Does the West educate about emotions?

Shawn

As some might say the psychologist might as well be your best friend and be taken more seriously.

In a plethora of my threads, I seem to engage in a moot topic with individuals. I may be addressing the wrong crowd; but, I have this sort of idea that Western psychology educates individuals about emotions, as gruesome as this may sound to the psychologist sitting there and trying to create a narrative for the patient in his or her office.

I seem to have come across the phenomenon that society gives indicators on how one ought to behave, yet nobody in the West would dare educate anyone about what or how to feel. Ideals, goals, focus, and foresight are excluded from the analysis as far as I can tell and due to socio-economics or culture.

My hypothesis is that many people stereotype themselves when confronting emotional disorders. They simply say it is a personality issue or attitude. This happens very often with regards to young adults seemingly told to overcome the issue, whether it is related to lability or affective moods to take medicine or engage in activities or programming.

I for one cannot discern if the OP's title is really adequate, and in what direction it should go. On the one hand I have no issues with being educated about emotions if the person doesn't have enough life experience to deal with them adequately. The typical pointers towards that of medication to be taken in case it is depression or prodromal issues is too fast and hard as it is, so why does or won't psychology educate about emotions?

The ancients often spoke about virtues and vices in terms of Aristotelian, including the Stoics and Epicureans, virtue ethics. What happened since then? Am I just the only guy noticing this or surely some other folks think this is true on face value and ought to be fostered or promoted?

Tom Storm

↪Shawn

Psychologists are a diverse group, good and bad, a wide range of backgrounds, interests, and focuses, representing a vast range of schools and theoretical positions. Often a patient's inability to manage negative emotions is seen an indicator of something else. If this issue is addressed, the assumption may be made that the emotions may be better integrated.

I am not sure that psychologists educate people about emotions as such but rather they educate patients about why particular events might trigger certain emotional reactions and how to better manage this. The idea is to get to a person's process or thoughts before the emotional reaction kicks in. Bear in mind that what is required will depend a lot on whether the issues spring from trauma, a mood disorder, a personality disorder, or a situational crisis.

Shawn

↪Tom Storm

Yes, however, on a broader scale do adolescents and the youth in the West get educated about emotions?

It seems to me that behaviorally they can be directed, and even parents don't educate youth or young adults about how to become, perhaps, more wise about how to deal with emotions?

Tom Storm

Perhaps you are talking about something else. For me, emotions are a reaction to something. It is that something that needs to be understood and unpacked.

Young people sometimes need to be taught about boundaries of appropriate behavior (esp anger) but this is separate matter.

Shawn

↪Tom Storm

Not really that much to argue about, but, yes there's something to the notion that I attest to being true that the US and Europe stand out in raising the youth by adherence to certain behaviors.

I'm just wondering if those behaviors include affective reactions to situations or even ailments, as per the OP.

Wayfarer

The ancients often spoke about virtues and vices in terms of Aristotelian, including the Stoics and Epicureans, virtue ethics. — Shawn

Notice the emphasis in those texts in 'subduing the passions'. You never hear about that in modern psychology. The economic order relies on exploiting them. In Aristotelian and Stoic philosophy there is a conception of the good and of purpose (telos) which the wise bring themselves into accordance with.

We're not emotionally educated along those lines because there's nothing in capitalist economic theory that recognises such a concept. There might be individual psychologists who do (like Carl Rogers), but it's not really part of the overall curriculum.

I think Jules Evans is a relevant source in this context. Have a look at his Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations, if you haven't already. Some of the books in the See Also carosel underneath, which look pretty good too.

Shawn

Notice the emphasis in those texts in 'subduing the passions'. You never hear about that in modern psychology. — Wayfarer

Are you sure the profit motif is related to this, or were these teachings simply (for some strange reason) disregarded or done away with.

I mean, if you really think about it, virtue comes first, not deontology.

We're not emotionally educated along those lines because there's nothing in capitalist economic theory that recognises such a concept. — Wayfarer

So, you really think it's due to economic theory. I see the point here about relating this to some conception of economics dominating the importance of, perhaps, exploitation rather than obeying norms.

I think Jules Evans is a relevant source in this context. Have a look at his Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations, if you haven't already. Some of the books in the See Also carosel underneath, which look pretty sensational also. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the book, I know very well about the revival of Stoicism in modern day ethical thought. Yet, if one prods a little deeper, is it perhaps due to these very things about taming one's emotions rather than expressing them in healthy ways?

However, I still think that 'psychology' is mostly a Western school of thought encompassing Europe and the US.

Shawn

Going a little off on a tangent, I think that virtue ethics in the US and Europe are significantly more important than other ethical theories, and think the revival of Stoicism in modern thought is important due to people feeling some similarities with Christianity.

Of course it might as well just be a fad; but, if you look at people committing to Stoicism, it usually doesn't need to be repeated that being indifferent towards circumstances out of one's control is a great way to live a life without too many issues.

Wayfarer

Are you sure the profit motif is related to this, or were these teachings simply (for some strange reason) disregarded or done away with. — Shawn

Not 'some strange reason'. Part of 'the Enlightenment'. You'll actually find many cogent criticism of that in 'critical theory' - Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Marcuse. One Dimensional Man. How capitalism is only intrested in exploiting reason for instrumental ends.

I was lucky to get some self-awareness training from one of the groups that sprung up in the 70's. Kind of a combination of EST and Transcendental Meditation. Then I went and studied the curriculum of those materials. It's not mainstream, it's counter-cultural - 'hippie metaphysics', you could call it. Still at it.

You ought to read up on Alisdair McIntyre, After Virtue. It's a major textbook in ethical theory, I'm not saying read it cover to cover, but it's one of those books we all should know about.

I still think that 'psychology' is mostly a Western school of thought encompassing Europe and the US. — Shawn

And you'd be right. It too is very much a product of Enlightenment rationalism.

Shawn

Not 'some strange reason'. Part of 'the Enlightenment'. You'll actually find many cogent criticism of that in 'critical theory' - Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Marcuse. One Dimensional Man. How capitalism is only intrested in exploiting reason for instrumental ends. — Wayfarer

But, it's really strange, that emotions we're already effectively stipulated a long time ago in some conceptual framework that is Aristotelianism or Epicureanism and even Stoicism, by the ancients, and to this day people and some professionals think emotions are irrational.

Are emotions really irrational?

Humdrum.

Shawn

Are emotions really irrational? — Shawn

And, then you have one of the greats, saying

"...reason is the handmaiden to the passions."
-Hume

Go figure!

Wayfarer

↪Shawn

The ancients didn't use the term 'emotions'. As I said, they talked in terms of subduing the passions, which is something you never read of in modern texts. So, what were they? I think it encompasses much of what we mean by 'emotion' although has broader scope.

In any case, the hallmark of 'the sage' was detachment, which means, being unemotional. I guess Mr Spock is a fairly recent pop-culture example. Although of course, the way he's depicted, his inability to 'feel' is also a weakness that leads to errors of judgement.

There's a lot of stuff to unpack in all of that. I think, for instance, that Buddhism also prizes 'subduing the passions' - particularly sexual attraction, craving for possessions and the like. But at the same time, there's also an emphasis on compassion, in terms of empathy for others, rejoicing in others' well-being and sympathy for their plight, which is hardly 'unfeeling'.

I wouldn't trust Hume as far as I could throw him on that judgement.

Leghorn

The ancient notion is that reason should rule the passions (emotions). It is that idea that has been overcome in modernity, replaced by the notion that we must be allowed to express them in a “healthy way”. But when you are overcome by anger, for example, how can you express that in a healthy way? You are already overcome. The outcome of that expression is most likely to be destruction...either of yourself or some other(s) or both.

Wayfarer

Freud has a great deal to answer for in all this.

Shawn

There's a lot of stuff to unpack in all of that. I think, for instance, that Buddhism also prizes 'subduing the passions' - particularly sexual attraction, craving for possessions and the like. But at the same time, there's also an emphasis on compassion, in terms of empathy for others, rejoicing in others' well-being and sympathy for their plight, which is hardly 'unfeeling'. — Wayfarer

Yes, as of recent, I've been interested in finding a way to portray Buddhists or Stoics, as emotionally more mature, and by definition of 'emotional intelligence' if one is aware of one's emotions, then technically doesn't that render them more emotionally intelligent than other people, by professing what you raise above?

I think the answer is, yes.

Wayfarer

↪Shawn

And I would agree!

Shawn

The ancient notion is that reason should rule the passions (emotions). It is that idea that has been overcome in modernity, replaced by the notion that we must be allowed to express them in a “healthy way”. But when you are overcome by anger, for example, how can you express that in a healthy way? You are already overcome. The outcome of that expression is most likely to be destruction...either of yourself or some other(s) or both. — Todd Martin

Sounds like Fromm.

Shawn

I read the Wiki on the McIntyre entry for After Virtue, and almost laughed at what emotivism has come to be defined by in modern thought, @Wayfarer.

It's a joke to think about moral emotivism in terms of capitalist thought, even though, I'm not much of a Marxist or anything; but, know all about the sociocultural aspects of a capitalist society fairly well.

Meaning, that moral emotivism can be hijacked to serve the need or desire of the socio-economic system under which one lives.

It's pretty interesting to note, that behaviorism is such an old theory of psychology that won't change despite the 2000's being an era of cognitivism, heh.

baker

I have this sort of idea that Western psychology educates individuals about emotions — Shawn

I think Western psychology tries to educate people about how to be a secular atheist (upper) middle class person.

I seem to have come across the phenomenon that society gives indicators on how one ought to behave, yet nobody in the West would dare educate anyone about what or how to feel.

I think that education about "feelings" have always been primarily part of the hidden curriculum.

so why does or won't psychology educate about emotions?

Western psychology prides itself in being morally neutral. This limits its scope.

I'm just wondering if those behaviors include affective reactions to situations or even ailments, as per the OP. — Shawn

Of course. Just see what happens when someone doesn't laugh or cry "at the appropriate" time.

Are emotions really irrational? — Shawn

For someone who believes that humans are, basically, machines, or meat, emotions surely are irrational.

Tom Storm

I think Western psychology tries to educate people about how to be a secular atheist (upper) middle class person. — baker

That can happen but that would be bad psychology and a generalisation. Some psychologists are religious (Jesuits; rabbis; Anglicans; Buddhists). I would be more inclined to say that psychologists work to assist people to identify their own strengths and interests and develop an achievable plan for a happier or better functioning life (based on how the client identifies this).

Are emotions really irrational? — Shawn

Not sure credible people would argue this this. But some emotional reactions to events/things are irrational. Wife beating, assaulting shop keepers because a product is sold out, weeping all the time when the word father is mentioned.... those kinds of things. Or just feeling sad or angry every hour of every day.

baker

That can happen but that would be bad psychology and a generalisation. — Tom Storm

Look at the DSM. What can you infer: What mentality produced such definitions of mental ailments and the proposed treatments for them?

Some psychologists are religious (Jesuits; rabbis; Anglicans; Buddhists). I would be more inclined to say that psychologists work to assist people to identify their own strengths and interests and develop an achievable plan for a happier or better functioning life (based on how the client identifies this).

It looks like you're talking about some kind of voluntary and private practice system of psychotherapy, where the patient (!) still has some say. And not about the public mental health care system.

baker

I have this sort of idea that Western psychology educates individuals about emotions — Shawn

Are you familiar with the work of Matthew Ratcliffe, for example?

https://pure.york.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/matthew-james-ratcliffe(b72a80cf-1953-464c-823e-c7559d8f55ae)/publications.html

https://york.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe

Some of his titles:

Experiences of Depression: A Study in Phenomenology (Chapter 1. The World of Depression)

Philosophical Empathy (in the Style of Merleau-Ponty)

Feelings of Being: Phenomenology, Psychiatry and the Sense of Reality

Emotional Intentionality

Existential Feelings

Evaluating Existential Despair

Empathy without Simulation

There can be no Cognitive Science of Dasein

The Phenomenology of Existential Feeling

Tom Storm

Look at the DSM. What can you infer: What mentality produced such definitions of mental ailments and the proposed treatments for them? — baker

That's psychiatry and not all that many psychologists would take the DSM too literally - it has a very American/hard clinical and diagnostic bias. That said DSM also has some valuable material in it.

It looks like you're talking about some kind of voluntary and private practice system of psychotherapy, where the patient (!) still has some say. And not about the public mental health care system. — baker

I'm talking good psychology - public and private. Maybe where you are things are different. Psychology, like all professions, is impacted upon by the culture in which it is located.

Like most professions there are good and bad. There may even be more shit ones than good ones. But that doesn't warrant slamming all of them.

baker

Like most professions there are good and bad. There may even be more shit ones than good ones. But that doesn't warrant slamming all of them. — Tom Storm

Wrong. They should be judged by the power they legally have. And they all have the same power, whether they are good or bad.

Tom Storm

↪baker

That makes no sense and once again you are off on your obsession with status. You are not addressing the point and are returning again to hierarchies. Not interested.

And of course they do not all have the same status. Far from it.

baker

↪Tom Storm

Your lack of considering the role of socio-economic status in interpersonal relationships, formal and informal, is typical for "liberals" ...

off on your obsession with status — Tom Storm

No. It just means that you are among the privileged who don't have to concern themselves with the implications of socio-economic status (and who can, instead, enjoy the fruits thereof).
Yay, lucky you!

Shawn

I think that education about "feelings" have always been primarily part of the hidden curriculum. — baker

In what manner, or can you provide an example?

Western psychology prides itself in being morally neutral. This limits its scope. — baker

How so?

Tom Storm

↪baker

Your lack of considering the role of socio-economic status in interpersonal relationships, formal and informal, is typical for "liberals" ...

off on your obsession with status
— Tom Storm

No. It just means that you are among the privileged who don't have to concern themselves with the implications of socio-economic status (and who can, instead, enjoy the fruits thereof).
Yay, lucky you! — baker

All nonsense and projection. Not a Liberal or privileged - and this mild name calling doesn't address the point.

180 Proof

Notice the emphasis in those texts in 'subduing the passions'. You never hear about that in modern psychology. The economic order relies on exploiting them. — Wayfarer

:100: :up:

baker

All nonsense and projection. Not a Liberal or privileged - and this mild name calling doesn't address the point. — Tom Storm

What you display is what I call liberalism and privilege.
And a psychologist, insisting on you-messages? Really? No need to exemplify all the myths and stereotypes about psychologists.

baker

I think that education about "feelings" have always been primarily part of the hidden curriculum.
— baker

In what manner, or can you provide an example? — Shawn

Have you been told, or have you heard others being told things like:
"You can't let this get to you!"
"Buck up!"
"Don't be such a cry baby!"
"Boys don't cry!"
"Get yourself together!"
"Stop whining!"
"Look on the bright side!"
"Relax!"
"Calm down!"

This is how people tell eachother what the right way to feel at any given time is.

Western psychology prides itself in being morally neutral. This limits its scope.
— baker
How so?

Are you asking about the first or the second part?

Does the West educate about emotions?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions