* What determines the interpretation of an emotion in the following situation?
- For one who likes physical exercise, one would feel happy walking to the office from home. However, if one realized that the key was forgotten when arriving at the entrance of the office, why one would feel unhappy because the need for walking is exactly the same distance with the same exercise?
* Is anger one of the default emotional responses when there is no rational solution available in a certain situation? What would be the other default emotional responses?
This is a very interesting question. Contemporary continental european philosophers, such as the deconstructivist school, has effectively tried to dichotomize language constructs based on the pair/pole relation (like Ying/Yang in oriental spirituality).
Even fuzzy logic only gives a probability density function over the (0,1) values which itself is nothing more than a point in some space which can be represented as (0,1)'s.
It seems to be a trap/condition of the human mind and percept.
Contemporary mathematics has the notion of choice function... and mathematicians have tried to develop logic systems without the axiom of choice. But I am suspecting that even these systems of logic can at least be represented as (0,1)'s.
I wonder, is your primary question is a developmental/evolutionary one?
The binary poles you choose would not be the ones I would choose. I, for example, would often consider the opposite of love to be apathy, rather than hate. Where does 'no emotion' fit? Mass repertory grids might get to the bottom of it!
I think it's in binary pairs and depends of the finality, and the perception of others.
You're tapping into one version of the classic category vs. dimension problem. Many emotion theorists and researchers have advocated for a dimensional approach, and most of their models are bipolar or binary. This goes back at least as far as Wundt's laboratory in the 19th century, but it's still a live issue. What you're calling the binary emotions represent the two extremes. Usually these models include only 2 - 3 such dimensions. A simple example would be pleasant/unpleasant and active/passive. Individual emotion words can be "placed" on this conceptual space.
Of course, there's another, equally reputable set of theories that argue for the existence of discrete emotions: each a unique category, each playing a specific adaptive role. Darwin would be a good example from the 19th century; Tomkins and his followers, from the 20th. Under these models, it makes little or no sense to speak of "opposite" emotions.
Think of it as the war between the mathematicians and the naturalists.
In my opinion, answer is "No" because there is always a diplomatic answer of every question!!!
Anger is one of the default emotional responses when there is no rational solution available in a certain situation. Other default emotional responses can be Unhappiness, Tension, Frustration, may be Depression also.
And in rare case for some who accepts the situation as it is or those who thinks "Everything which happens, happens for good reason", Happiness can also be the emotional response.
To be and not to be are all time in the same moment. (To be and not to be anything else). All time we function in pairs.
When you are defining in every thing else, you are defining what are you and what are you not. (This in you).
Out of youself the perception of "others" must choose if this is true or not. You can take on account this, more or less (if you are sure), but normally you must note this to the next step.
When you feel that you need to explain why it's true your feeling, you must put yourself in the negation of this. (You can imagine you in the opposite of yourself, in the opposite of your real feeling).
In society (others), community, (like Human), we need all time the two sides.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science