Why is emotion defined as a decision and not a state? One can legitimately argue about states and will, but this approach seems very unusual. User:CSTAR
"It is not even clear whether emotion is a purely human phenomenon, since animals seem to exhibit conditions which resemble emotional responses such as anger, fear or sadness." Is it clear that humans experience emotion? We say yes because they are able to communicate that emotion. But who would be willing to say that a baby doesn't experience emotion, despite the similar lack of communication that other animals have? Wouldn't that imply that emotion is clearly not a human phenomenon? --Brad 20:59, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
I don't think the article claims that existence of emotion in human beings follows from any kind of verbal communication. Perhaps you could reformulate your argument. In fact the article as it stands claims very little. CSTAR 18:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the article doesn't claim it, but I think it implies some form of communication (not necessarily verbal, as I originally implied). Let's assume that humans feel emotion. I could claim that I know this because I'm a human and I feel, but choosing the associative category of human is arbitrary. I might as well say "all programmers experience emotion, but it's not clear it's restricted to that profession." We could take it to the other extreme end and say "all matter experiences emotion," althought that's pushing it a bit. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can agree we feel because we can express that emotion and understand it through empathy and sympathy. I don't see how else we could make such a claim. --Brad 20:59, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
OK that's an important claim. Note that the article is constrained by some (perhaps false) precept of objective narrative. I think what's missing in the artcile is a short section asking the question whether it is even possible to theorize about emotion without devaluing the human quality that characterizes it. The reason I put the comment about animals was twofold:
- To suggest (by a kind of reductio-ad-asburdum) the essentally human characteristics of emotion
- This is not a new idea, by a long shot. Aristotle already had it.
In this regard, I think Martha Nussbaum's work is almost heroic, because she is attempting to inject the element of humanism into the dry discourse of academic philosophy.CSTAR 22:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Instead of splitting this article into the peculiar categories of psychology and culture, we might simply note that emotion has been studied physiologically, philosophically (including religious and psychological studies departing from standard accepted neurologic research), as well as including differing views of emotion occuring through the traditions of the world, and not just in recent European popular outlook. (-anonymous user}
This article is psychology-centric :)
This article looks at emotions pretty much exclusively from the point of view of psychology. I actually came here looking for information on how emotions actually work in the brain, in particular to what degree neuron firings are involved, and how much of it is chemical reactions/processes. Someone wants to expand? :) — Timwi 16:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes that should be included under something like physiology of emotions. Sorry can't help you there :( CSTAR 16:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reverted edits
I reverted deletions made by previous anon user.
Lead paragraph
Why is emotion now described as a language (of an internal state of being?) I would have thought emotion would be described as a state or a process of a person. Whether that state/process is internal, external or observable inobservable is an entirely different matter. CSTAR 16:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree -- I find it bizarre and nonstandard to describe emotion as a "language". I recently edited the article to remove that claim, but I see that Stevertigo reverted my change. Stevertigo, can you please defend your reversion...? Look up "emotion" in the dictionary, I don't see any definition that resembles yours at all. --SethTisue 14:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have not heard from Stevertigo, so I have again removed the description of emotion as a "language".--SethTisue 4 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
- It may be noted that emotional reaction can be considered personalised and individuated. In cases where emotional reaction is highly individuated, this might not designate a neurotic severance from society, but rather as exposure to social variances that are not usually combined. Interpetation of a sufficiently individuated emotional reaction becomes nonreflexive, and a conscious process. However, it is the experience of another's emotion and articulation of emotion that is similar to learning a language, at least if we view emotion as physiological: the physiological emotion itself is a complex inborn trait. In spiritual or philosophical analysis, all depends on the basis from which any individual philosophy or spiritual theory extends. Often we find less proofs in the spiritual than in the scientific, and hence emotion needn't be governed by rules and thus emotion could be seen as a language.
- Emotion could in any case be theoretically linked to language or might possibly extend evolutionarily from expressive tendency in complex organisms with neural structure (though I doubt that it's a direct tie: language comprehension and actual emotion, despite the effect of slander or of flattery). My belief is that the state of this emotion article is presently limited and should be open to large development (with small revisions and repositions under new categories) rather than large negative revision (deletion of passages to reword them entirely). It's usually better to find a way to fit things in.
- Emotion is a very interesting subject. Please add neurological definitions or links to these. (all three above paragraphs by anonymous user)
song lyrics useless?
should this be removed? I find them overly lengthy and not very helpful.--Mr. Moogle 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes please remove the lyrics. This article needs serious attention. CSTAR 04:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Evolutionary views
I got rid of a link to a page on "discrimination" that was all about an entirely different definition of the word.
Incomplete template
For some unfathomable reason, Desire and Lust are missing from the "Emotions" template. Perhaps William Blake knows why they are missing. But can someone who knows how to work with templates please add them in? Haiduc 04:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Introduction
Should material in the expanded introduction be largely moved to the body sections below? Dpr 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Overall
This article overall needs better structure and interal consistency/integration. Thanks. Dpr 05:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted Links
I deleted this [1]. It is a link to an individual researcher on emotion and contains nothing that would serve someone looking for general information on emotion. --Kzollman 02:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Is emotion simply are response?
Cleanup
Based on the many complaints above and my own reading of this article, I see a need for a major clean-up. I am willing to spearhead this process, but I am very interested in what the other authors who have invested in this page have to say. A few issues that I see on a first read are:
- The article needs a more coherent structure (a clear outline structure that fairly presents different approaches to the topic that will make room for new sections like 'physiology of emotions' as requested above.)
- The article needs to be less wordy. Some of the paragraphs present ideas that could be expressed in one or two sentences. Also, the introductory section should be much shorter. Being concise will result in a clearer article for the reader.
- The article needs to be more balanced. Specifically:
- Philosophy of Emotion needs to be more balanced with current understandings of emotion through psychological science and other social sciences. There should also be some room for perspectives from the biological sciences.
- Personal opinions are presented in this article without reference (some of these can be supported with research ... it just isn't included). Science and philosophy arguments should be transparently grounded with references that the reader can follow.
- Opposing viewpoints that are well supported by research are not represented (e.g. the relative constancy of many emotions across cultures as demonstrated by Paul Ekman)
- Links to individual researchers, clinicians, and programs should be avoided unless they are widely accepted as historically important to the vast subject of emotion.
What are the most important ideas on this page that you want preserved? What are your references? In addition to what's been listed above by others, is there anything else that you would like to see on this page?
sallison 08:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Psychotherapeutic POV
I've removed a couple of anonymously contributed sentences today which seemed to be pushing particular views of emotions held by some members of the psychotherapeutic community. So far as I know, there is no balance of evidence supporting the views that were inserted. If evidence can be provided, let's put it in. If not, it's just POV. WMMartin 19:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Men and women
Who's more emotional, men or women?
- Contrary to popular belief, I think
men are much more emotional than women. Women let out surface shit like crying to their friends because everyone's going away to school, but I think men have emotion that runs deeper than oceans. We hold them in, (we must) and we confront them in private, in our rooms, in our sleep, in our car, in our MUSIC. Music can BREAK a man in half. Tear him down to a child. Sitting on the floor, crying, listening to those beautiful melodies, wanting love, wanting to give love, share love, feel, feel, feel. Women like to dance to music, and have beautiful rhythym, but I've never met one where the music could kill them. Where the music was EVERYTING. Where music had the power to strip them of walls and masks. For my male friends, music saves them. It purges them of deep desperation and aguish in this idiotic world where men can't cry. [2]
It might also be interesting to compare the views of John Gray, author of the Men Are From Mars series. Uncle Ed 01:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)