Are emotions universal? Can/should we control our emotions? Are emotions the enemy of, or necessary for, good reasoning? Are emotions always linked to belief?
The naturalistic view of emotions is that they are the products of natural processes, with physiological causes and effects. One supporter of this view was Darwin, who believed that emotions are purely physiological and therefore universal and experienced across all cultures. However, there seem to be many examples of culturally bound emotions, for example, the Chinese notion of "sad love". The opposite view is therefore that of the social constructionists, who argue that emotions depend on a social consciousness, and have no natural basis at all. For example, emotions such as shame seem to presuppose a notion of right and wrong.
Emotion has sometimes been regarded as an unreliable way of knowing. Emotions have, for example, been criticized as being irrational obstacles to knowledge that distort our picture of reality. However, others believe that not only do emotions help make sense off social and cultural experiences and behaviors, but they are also the source of social, ethical, and political knowledge by helping us form an understanding of the world around us.
Ways of knowing do not operate in isolation
Ways of knowing should not be viewed in isolation. They interact in various ways in the construction of knowledge and the formation of knowledge claims. For example, even a simple claim such as “this table is blue” involves a number of ways of knowing coming together. I need language to be able to understand the terms “table” and “blue”. I need a conceptual system based on reason to realize that a table is something that has the possibility of being blue. I need sense perception to recognize that what I see is a table and that the colour of the table is blue. In this way, the individual ways of knowing are woven together into more elaborate structures in order to generate knowledge in the areas of knowledge.
The naturalistic view of emotions is that they are the products of natural processes, with physiological causes and effects. One supporter of this view was Darwin, who believed that emotions are purely physiological and therefore universal and experienced across all cultures. However, there seem to be many examples of culturally bound emotions, for example, the Chinese notion of "sad love". The opposite view is therefore that of the social constructionists, who argue that emotions depend on a social consciousness, and have no natural basis at all. For example, emotions such as shame seem to presuppose a notion of right and wrong.
Emotion has sometimes been regarded as an unreliable way of knowing. Emotions have, for example, been criticized as being irrational obstacles to knowledge that distort our picture of reality. However, others believe that not only do emotions help make sense off social and cultural experiences and behaviors, but they are also the source of social, ethical, and political knowledge by helping us form an understanding of the world around us.
Ways of knowing do not operate in isolation
Ways of knowing should not be viewed in isolation. They interact in various ways in the construction of knowledge and the formation of knowledge claims. For example, even a simple claim such as “this table is blue” involves a number of ways of knowing coming together. I need language to be able to understand the terms “table” and “blue”. I need a conceptual system based on reason to realize that a table is something that has the possibility of being blue. I need sense perception to recognize that what I see is a table and that the colour of the table is blue. In this way, the individual ways of knowing are woven together into more elaborate structures in order to generate knowledge in the areas of knowledge.