10/18/15

HON 211

The Complexity of Emotion: Not a Conceptual Phenomenon

The underlying cause of the emotions has long been a curiosity of human life. For
hundreds of years, philosophers have been contemplating the role of phenomenology within this
complex experience. Scientists have recently developed new methods of conducting research and
analysis, allowing empirical data to develop into something more conceptual, something that can
be proven and widely agreed upon. In the past, scholars, be they neuroscientists, philosophers, or
psychologists, have routinely chosen to take one route for forming a theory of the emotions. This
reductionist approach is coming to a standpoint, demanding a step back to bring about a holistic
understanding of connectionism as it begins to define a concept as complex as the emotions.
Philosophy of the emotions was once defined entirely as phenomenon. Descartes believed
the emotions to be the result of recognizing the presence of animal spirits acting in the body.
While this idea puts an air of mystery on the source of the bodily reaction, it does show the
existence of recognition, a stage within the emotional process that most of todays feeling
theories highly emphasize. Feeling theories fall in contrast to cognitive theories, where the
intentionality of an emotion acts as its foundation. These two philosophical classes analyze the
human cognition as it works with various bodily reactions and stimuli to result in a felt emotion.
Philosophers today largely agree that an emotion is something that is essentially felt (Deonna &
Teroni). For years there was little conclusive evidence to scientifically prove a theory of emotion.
Determined philosophers dove into what they knew, expanding their knowledge and mapping out
a theoretical landscape. Every researcher has a limited amount of time on earth to dedicate
towards discovery. It is within their own perspective (based on unique memories and virtues)
where they choose what aspect to spend their time and research best accounting for.
The philosophical approach to emotions analyzes the personal experience of an emotion
as it is felt, striving to identify what extent of conscious control an individual has in this process.
It is becoming clearer that the way in which humans feel emotion is unique to their complex
cognition and conscience. Each emotion must be analyzed separately to identify the spectrum
from primitive, survival based emotions (e.g. fear, disgust, anxiety) to complex, contemplative
emotions (e.g. guilt, anger, mourning). Charles Darwin brought new insight to the study of
animal behavior, emphasizing a parallel between human and animal behaviors based on mans
evolution from lower forms. Post World War II, neuroscientists broke ground with modern
experimentation and observation with nerve cells, building off of what Darwin brought to light.
After years of analyzing human behavior separate from neuroscience, researchers decided to
study these topics comparatively. In 1970, psychoanalyst-neuroscientist Eric Kandel set a
foundation for analyzing sensory and motor systems in all complexities of life. Scientific
American Innovators published a magazine edition, Innovators, where Kandel explains his
decision to look for concrete evidence within neuroscience rather than through unprovable
theories of psychoanalysis. Kandel bridged the gap between empirical and conceptual studies of
memory, learning, and behavioral modification, all of which stand at the base of understanding
the emotions.
Kandel emphasized something fundamental before any theory is fully understood: one
must recognize the smaller steps contributing to the whole. It is with the full acceptance of this
 10/18/15
HON 211

ideology that we find value in understanding the way simple forms react to stimuli. The primitive
act of behavior modification is exhibited in all forms. It is fundamental for survival and
evolution. To examine this, Kenon started small. He zoomed in, looking at the picture in the most
simplistic method he knew of; invertebrates. The neurons in these basic forms mediate inhibition
and excitation when reacting to stimuli, leading to the discovery that nervous system and reflexes
enable behavioral modification. These modifications are tied to learning and memory. This
information is stored even in invertebrates. The vertebrate brain, while still capable of simple
responses, contains incredibly more cells and interconnections which lead to highly complex
behaviors. Neuroscience is only beginning to understand these interconnections as philosophy
expands to account for the human experiences they potentially create.
There is little conceptual evidence to prove consciousness as a direct outcome of the
nervous system. Consciousness can best be accounted for as an aspect of complex animal life
that is dependent (rather than a result of) the dynamic organization of the human nervous
system. This coexistence with the nervous system, further explained through the phylogeny and
neurology of human emotion, most clearly proves its importance by motivating behaviors to
improve the chances of survival (Schouborg). This dependency is quickly being mapped out,
giving scholars inspiration to create a new method of study, as Barbara Stafford suggests, a new
Meta-Field. Combining humanities and neurosciences denies the Cartesian idea of body
separate from mind. In order to evolve towards a deeper understanding of human existence,
striving to define the bodys role on the mind may lead to great questions being answered. Until
this time, the identification of promising philosophical theories will pinpoint how far this social
science has come on its own.
Just as Kandel turned to neuroscience to bridge gaps through physical proof rather than
intangible theory, a majority of the scientists maintain a distractingly heavy focus on this
conclusive evidence. One particular oddity is source of their hypotheses. Whose mind created the
concept to be tested? Even if it was the scientist determining a theoretical hypothesis to prove,
the curiosity within themselves was philosophically contemplated. It is within the analysis of
experimental processes that prove just how dependent sciences are on humanities. However ripe
the study of evolutionary adaptations continues to be, further questions continue the search
deeper, into something much less tangible. It is clear that nerve cells, synapses, cyclic AMP, etc.,
maintain themselves in phylogeny. It is clearer that the major goal of life is survival, something
the human body does in two ways: consciously and subconsciously. The part of the human body
capable of surviving (without demanding conscious reflection to motivate behavior modification)
mimics this role observed in lower forms. This behavior is most observed with a sensory feeling
such as pain. Bringing this phylogenetic complexity to a higher level, pain that is registered in a
more advanced cognition can develop into fear. This emotion of fear, philosophers argue, is
either brought on once the bodily reaction is realized (James theory), or once the threat of the
object is realized (Diona & Teroni). The difference in these views is intentionality. For example,
if there is a threatening dog approaching, one may feel fear after they growl. The persons
emotion may be a perception of their bodys sympathetic reaction to the action of an animal, with
intentionality based on the danger of the dog. James theory says the intentionality combines with
the experience, basing the emotion solely on the bodily reaction. This theory seems to logically
 10/18/15
HON 211

agree with the evolutionary goal of survival while accounting for a bodys reaction to stimuli as
it continues to undergo the same process it has used in lower forms throughout time. However,
this logic also stands at the theorys demise. It is illogical to account for all emotions with a
process that does not bring to value the complexity of human cognition and conscience.
All creatures learn and store memory, this is their fundamental role for surviving and
adaptation. When humans learn and store memory, however, they do so consciously. They can
think about these memories, form attitudes toward them, and seek out deeper meanings. Perhaps
evolution has gifted humanity this ability to reflect for the sake of survival. It could be that
maintaining and advancing in morality is key to our survival. Many emotions (anger, guilt, joy,
pride) are both reflections to our own actions and to those of others. The nature of wrongdoing
has been viewed differently throughout modern cultures and even throughout time. However, it
continues to work at the base of forming law, religion, and standards for a given society to
follow. This proves that the tie between human emotion and morality goes to set the fundamental
rules that dictate livelihood of the masses. Moralitys dependence on emotions can be furthered
through the analysis of motivational states brought on from emotions. For example, if Joes
apartment is on fire, he will feel fear and be motivated to flee in order for survival. His ability to
reflect on the situation may remind him of his beliefs and desires, motivating him to run back
inside and rescue his neighbors child. The first time Joe ran out of the apartment, his actions
were likely instinctual and his removal from danger can be classified as a behavioral
modification. Upon reflecting, his fear is motivated by empathy and compassion, classifying his
actions at this point, as motivational. For the sake of semantics, behavioral modification and
motivation will be separately defined. While both are actions taken post stimuli, a motivation has
been brought on by moral reflection (e.g. anger leading to activism, guilt leading to forgiveness,
joy leading to positive life changes) while a behavioral modification only requires a basic
response to stimuli. Motivation can be positive or negative based on morality. Someones anger
or loneliness may lead them to commit a horrible act. With the application of evolution in
constant motion, this horrible act may lead people to feel a given way (e.g. sympathy) in a
situation that they had not previously been exposed to, leading to positive change for humanity.
With this empirically analyzed philosophy in mind, natures goal is understood as bringing
humans to a higher level of morality. This morality level will encourage empathy for all
creatures, leading to survival of individuals and others.
The human brain is not designed to analyze the human brain. This is why Kenons
decision to mechanistically view this phenomenological concept was so significant. The human
brain can understand machines. We build machines, we build understandings of our physical
universe through machine functioning processes. It is through this process that we can come to
terms with vast, undiscovered knowledge, honing in on the gaps that have yet to be filled. It is at
this point that we bring up the root separation of beliefs and desires, two psychological states that
further the understanding of motivation, acceptance, and conception of reality. There exist two
separate directions of fit when it comes to a psychological state. Mind-to-World fit explains the
orientation of a belief. A person believing they are stupid will hold this belief due to their
experiences with the world putting them into this box. When someone holds a desire, on the
other hand, the fit becomes World-to-Mind. The person sees what the world actually is and,
 10/18/15
HON 211

holding a desire for it to be different, may be motivated to change it. This idea holds that
someone who is motivated will act with their beliefs and desires in mind. The morality of their
action is dependent on the morality of the world around them and the morality that lies within
themselves.
Emotions, so deeply interwoven with phenomenology, are rapidly being understood
through the advancement of neuroscience and philosophy. While philosophy asks the questions,
neuroscience backs up the answers. As the gap between simple forms and complex, conscious
humans continues to be filled, it is important to remember to ask why. Why evolution has tied
morality to emotions is a tough thing to define, but it remains understood that the neurological
understanding of emotional complexity will never substitute the contemplation of these
questions.

SOURCES:

Eric R. Kandel. The A-Ha Moment: Nerve Cells and Behavior. Scientific American.
September/October 2015; Topix Media Lab Special #3, 2015:32-45.

Harle, Rob. "A Field Guide to a New Meta-Field: Bridging the Humanities-Neuroscience Divide
edited by Barbara Maria Stafford, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, U.S.A., and London,
U.K., 2011. 368 Pp., Illus. Trade, Paper. ISBN: 978-0-226-77055-0." Leonardo 45.3 (2012): 306-
7. Web.

Julien A. Deonna and Fabrice Teroni, The Emotions. A Philosophical Introduction, London/New
York: Routledge, 2012, 137 pp.

"Relocating Affect in Continental Thought, Self and Emotional Life: Philosophy, Psychoanalysis,
and Neuroscience, by Adrian Johnston and Catherine Malabou, Columbia University Press,
2013." Cultural Critique 90 (2015): 203-11. Web.

Schouborg, Gary (2000). "Review: Why We Feel, by Victor S. Johnston". Journal of

Consciousness Studies, 7 n.7, 88-90.