--------------------------------------------------------------
Reread the definition of emotion that you provide: "Emotion is defined as a sudden disruption, disturbance or fluctuation of the ordinary calm state of the mind." A fluctuation of the mind would imply that an emotion is intellectual, no?
An original claim should come with an original argument. Also, do you think that it is impossible for angels to experience emotion?
You don't think that surprise involves a fluctuation of the mind? Then please define surprise.
Yes, I am only giving a hypothetical. I said as much in my first post. But that's all I need to do. I only need to give an example of the possibility of Adam experiencing an emotion prior to the fall for your claim that emotions are a product of the fall to be undercut.
Divine revelation is often progressive, which leaves open the possibility for surprise in the manner in which an anticipation is fulfilled.
No problem. I will mention that Clark seems to have changed his opinion on the subject of emotion over the course of his life. For instance:
1944. Examination in Theology. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. July 7.
1952. Review of Art and Society, by Catherine Rau. The Philosophical Review 61, No. 2 Apr.
1983. Knowledge and Persons (44:26) (The Sangre de Cristo Lectures on the Holy Spirit, 2)
[Nearly] all church fights are due to emotions.
Fights are bad.
Therefore, emotions are bad.
Further, the audience member's question about Stoicism is well-taken. Consider the following statement Clark makes:
1950. Hellenistic and Roman Schools of Philosophy. In A History of Philosophical Systems Vergilius Ferm, ed. New York: The Philosophical Library.
Jeffrey
https://biblicalogic.blogspot.com/2023/04/thoughts-on-emotions-this-article-is.html?m=1I wrote an article on my blog about emotions. I believe that emotion is not a faculty of the soul and it is the consequence of the fall of man, though a controlled emotional reaction is not necessarily sinful in itself. Biblical virtues such as love, joy, peace, and so on are not emotions, but they are volition. What do you think?
Me
Hello. Fellow Clark aficiando here. I have also written about Gordon Clark and emotions. While I don't necessarily have an issue with the definition you or Clark have for emotions, I would suggest that your argument does not follow.
You say, "Jesus, in His human nature, wept and yet He never once sinned, including in the realm of His emotions." If that is true, why could it not also have been true of Adam in the garden? Are emotions only possible in response to negative events? Are there no emotions associated with positive events? When Eve was formed from Adam's rib, could not his ordinarily "calm state of the mind" have involuntarily "fluctuated" in a good way?
Another scenario: Jesus was righteously angry (emotional?) with money-changers. Could not it have been possible (theoretically) for Adam to have been righteously angry with Satan?
Another question: Do you not think that it is possible that Satan's temptation disturbed Adam's or Eve's ordinarily calm state of mind?
I encourage you to keep blogging and critically thinking through these sorts of issues!
Edit: I will add that in my mind, a metaphysical explanation for how humans can experience emotions requires nothing more than that we are mutable creatures who are capable of being affected and changed by our surroundings.
Hello. Fellow Clark aficiando here. I have also written about Gordon Clark and emotions. While I don't necessarily have an issue with the definition you or Clark have for emotions, I would suggest that your argument does not follow.
You say, "Jesus, in His human nature, wept and yet He never once sinned, including in the realm of His emotions." If that is true, why could it not also have been true of Adam in the garden? Are emotions only possible in response to negative events? Are there no emotions associated with positive events? When Eve was formed from Adam's rib, could not his ordinarily "calm state of the mind" have involuntarily "fluctuated" in a good way?
Another scenario: Jesus was righteously angry (emotional?) with money-changers. Could not it have been possible (theoretically) for Adam to have been righteously angry with Satan?
Another question: Do you not think that it is possible that Satan's temptation disturbed Adam's or Eve's ordinarily calm state of mind?
I encourage you to keep blogging and critically thinking through these sorts of issues!
Edit: I will add that in my mind, a metaphysical explanation for how humans can experience emotions requires nothing more than that we are mutable creatures who are capable of being affected and changed by our surroundings.
Jeffrey
I wish Clark had written more on emotions. But your questions are legitimate, and I have no answers currently. But I have one question to ask: is emotion one of the faculties of the soul? Or do you agree with Clark that it’s only the intellect and the will?
And what do you think of Clark’s view that emotions is the consequence of the fall?Me
Reread the definition of emotion that you provide: "Emotion is defined as a sudden disruption, disturbance or fluctuation of the ordinary calm state of the mind." A fluctuation of the mind would imply that an emotion is intellectual, no?
I think that the argument is an overreach. I can easily imagine that Adam experienced all sorts of emotions prior to the fall. You said, "Adam and Eve could not be emotional because everything was good in Eden." I replied, "When Eve was formed from Adam's rib, could not his ordinarily "calm state of the mind" have involuntarily "fluctuated" in a good way?" Experiencing surprise, for example, would seemingly qualify as an emotion. Well, I can imagine that Adam was surprised to see Eve... but in a good way!
Where does Clark say that? Or are you making an original claim? Either way, the point is that if you consider emotion to be a thought, then it would pertain to the intellect.
I didn't say anything about joy, love, or happiness. I mentioned surprise. Isn't surprise indicative of a fluctuation of the mind? Can't surprise be a good thing, like a surprise party or a surprise wife (Eve)?
JeffreyMe
Emotion can be considered a thought of course. To be more exact, it is an irrational thought that disturbs the rational thought.
I can understand where you are coming from. But I think there is a misconception that joy, love, happiness, etc must involve the emotions or a fluctuated state of the mind. It's hard to imagine, I understand, how these things can be without emotions. As a person filled with many emotions, it was hard to imagine for me as well. Even Gordon Clark shed a little bit of tears when his wife died. But what I know is the Bible tells us to be controlled in our mind be it in the midst of sadness (lest depression or thoughts of suicide comes) or joy (lest the evil of pride comes in).
Where does Clark say that? Or are you making an original claim? Either way, the point is that if you consider emotion to be a thought, then it would pertain to the intellect.
I didn't say anything about joy, love, or happiness. I mentioned surprise. Isn't surprise indicative of a fluctuation of the mind? Can't surprise be a good thing, like a surprise party or a surprise wife (Eve)?
Jeffrey
It's my own original claim. Let's see if i can state it better. Emotion originates from the flesh which causes the mind to think irrationally, hence emotion can be considered an irrational thought. But it is not part of the original faculty of the soul.
I would also suggest that it is a misconception that a surprise must involve emotion or a fluctuation of the mind. Hard to imagine even for me. Furthermore, there wasn't any mention about Adam's surprise, though I think it's a good educated guess.
Another question is would it be valid to say that Adam was surprised despite God's clear direct revelation to him? I think it's more like Adam was expectant or anticipative of God fulfilling His revelation.Me
An original claim should come with an original argument. Also, do you think that it is impossible for angels to experience emotion?
You don't think that surprise involves a fluctuation of the mind? Then please define surprise.
Yes, I am only giving a hypothetical. I said as much in my first post. But that's all I need to do. I only need to give an example of the possibility of Adam experiencing an emotion prior to the fall for your claim that emotions are a product of the fall to be undercut.
Divine revelation is often progressive, which leaves open the possibility for surprise in the manner in which an anticipation is fulfilled.
Jeffrey1. If surprise is an emotion, Adam would not have it.
2. If surprise is not an emotion, Adam could have it. I would probably define it as a volition to assent to the proposition that all things will work together for good for the elect (Rom. 8:28), which is a kind of expectation.
I am undecided. Have to think about it more.
Yes i think it's impossible
Me
By all means, take your time. But as I said, you will, at some point, have to provide an original argument for your original claim. I see no Scriptural nor experiential reason to think that emotions are only possible in response to negative events and only cause the mind to think irrationally.To that end, I just would like to point out that your #1 is, at present, an assertion without argument. As it stands, it begs the question by presupposing your unargued claim that emotions are only a postlapsarian experience. It should be the other way around: you should be presenting an argument for your claim that emotions can only be a postlapsarian experience as well as explaining how my hypotheticals are either impossible or compatible with your claim.
With regard to #2, that definition does not strike me as fitting with the Scriptural usage of the term. For example, one can be surprised and respond in a negative way. The wicked are often "surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you" (1 Peter 4:4). Further, volitional assent to the proposition you mention does not seem to be a good example of surprise. We can expect God works all things together for our good is something. Surprise, I think, is caused by something unexpected.
I see no reason why angels cannot be surprised in this sense, by the way. I can imagine that the protoevangelium to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 may have come as an unexpected surprise, for the good news contains revelation of which angels are said to "long to look" (1 Peter 1:12). Again, if this is even possible, then the definition of emotions you provide would not be sufficient.
By the way, you don't cite it in your blog post, so I'm wondering if you have Today's Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? You can find that book in What is the Christian Life? Clark writes a lot about the emotions in that book.
Not including the number of references in his books, my own research shows that he mentions the emotions 600+ times in various articles, personal notes, letters, etc.
By all means, take your time. But as I said, you will, at some point, have to provide an original argument for your original claim. I see no Scriptural nor experiential reason to think that emotions are only possible in response to negative events and only cause the mind to think irrationally.To that end, I just would like to point out that your #1 is, at present, an assertion without argument. As it stands, it begs the question by presupposing your unargued claim that emotions are only a postlapsarian experience. It should be the other way around: you should be presenting an argument for your claim that emotions can only be a postlapsarian experience as well as explaining how my hypotheticals are either impossible or compatible with your claim.
With regard to #2, that definition does not strike me as fitting with the Scriptural usage of the term. For example, one can be surprised and respond in a negative way. The wicked are often "surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you" (1 Peter 4:4). Further, volitional assent to the proposition you mention does not seem to be a good example of surprise. We can expect God works all things together for our good is something. Surprise, I think, is caused by something unexpected.
I see no reason why angels cannot be surprised in this sense, by the way. I can imagine that the protoevangelium to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 may have come as an unexpected surprise, for the good news contains revelation of which angels are said to "long to look" (1 Peter 1:12). Again, if this is even possible, then the definition of emotions you provide would not be sufficient.
By the way, you don't cite it in your blog post, so I'm wondering if you have Today's Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? You can find that book in What is the Christian Life? Clark writes a lot about the emotions in that book.
Not including the number of references in his books, my own research shows that he mentions the emotions 600+ times in various articles, personal notes, letters, etc.
Jeffrey
Great. I have the old individual books before TF combined some books, but I haven’t got chance to read it. Thanks for sharing.
Me
No problem. I will mention that Clark seems to have changed his opinion on the subject of emotion over the course of his life. For instance:
1944. Examination in Theology. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. July 7.
DR. WELMERS: I believe it is a good illustration, and I don't want to get into odious comparisons here. It is my feeling that the intellect and emotion and will are equally fundamental as aspects of the Human Soul, yet, there is in the calling and serving faith, there is an economic precedent of the intellect, that is that. And, the intellectual grasp of the way of salvation, first requires the saving of faith to both.
Clark: I am willing to admit the intellect and volition and emotion are equally essential to a human being. Now, if that is all you mean, that is that. But - they have different functions and I hold that the intellect is a supreme function.
Another example:
1952. Review of Art and Society, by Catherine Rau. The Philosophical Review 61, No. 2 Apr.
Clark: The chief aim of this small but interesting treatise on Plato's theory of art is to defend him from the charge of committing the "moralistic fallacy" in aesthetics. To do this the author not only examines Plato's words, but tries to understand them in the light of the new developments in art that Plato had in mind; and further by an independent aesthetic experience she finds the Platonic position to be commendable in general, if not in every particular. The description of the art which Plato opposed is enough but barely enough to serve the author's purpose. References to other studies are given, and with these the reader must be satisfied. Her support of the Platonic position by independent aesthetic experience will seem particularly good to one who, like the reviewer, finds himself in substantial agreement. For example: squalid slums and hideous factories depress one's personality; harmonious and noble sights pass through the soul as health-giving breezes; art always influences our emotions; aesthetic experiences affect our morals and our morals affect our taste; the moral effects of art do not end with childhood; and, further, the moral personality of the artist is one of the determinants of the total aesthetic quality of a work of art.I can hardly think of a more pleasant description of a positive emotion than a "health-giving breeze." Compare this to statements he makes 30 years later:
1983. Knowledge and Persons (44:26) (The Sangre de Cristo Lectures on the Holy Spirit, 2)
Audience: Do you feel that emotions are good or bad?Notice Clark essentially commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent:
Clark: Bad. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul say “suppress your emotions”?
Audience: Then we should all be Stoic?
Clark: Huh? Well, not Stoics, no.
Audience: I don’t think emotions are bad.
Clark: You don’t? Well if you ever become the pastor of a church I think you may conclude that. Nearly all the church fights arise out of emotions.
[Nearly] all church fights are due to emotions.
Fights are bad.
Therefore, emotions are bad.
Further, the audience member's question about Stoicism is well-taken. Consider the following statement Clark makes:
1950. Hellenistic and Roman Schools of Philosophy. In A History of Philosophical Systems Vergilius Ferm, ed. New York: The Philosophical Library.
Clark: That the Stoic temper differs radically from the Epicurean, giving rise to the English connotations of those adjectives, may be seen first in some of the detailed advice for everyday living. For example, the Stoic wise man will take part in politics (in fact, Stoicism both directly and indirectly contributed to Roman law); he will marry and raise a family; he will not groan under torture, and in general he will suppress emotion as irrational, neither showing pity nor as a magistrate relaxing the penalties fixed by law; and, since one falsehood is just as false as any other, it follows that all sins are equally great, and all men who are not perfectly wise are arrant knaves. However, if life grows too burdensome, he may commit suicide.Of course, Clark might reply that both Stoics and Christians can seek to suppress emotions without collapsing into one system. In any case, the comparison is noteworthy, and I don't find his subsequent exegesis of Colossians 3:5 to be convincing.
JeffreyThanks for the resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment