All ways. Everyday.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expresses that feelings are whatever implies pleasure or pain and that states are one’s position in relation to the extremes of excess and deficiency regarding the feeling. I will base my theorem on this while expanding on it to include the emotional response. Indeed, feelings are the innate, fundamental elements of our soul that imply pleasure or pain, but, more explicitly, the core feelings of love and fear. There is a direct metaphysical connection regarding feelings, because there is no appearance or physical distinction. Feelings are the innate foundation of which all other mental phenomena are derived. Therefore, emotions are the immediate responses of propositional judgments and/or perceptions towards the base feeling. Magna Arnold brought forth the concept of appraisal into psychology, which is the process through which the significance of a situation for an individual is determined, and I shall apply it in terms of emotions. Emotions are reactions, which are appraised as beneficial or harmful in relation to the feeling. This immediate reaction to the feeling is our emotive response. Emotions, however, are dependent on several factors: one of which is our mental “state”. A state of mind is not to be confused with one’s mood, although they are often considered synonymous. A state is one’s position in relation to the intermediate condition of the feeling, whereas, one’s mood is the physical expression of one’s state. I refer to a mood as the color, or tone, of one’s state; just as the state is the color or tone in relation to the feeling. Since many philosophers, scientists, and psychologists have mistakenly interchanged these terms over time there has been quite some confusion as to each of their functions. If feelings, emotions, and states were all the same then it would be safe to say that a state is merely a feeling about a feeling in relation to a feeling. How confusing is that? In conclusion, I will reiterate that a feeling is the inner-knowing, an intuitive sense, an innate awareness, the fundamental phenomena of the mental conscious and subconscious, and it is what all other conscious and subconscious activity derives from.
Conversely, William James would vehemently disagree, and I believe Baruch Spinoza would have a few words of disapproval, as well. Spinoza says “ an emotional behavior comes first, causally and in evolution, with the conscious feelings a later by product: feelings are mostly shadows of the external manners of emotions.” What he is saying is that feelings such as love and fear are a by-product of the initial emotive response, however he specifies that emotions are accompanied by the idea of an external cause. Further, there must be an object to love or an object to fear for to a feeling to exist, or as he interprets, for an emotion to exist. In essence, a feeling is no more than an idea while emotions are the awareness of bodily symptoms. Expanding on that notion, William James, along with Carl G. Lange, introduced the “James-Lange Theory”, which says that emotions and feelings are caused by changes in physiological conditions. It is the awareness of bodily responses that would constitute a feeling. In other words, according to the “James-Lange” Theory, people only feel if they are aware of their own internal physical reactions to events. “We feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and [it is] not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry or fearful, as the case may be.” James declares. (James 1884, 190) Mental states do not have a place in James’ theorem, as the state of mind is conditional of a physiological disturbance. Therefore, we must say that a state of mind is a reflection of the state of the body such that the mind-state is in relation to the physiological status. Within the mind-body connection the mind is merely a monitor of the bodily function and it’s reactions inasmuch the mental state, feelings, and emotions are secondary in relation to the bodily responses. In conclusion, the mind is a representation of the body and its purpose and functions are symbolic of the state of the body.
How can it be possible that feelings and emotions are caused solely by an awareness of bodily response? I am well aware that I smile because I am happy, not that I am happy because I smile. Of course, there are certain actions and bodily responses that will elicit an emotive response as there is a causal interdependence, but to make an absolute statement is a reckless exaggeration of inclined dependence on the body’s role. Spinoza states that feelings are a “shadow” of an emotional response in relation to some external object, however he also alludes to feelings being of a God nature. If Spinoza were alive I would ask him what his definition of a feeling really is. “Is it subject to emotive response or is it more of a metaphysical nature? Is a feeling this “3rd Body” that you speak of, or rather is it gained from experience as you also state?” And what would a state be? Could it simply be deduced to a passion? No wonder Spinoza spoke of emotions being often confused, I think he was referring to his mental state. With all due respect, it is difficult to know what one does not know. Mental phenomena is a highly personal experience for it is of our own mind. As Rene Descartes propounds, “It is impossible for the soul to feel a passion without the passion being truly as one feels it.” Our state is, indeed, in alliance with our feelings. There is, without a doubt, a connection between the body and mind, however one must look beyond physiology to intelligibly discuss mental phenomena. One thing remains the same, over time emotions may change and our states may fluctuate, but our innate feelings will always be just as they are – feelings. This feeling is always present in our psyche, and once a mental or physical event takes place, an immediate response, which could either be physical or mental, is elicited. This is our emotive response. Our emotions are characteristically different than innate feelings in the respect that they are subject to conditioning. What I mean by conditioning is that, over time, experience will habituate one’s emotional response, whereas a feeling does not change. For example, when one feels true love for another he/she wants to appropriate nothing other than love for their beloved, however in a heated argument leading to a break-up, love is forgotten and an emotional response takes over which may lead to a fit of anger and perhaps violence. Love is not the question, although it does play part in the answer. Following the initial feeling to the emotive response comes a state of mind; the innate feeling exudes a state of mind, however the emotive response acts as a pollutant altering the state. If one is to be in an optimum state, he/she must find the balance or immediate condition in relation to the feeling. This can only be done by controlling our emotions and, in particular, their responses. If feelings do not change and states are constantly changing depending on the emotional responses, it is safe to conclude that one must be of a balanced emotional mind-set. As Aristotle asserts, “In order to be in a state, we must produce the desired state in a manner that is in accord with that state – therefore, we must be in accord with the knowledge that is within.” So, in terms of the previous example, one must make a connection with the innate feeling of love and be consciously aware of that feeling in order to maintain a state of love. If one is consciously aware of the feeling without question, then the emotional response will be an intermediate condition providing for an optimized state. The state, emotive response and feeling will all be in accord and, in essence, be depictive of the innate feeling. Ultimately, I suppose if we interchange the terminology it could be said that a state is no more than a feeling about a feeling in relation to the feeling.
John Stuart
