Reviews for The Rationality of Emotion

The average rating for The Rationality of Emotion based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-07-01 00:00:00 Kasra Kamooneh I really wanted to like this book but, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the author is rattling on about 99% of the time. If you're well-versed in the jargon and well-read in the literature of the philosophy of emotions-- like, maybe a PhD candidate?-- then you might like this book. Or maybe not. I can't judge it any better than I could judge a motorcycle repair manual written in Japanese. Not for the interested layman.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-10-05 00:00:00 Constance Patellos This is a thickly worded (e.g.,antinomies, idiolects, iremic)treatment of emotions that makes it difficult to discern the author's points and overall argument. This book is his attempt to determine "the place of emotions in the theory of rationality." He states that emotions fall somewhere between "intentional actions" (choice) and "passivity" (physiological processes). He concludes that emotions do contribute to such a theory "by supplementing the formal rules" of rationality and that emotions are "susceptible to rational assessment." I'm not sure what either of these points mean. A significant problem is that the author concedes up front that he's not able to give a definition of emotion. He says an emotion has an object target, but doesn't describe why the body should care about this or that object. He also sees objects as having stimulating ("exciting") qualities, with the implication that the body is only a reactor to the outside world. His discussion of the evolutionary basis for behavior is good up to a point, but it is not brought together as part of a comprehensive picture of how we operate. For example, when survival is seen as the ultimate goal, certain "emotions" begin to make sense about how they are parts of a greater whole (how they contribute and support the self to seek what is needed to survive and reproduce). In addition to the so-called hunger and sex drives that are typically dismissed as mere physiological phenomena, the need to love and to be loved, to be part of a group (shame, guilt, embarrassment, loyalty, etc.) and to be a valued member of a group (pride)have rational qualities because they serve as a means to the end goal of survival and reproduction. Similarly, anger and fear become prominent emotions to defend the integrity of the self against aggression. Seen this way, emotional circuits begin and end with the self as it faces survival challenges. Clearly, the self and emotions involve much more than passive responses to objects in the world as the author seems to suggest. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, "emotions" now can be seen as ranging from highly specific drives (hunger, sex), to the universal emotions highlighted by Darwin (e.g., joy, suspicion, deference, affection, astonishment, despair, discomfort, dejection devotion, disdain, indignant, defiance - all of which are expressed in universal ways: weeping, trembling, blushing, frowning, screaming, sneering, snarling), and to a more general internal push of all to seek what is needed from the outside world and to defend against threats. In this evolutionary view, emotions move from a secondary to a primary role. Rather than emotions fitting into a "theory of rationality," a theory will blend emotions and rationality together. There's still a role for rational control - the author's point, I believe - but, the more powerful dynamic is, likely, how emotions, as the core of our being, influence (or infect) our rationality (conscious control). If the goal is survival in a social context, the task for rationality is then how to regulate diverse emotions (that vary in intensity and vary by individuals) to accomplish that goal.