Why 'love' asan emotion cannot be criticised as reasonable or unreasonable?(Ref:G.PITCHER thesis)
Topic: “I have been talking so far as though all emotions could be criticized in the reasonable/unreasonable dimensions; but in fact there is at least one emotion – love – to which this is not true.” Explain the reason why Pitcher thinks so.
My response: LOVE is an emotion, but a special one cause its causal effects are quite different from other emotions. The well-known British philosopher George Pitcher examined the notion of ‘emotion’challenging the traditional belief ,and came up with his own definition of emotion: “Emotion is the feeling of certain physical changes in our body caused by perception of an exciting fact” Pitcher(1965)’Emotion’, Mind 74 pp 324-46.
Whereas the traditional theory proposes that emotions are caused internally, and is purely an inner feeling, there is no external cause linked to its occurrence. Pitcher argues that perception of certain external stimulus causes excitement which triggers some bodily changes; an emotion is the feeling of those bodily changes (i.e. high pulse rate, shiver, goose flesh etc.).That is he argues that there is always an external cause to our feelings(emotions).The term ‘sensation’ has been used synonymously.
On analysing these bodily feelings to external stimuli ,he conclude further that emotions are either conscious or unconscious. Emotions become conscious in just the way other perceptual states become conscious( through feelings).And emotions are unconscious when we do not attend to the changes in our bodies(when there is no feeling).This is the general theory of perceptual consciousness, and how it might apply to emotion. Therefore we arrive at a simple conclusion: Emotions are feelings when they are conscious, and unconscious when there is no sense of such bodily feeling. In theory, everything should either be reasonable or unreasonable right? More so in any philosophical theory or enquiry. Now this reasonableness of any emotion is dependent on test of fallacy to arrive at a true or false position.
My response: LOVE is an emotion, but a special one cause its causal effects are quite different from other emotions. The well-known British philosopher George Pitcher examined the notion of ‘emotion’challenging the traditional belief ,and came up with his own definition of emotion: “Emotion is the feeling of certain physical changes in our body caused by perception of an exciting fact” Pitcher(1965)’Emotion’, Mind 74 pp 324-46.
Whereas the traditional theory proposes that emotions are caused internally, and is purely an inner feeling, there is no external cause linked to its occurrence. Pitcher argues that perception of certain external stimulus causes excitement which triggers some bodily changes; an emotion is the feeling of those bodily changes (i.e. high pulse rate, shiver, goose flesh etc.).That is he argues that there is always an external cause to our feelings(emotions).The term ‘sensation’ has been used synonymously.
On analysing these bodily feelings to external stimuli ,he conclude further that emotions are either conscious or unconscious. Emotions become conscious in just the way other perceptual states become conscious( through feelings).And emotions are unconscious when we do not attend to the changes in our bodies(when there is no feeling).This is the general theory of perceptual consciousness, and how it might apply to emotion. Therefore we arrive at a simple conclusion: Emotions are feelings when they are conscious, and unconscious when there is no sense of such bodily feeling. In theory, everything should either be reasonable or unreasonable right? More so in any philosophical theory or enquiry. Now this reasonableness of any emotion is dependent on test of fallacy to arrive at a true or false position.