User:Ruben/TP3/1 Is an emotion an object?

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki

Is an emotion an object (Or can an emotion be an object?)

Last week, when talking about objects we asked: is anger an object? In this (rather short) text I will describe my first steps in exploring this question.

To break it down I'm going put some preliminary notes (which are most certainly lacking completeness) on the following questions:

  • What is an object?
  • What is an emotion?
  • What are the relations between these definitions?
    • Can we think of other definitions/angles that might bring the two together?
  • If we would state that an emotion is an object; what does this entail/mean? What are the consequences?

What is an object?

In philosophy it seems to be defined as:

  • Wikipedia: "A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed."
  • New Oxford American Dictionary: "... a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed"
  • Wiki Dutch: "Als algemene omschrijving kan gezegd worden dat een object datgene is waar de mens zijn aandacht, zijn bewustzijn, op richt."

So mind you: it's not (necesarily) a thing

Despite other definitions of objects (ie. in linguistics), computer programming seems to have an interesting description as well:

The English Wikipedia describes it as such:

In computer science, an object is a location in memory having a value and possibly referenced by an identifier. An object can be a variable, a data structure, or a function. In the class-based object-oriented programming paradigm, "object" refers to a particular instance of a class where the object can be a combination of variables, functions, and data structures.

Though, it seems the Dutch version provides a much more interesting - general - description of the same:

Een object in de object-oriëntatie is een verzameling van toestandsruimte en operaties binnen een draaiend, object-georiënteerd programma.

So it seems to be a collection of states and operations

What is an emotion?

A state; spontaneous/without (or despite) conscious thought.

But consider the saying: "a conflict between emotions and intellect" ⟶ In this case it's not a state, but rather a part or party (or a method?)

An alternative definition of emotion is a "positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity." (Wikipedia) According to other theories, emotions are not causal forces but simply syndromes of components, which might include motivation, feeling, behavior, and physiological changes, but no one of these components is the emotion. Nor is the emotion an entity that causes these components[4]

What about affect?

"To act on the emotions of; touch or move."

Psychology
Affect is the experience of feeling or emotion.[1] Affect is a key part of the process of an organism's interaction with stimuli. The word also refers sometimes to affect display, which is "a facial, vocal, or gestural behavior that serves as an indicator of affect" (APA 2006).

AFFECT/AFFECTION. Neither word denotes a personal feeling (sentiment in Deleuze and Guattai). L’affect (Spinoza’s affectus) is an ability to affect and be affected. It is a prepersonal intensity corresponding to the passage from one experiential state of the body to another and implying an augmentation or diminution in that body’s capacity to act. L’affection (Spinoza’s affection) is each such state considered as an encounter between the affected body and a second, affecting, body … (Massumi, Plateaus xvi) - Feeling, Emotion, Affect

What are the relations between these definitions?

It seems both an object and an emotion are things or states that are being observed/experienced by a subject.

That makes it actually highly likely that an emotion is an object.

Even though one might expect that an emotion is object of our thought, it is actually an object in itself, as 'observation'/'experience' is anchored in it's definition.

If we say an emotion is an object, what are the consequences?

  • We can ask ourselves: is an emotion still there if it's not (consciously) perceived? As an object requires a subject.
  • If emotions need to be conscious, than it seems affective responses (ie. crying) can be without emotions.
    • Spectatorship might than be more about affect display than triggering emotions (because; are we sincerely sad when we cry in the movies? I'm not completely sure)
    • The Dutch word 'Effectbejag' seems to get an interesting connotation; as it means a performance's only goal is to get affect display - but maybe not necessarily the emotions.
  • If emotions are objects, than what is the 'thing' (Heidegger) related to them? What is an emotion without it being perceived?
  • If it's an object, how is it self-supporting?
    • What does it consist of?
  • Emotions must be (deliberately?) produced.
    • Are they produced by the experiencing subject, or by another party?
    • What then, are they made of?
  • Object: ob: in the way of, jacere: to throw - how does this relate to an emotion? .......

Extra quotes (good to know & nice to have)

In de ontologie (zijnsleer) geldt het object als een fundamenteel begrip. Samen met de begrippen als eigenschap, relatie, gebeurtenis maar ook propositie, verzameling en de universalia geldt het object als een wezenlijke ontologische categorie. Samen omvatten deze begrippen al het bestaande - dus elke entiteit.

Sinds het dualisme van Descartes wordt het object tegenover het subject geplaatst (subject-objectscheiding): een subject geldt in ontologische zin echter wel degelijk als een object. Het onderscheidende verschil is hier dat het subject, een bewust ik, dat geen deel uitmaakt van het object, actief waarneemt, terwijl het object een passieve rol speelt en louter en alleen wordt waargenomen.

Possible reads (aka. TODO's)

  • The Affect Theory Reader
Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=User:Ruben/TP3/1_Is_an_emotion_an_object%3F&oldid=78634"