and it’s processes, especially as it relates to evolutionary development, causes one to start looking at things from the outside in a rather detached manner.

I did a soccer coaching course a few years back. It was quite involved and technical and we were encouraged to ‘deconstruct’ games that we watched and work out why certain things were happening. The guy running the course actually warned us at one point that knowing more about the game would, in some ways, detract from our enjoyment of it.

I still love watching my home team and I still love my wife, so no problems yet.

I see what you’re saying, but would point to a significant problems which impact many people who are not able to stand outside themselves, and as a result become anxious or depressed, or self-absorbed, or obsessive, etc.

And Richard Feynman, the guy in your photo, argues against you in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out - youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

 

[meltzerboy]

There is a danger that knowing more about emotional states, psychology, the physical make-up of the brain and it’s processes, especially as it relates to evolutionary development, causes one to start looking at things from the outside in a rather detached manner.

I did a soccer coaching course a few years back. It was quite involved and technical and we were encouraged to ‘deconstruct’ games that we watched and work out why certain things were happening. The guy running the course actually warned us at one point that knowing more about the game would, in some ways, detract from our enjoyment of it.

I still love watching my home team and I still love my wife, so no problems yet.

Just make sure your wife is not also involved in deconstruction.

 

[Bradski]

Just make sure your wife is not also involved in deconstruction.

Opposites attract She’s Lord of The Rings, I’m Guns, Germs and Steel. She’s Ms Emotion, I’m Mr Pratical.

 

[Bradski]

And Richard Feynman, the guy in your photo, argues against you in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out - youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

I’ve seen that clip and I tend to agree with him. Knowing more about biology doesn’t detract from your appreciation of a rose. Knowing what causes a sunset doesn’t make it any less beautiful. It’s that the two views cannot be held concurrently. If you see a shooting star and immediately wonder about its size and composition and its trajectory, then you are going to miss the gee-whizz moment.

I think that some people, as Feynman said, believe that having a practical knowledge of something means that you actually lose the emotional impact of it. As I said, it doesn’t seem to have affected me where I have gained ‘inside’ knowledge.

 

[starshiptrooper]

To answer the OP, emotions come in 2 forms.

1. Emotions based on pure instinct, such as recognizing a source of danger.
2. Emotions based on value judgments. I will expound on this with a hypothetical situation. A Muslim, a Feminist, a normal guy, an art critic are observing a painting of a nude woman. The artist is also present.

The Muslim is disgusted by the picture because the subject is in a scandalous state of undress and represents a source of temptation to him. The Feminist is enraged by this blatant objectification of women and walks away mumbling about rape culture, patriarchy, and the male gaze. The normal guy briefly looks at the picture and moves on because our current culture is saturated with sexual imagery. The art critic admires the technical details of the painting. The artist thinks of his muse and remembers his love for her.

We had 5 more or less rational people all perceiving the same stimulus yet they had 5 different reactions. This was due to the values they held which affected how they interpreted the painting.

In either case, emotions are not a source of knowledge.

 

[abucs]

We had 5 more or less rational people all perceiving the same stimulus yet they had 5 different reactions. This was due to the values they held which affected how they interpreted the painting.

In either case, emotions are not a source of knowledge.

ok, skipping right past the question of whether feminists can be considered rational -

… if each meditates on why they reacted as they did and why others reacted differently then they are open to knowledge and transforming their being so that they may not have the same reaction next time.

This self reflection or meditation can be cognitive in the sense that it is driven by recognisble thoughts or it can be a natural part of someone’s being.

It may be that recognisable thoughts only create who we really are when we accept and internalise them so much so that we don’t consciously think those thoughts any more but be the outcome of those thoughts.

I think in this way spiritual masters try to live in a state of being, not dominated by thinking, but using thinking to enhance being.

In one of the reported Marian apparitions Mary told the faithful to pray from their hearts, without words.

As someone with a science and mathematics degree and a teacher of both of these i am very aware that thinking is a big part of my life but i wonder if we can neglect a greater awareness of our being if we restrict knowledge to thinking.

Regards.

 

[GEddie]

ok, skipping right past the question of whether feminists can be considered rational -

… if each meditates on why they reacted as they did and why others reacted differently then they are open to knowledge and transforming their being so that they may not have the same reaction next time.

This self reflection or meditation can be cognitive in the sense that it is driven by recognisble thoughts or it can be a natural part of someone’s being.

It may be that recognisable thoughts only create who we really are when we accept and internalise them so much so that we don’t consciously think those thoughts any more but be the outcome of those thoughts.

I think in this way spiritual masters try to live in a state of being, not dominated by thinking, but using thinking to enhance being.

In one of the reported Marian apparitions Mary told the faithful to pray from their hearts, without words.

As someone with a science and mathematics degree and a teacher of both of these i am very aware that thinking is a big part of my life but i wonder if we can neglect a greater awareness of our being if we restrict knowledge to thinking.

Regards.

What we call thinking is only a stage in knowing, which, rather than thinking per se, is what our minds do. Seeing, smelling, etc are earlier stages.

However, I would not include feeling (emotionally) in knowing.

ICXC NIKA

 

[abucs]

What we call thinking is only a stage in knowing, which, rather than thinking per se, is what our minds do. Seeing, smelling, etc are earlier stages.

However, I would not include feeling (emotionally) in knowing.

ICXC NIKA

Thanks.

 

[levinas12]

By cognition, I mean thought (verb). Why do you keep using the word disclosure instead of discovery?

We can be aware of a threat through observation, fear is not a requirement.

Disclosure has an “a priori” (“always and already”) connotation as opposed to “discovery” which is “a posteriori”. Disclosure involves a certain passivity, something that is not under our control (like sense perception) whereas discovery suggests something deliberate and active and under our control.

At the beginning of our conscious life, there is “always and already” disclosure of the world - we start off in the middle of things, in medias res. After that fundamental disclosure, we are free to go about making discrete discoveries.

For the sake of “full disclosure”, I have to add that “disclosure” translates a technical philosophical term in Heidegger’s philosophy.

I disagree with you about “fear” not being a requirement to recognize a “threat”. Our first experience of a “threat” is always through fear. After that, we might engage in a more cerebral observation. I think this is true even of Mr. Spock.

 

[levinas12]

However, I would not include feeling (emotionally) in knowing.

ICXC NIKA

I think"feeling" can be cognitive. If you look at the history of the ancient Greek word for “nous”, you can trace it back to Homer and earlier where the word connotes a “global” assessment of a particular situation, e.g., the way the feeling of fear reveals the threats on a battlefield.

Even in 20th century philosophy, “feeling” has a primordial cognitive role, e.g., dread in Heidegger which first reveals to us the “being” of the world.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Disclosure has an “a priori” (“always and already”) connotation as opposed to “discovery” which is “a posteriori”. Disclosure involves a certain passivity, something that is not under our control (like sense perception) whereas discovery suggests something deliberate and active and under our control.

At the beginning of our conscious life, there is “always and already” disclosure of the world - we start off in the middle of things, in medias res. After that fundamental disclosure, we are free to go about making discrete discoveries.

For the sake of “full disclosure”, I have to add that “disclosure” translates a technical philosophical term in Heidegger’s philosophy.

I disagree with you about “fear” not being a requirement to recognize a “threat”. Our first experience of a “threat” is always through fear. After that, we might engage in a more cerebral observation. I think this is true even of Mr. Spock.

Anyway, back to your original question: Are emotions cognitive?

It seems to me this question is akin to asking, Are bees floral? There is a necessary symbiotic relationship between the two (bees and flowers). It’s not really possible to separate them without destroying the characteristics that make each one what it is.

How do you distinguish instinct from emotion?

 

[GEddie]

Anyway, back to your original question: Are emotions cognitive?

It seems to me this question is akin to asking, Are bees floral? There is a necessary symbiotic relationship between the two (bees and flowers). It’s not really possible to separate them without destroying the characteristics that make each one what it is.

How do you distinguish instinct from emotion?

Instinct often acts faster. It’s like our human psycho-soma has a scale of actions in order of speed: Reflex —> trained reflex ------> instinct --------> emotion -------> thought.

ICXC NIKA

 

[John_Martin]

When I dissect myself, what is happening in me, I find that I recognize a bear, I recognize something Big, (re-congnize, meaning I interpret the colors that hit my eyes, and call it by some known symbolic name that has meaning: “bear”, “big”, even if I don’t vocalize that word).
If it is not recognized, then the “recognitional” symbol could be “what is this?”
But I find it is only after re-cognizing the object that I sense what it would impact being near that object, and automatically either I fear contact or I desire contact or I don’t care either way.
Emotions (fear, desire, none) have an object and the relationship of that object if in contact with me. Without recognition and reason about union, there will be no emotion, which always has an object in its relation to me, therefore understood (to some degree).

 

[levinas12]

How do you distinguish instinct from emotion?

I apologize for the long-winded and clumsy discussion of “emotional disclosure” in my previous post.

I’m obsessed with the philosophy of Martin Heidegger.

So I use his philosophical terminology to explain emotion.

To answer your question, human emotion takes place against the horizon of a world that is always and already previously disclosed. When I experience fear in a particular situation (e.g., encounter with a bear), I already know about “fear” and “threat” because they are part of the structure of my world (this is the a priori dimension of emotional disclosure).

Unlike humans, animals do not have a world horizon (though they are embedded in an environment). Because animal “being” is essentially “worldless”, animal instinct is different from human emotion. What this means is that “human” fear cannot be reduced to “animal” fear.

It is easy to conflate human fear and animal fear because it is easy to conflate “world” and “environment”.

For more on the difference between “world” and “environment”, see Heidegger’s Being and Time.

 

[Baroux]

Emotions are subjective.

Some say that we are made up of our emotions–that everything is or contains, or is contained by, an emotional state. But altogether, the reason why I say they are subjective is because you can effectively reframe them to be anything you want them to be in a given moment.

I’ve been in certain situations where it would be easy for me to be upset or angry, and I’ve seen the people I’m around be angry in similar, or the same situations, and I’m not. I choose to be have an effect of a different emotion–carelessness, or almost a carefree attitude.

They are subjective – they are not our living experiences, yet we always live in an emotional state. Of course, they are comparatively minor because action is the object of our lives, not emotions.