The Monist, Vol. 3, 1892-1893 : $b A quarterly magazineVarious
Philosophy
The Monist, Vol. 3, 1892-1893 : $b A quarterly magazine
Various
Philosophy -- Periodicals
It seems clear to me, from the foregoing considerations, that there are
serious difficulties in the way of accepting Professor James’s theory as
an adequate explanation of all the phenomena of emotion. On the other
hand, I think it contains an important truth, and that, by calling
attention to it, he has rendered a real service to psychology. In order
to make it clear how far I agree with him, it will be necessary to
consider just what feelings are to be classed together under the head of
emotion.
If we touch our fingers to a live coal, we are conscious of a sensation
of heat, and also of pain. If we take quinine into our mouths, it tastes
bitter, and also disagreeable. So in regard to a very large proportion of
our sensations, we recognise two elements—one which has to do with the
qualities of the object, and, another consisting of the pleasurable or
painful way in which those qualities affect us. The former may be called
the objective element in sensation. We think of the heat as residing
in the coal, whether we are touching it or not, but it never occurs
to us to think of the coal as in pain. The pain is in us—an entirely
subjective feeling. Doubtless there is no more reason to think of heat,
as it is appreciated by our senses, as a property of the coal, than pain,
but that is the way in which we naturally think of it. That these two
elements are really distinct is evident from the fact that the different
senses furnish them in different proportions. Comparatively few sights,
for instance, give any such sensuous pain to the eye as the sensation
produced by getting a grain of sand under the lid, which gives us very
little information in regard to the qualities of the offending substance.
In fact, it is generally true that intensity of pleasurable or painful
sensation is a hindrance to exact knowledge of its object. It is further
evident from the fact that, in disease, one form of sensibility may be
abolished while the other is retained. A person may be able to feel the
slightest touch, and to recognise perfectly the size, shape, and texture
of the objects he handles, and yet feel no pain when cut, struck, nor
burned, or he may have even heightened sensibility to painful impressions
with loss of the power to recognise the sensible qualities of objects.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account