12 Laws of the Emotions

12 Laws of the Emotions

PsyBlog is releasing a new series on emotions. If this article is anything to judge by, it will be quite good.

Hopefully, this kind of research will help to dispel common myths about emotions, such as the idea that they are ‘irrational’, simply ‘feelings’, and hazardous to the flourishing of the human.

The Wikipedia article on Nico Frijda states:

Emotions are, in this view, tendencies to engage in behaviour influenced by the needs of the person.

Sounds pretty rational to me.

I would (and will later) argue that rationality is actually bounded by emotion, that emotion dictates rationality, and that only an idiot could argue that emotion could ever be opposed to it.

From an existential perspective, the most notable law is probably ‘The Law of Concern’ – in regards to passion:

We feel because we care about something, when we have some interest in what happens, whether it’s to an object, ourselves, or another person. Emotions arise from these particular goals, motivations or concerns. When we are unconcerned we don’t feel anything.

Man is the measure of all things

Socrates: Gidday Protagoras, what are you up to?

Protagoras: Just trying out these tinted glasses. I have red ones and blue ones. I’m currently wearing the red ones and the world is red to me.

Socrates: The world ain’t red, you tosser.

Protagoras: You think? Here, try on these blue glasses and tell me what you see.

Socrates: The world is blue!

Protagoras: Exactly! Do you see that the world is coloured through the glasses you wear? The world is different according to the glasses you wear, or if you wear none at all. It depends on your perspective. Man is the measure of all things.

Socrates: But I wasn’t wearing glasses before; I was seeing the world objectively then.

Protagoras: You forget about your cataracts, Socrates. How can you claim that there is an objective world and that you know it if you have cataracts?

Socrates: But what if I didn’t have cataracts?

Protagoras: You wouldn’t see the world through cataracts.

Socrates: I know that. The point I’m trying to make is that my hypothetical perspective without glasses or cataracts would have me seeing an objective world.

Protagoras: I’m sure that claim is true for you, Socrates, but do remember you have cataracts. Everyone has tinted glasses and they see the world differently, although people with the similarly-coloured glasses tend to see the world the same. I know this because I’ve talked to people, seen their glasses, and been told how they see the world. Did you perform a similar inductive exercise before proposing your hypothetical?

Socrates: No.

Protagoras: Than piss off, wanker.

Jennan Ismael on Death

Jennan Ismael on Death (h/t Adrian)

Jenann Ismael gives a crudely reductionistic account. Listening to her I am tempted to see my life as an object and consumer product. Talk of ‘the whole’ does not save her from the ontological fallacy of seeing life as some ‘thing’ to be described as an aggregation of nouns. Her categories describe a ficticious world. Such pretentious analytic rhetoric is nihilistic and moves me to disgust. Shame on her for not engaging the existentialists on their notions of death, nothingness and being. It is irresponsible for a university authority to speak on these topics with such profound ignorance.

But hell, you may like the lecture and get something out of it. I severely doubt it though.

The essence of the good life

The essence of the good life is living unself-consciously. It is not a narrative or way of seeing the world in which the self does not exist. Rather, it is a vision of the world in which the self – you – is not of negative concern. In particular, you are not engaged with negative emotions, such as guilt, shame, boredom, worry, regret, remorse and resentment. You never think of others judging you and you do not judge others.

Your viewpoint is ‘big-picture’ and in the third-person perspective you are empowered. At times you take up the first-person perspective, but always within the context of the big-picture. You positively and creatively co-create your history with others; your story is not a dogma that you attempt to impose on the world. You accept your circumstances, but realise your freedom to transcend them. You love fate, but are not fatalistic. You take in the entire universe, everything there is, and reflect it with positive sentiment.

You see yourself engaged with the world. You see this relation to the world as significant and as a gift for which you are infinitely thankful. You are passionate about living. You are not a cog in the wheel of industry, a wage-slave in someone’s else’s grand schemes; rather, you decide who you will become. You may have particular goals and directions, but these are not a worry for you, only a source of joy. Although you do not worry, you still feel a distinct type of anxiety which is essentially human, you care – about the world, yourself and others. The emotions engendered by these relations make your life meaningful. Although you are actively involved with the entire world and its people, you can be still and quiet; alone, but knowing that the world is merrily with you.

If all this sounds too prescriptive than simply consider Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence myth and ask, what life would I live if I were to live it over and over again for all eternity?

What’s all this about language?

There are two views of language.

The first, the more popular, is that language is a mostly-transparent screen through which meaning flows, largely without issue. Meaning is overwhelmingly more important than the screen in this view, although we can investigate the screen in order to appreciate it and adapt it so that meaning flows more freely.

The second view places much more emphasis on language, often to the detriment of meaning. The screen is much more opaque and complicated; at times it is a labyrinth. Meaning has much more difficulty flowing through this screen and indeed can be lost for all time, as the screen continually contorts itself in new directions. This is the view of many Postmodernist philosophers.

Which view is more ‘correct’?

Neither view can be said to be completely correct, but the first is more pragmatic and ‘commonsense’.

But Postmodernists reject ‘commonsense’ in their language of language. Is their incredulous perspective worth listening to? Absolutely, they offer an interesting perspective with important ethical implications. (I would argue that the ethics can be separated from the conceptual framework and that the former is far more important). But theirs is only a perspective and a contrived one at that. One can easily become suspicious and think they are only out to glorify themselves through being ‘innovators’*, and Sophist-like argumentation that makes them look more clever than others. Certainly, we see this dimension in zealous, post-graduate deconstructionists. However, the more serious criticism is they tend to downplay and obfuscate meaning for the mere sake of argument, which I believe is downright unethical.

*this innovation may be motivated by Oepidal factors

The fear of being wrong

He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors.

- Heidegger

That may be so, but what ethic are we to take from it?

Are we to doubt ourselves more and become more reluctant to express our views? I think that would be a tragedy.

Rather, we ought to embrace the potential for error and misinterpretation, yet bravely adventure in thought and expression; to act out in faith.

The fear of being wrong is the fear of alienation, of losing status amongst the group; it is the folly of the inauthentic self; it is herd behaviour; it is the obsession with ‘they’.

To become bogged down in doubt and hold back from expressing ourselves until we have done the ‘due diligence’ of reading and examining our subject matter to the nth degree would lead to the mindless scholaticism so often found amongst academics. Not that doubt is itself a bad thing; indeed, doubt and questioning is essential to the philosophical task. Furthermore, the ‘need to be right’, which is one reaction to the fear of being wrong, can often lead to great errors, as oneself may become dependent on the views of authority figures, who themselves have made great errors.

What Heidegger fails to mention here is that great things can often come from great errors. Innovation is found in exploring perspectives (through dialogue, aphorism, metaphor, example and so on), regardless of whether those perspectives are faithful representations of ‘the truth’ or the views of authority figures. An example is Nietzsche’s ‘Birth of Tragedy’. Nietzsche was a brilliant philologist, but his book pissed off the academics due to its lack pretence to the academy (footnotes, etc.). However, it has had a profound, positive influence on the shaping of many lives. This despite it being a ‘great error’ in the minds of some.

What do you have to lose? Nothing

I mean, what do you have to lose?
You come from nothing,
You go back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!
Always look on the bright side of life.

- Monty Python

Never say of anything that I have lost it. Only that I have given it back.

- Epictetus

and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

- Ecclesiastes 12:7

God is nothing, and the source/ground of all being*. We must face God (nothingness), indeed accept and appreciate him (it and non-it), in order to passionately live. Only the wise fool thinks life is meaningless because it is momentary (Ecc 12:8). Rather, life is nothing but moments, and life is meaningful because meaning has full reign, if we so desire, with (only) nothing to stop it. If only nothingness is against you, everything is for you.

God (nothingness), will frustrate the wisdom of the wise (the teacher of Ecclesiastes,  who taught the worship of God through teachings made up by men [Ecc 12:13]) (See also Isaiah 24:14). This frustration will come in the form of despair (with cries such as “Everything is meaningless!”), as the wisdom of the wise (its ‘reason’ and expectations) reflects absurdity whence shone upon the world. (The world does not obey our expectations and demands of it; this is the absurd). To avoid this dispair we must accept, appreciate and live in full view of God (nothingness) as we experience the world and create our narrative of meaning.

*To say that God is anything but nothing is to create an idol.  God is not a being and cannot be objectified with a noun nor described with adjectives, except in a poetic sense which does not purport to pin God down. This God could quite rightly pass Derrida’s criteria for the Logos, but I wouldn’t want to disrupt his Sophist-like games.

People are innocent

People are not basically good, nor basically bad. They are innocent; not due the judgement and condemnation we so readily heap on them.

Morality is a pragmatic social device that comes into existence through covenant. This device ought to only serve the ends of human survival and flourishing, but we frequently lend it too much power.

Morality has become its own end. Foolish people have been willing to annihilate each other for the sake of ‘right’. Total annihilation has even been a threat, during the Cold War.

Another corrupt morality is often used by the weak for their self-aggrandisement and self-righteousness. The weak employ this morality as a weapon against the strong, who are innocent of any real wrongdoing. Jealousy, envy and resentment motivates the bludgeoning of the innocent. The innocent are the strong, but to the weak they are the immoral.

Developing an unshakable self-concept

I agree with Sartre that it is virtually impossible to completely maintain one’s preconceived and habituated self-concept -  no matter how intensely believed – in the face of others’ judgements. However, we can develop a tough shell that can protect us from all but the most vicious attacks, and a bright spark to guide and enliven our path forward.

To develop a self-concept that will lead to our flourishing  we need to, first and foremost, examine who influences us and what effect they have on our self-concept, positive or negative.

Scientific Personal Development

Personal Development gets a bad wrap because it is conceived to be the province of charlatans and flakey, New-Age hippies. This characterisation is largely correct of the popular PD industry, but we ought not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The baby of personal development consists of many philosophical and psychological influences. Amongst the former: Socrates (‘know thyself’) and Aristotle,  the Existentialists and other ‘life’ philosophies (Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.). Amongst the latter: Freud, Jung, ‘Positive Psychology’, and so on.

I am interested in what a (quasi) scientific personal development ethic would look like. At its core I believe it would ask…

What influences have a positive effect on how a person sees the world and oneself?

What influences have a negatives effect on how a person sees the world and oneself?

How can we effectively increase the former and reduce the latter?

Influences being other people, communities, philosophical and other literary works, own attitudes, metaphysical beliefs, and cultivated habits. Oneself is a perfect object of experiment.