A very interesting discussion. One small and hopefully relevant comment: The Spinozist position that Neu advocates for, if it follows Spinoza, treats perceptions as belonging to thought. So when Prinz says that emotions are perceptions of changes in bodily states, this is actually very close to what Spinoza also thinks emotions are. The whole project of Spinoza's ethics of affects can be said to boil down to an attempt at bringing people to conscious awareness of the eliciting conditions of their bodily changes and the thoughts (including perceptions) necessarily tied to them. It seems to me like an element to Neu and Prinz's disagreement is that Prinz thinks that when Neu speaks of "thoughts" that they are more narrowly propositional than they actually are.
As a teacher of Spinoza's philosophy, in his Ethics, part 3 is about, "the origin and the nature of our emotions." Spinoza's definition 3 of an emotion is clear. If you understand, there's no debate. The question is, are you in touch with your pain, hate, and anger. What triggers your emotions, and do you understand the definition and the meaning of the affects, the emotions. Trying to define is and debate is intellectual and has not reality to change and understand one's nature. The Way of Spinoza.
A emocao é a expressao do movimento percebido por sua estrutura psicologica pela mudanca sentida por algo estimulante externo a ela. A questao é o self identificar sua forma simbolica.
A very interesting discussion. One small and hopefully relevant comment:
The Spinozist position that Neu advocates for, if it follows Spinoza, treats perceptions as belonging to thought. So when Prinz says that emotions are perceptions of changes in bodily states, this is actually very close to what Spinoza also thinks emotions are. The whole project of Spinoza's ethics of affects can be said to boil down to an attempt at bringing people to conscious awareness of the eliciting conditions of their bodily changes and the thoughts (including perceptions) necessarily tied to them.
It seems to me like an element to Neu and Prinz's disagreement is that Prinz thinks that when Neu speaks of "thoughts" that they are more narrowly propositional than they actually are.
As a teacher of Spinoza's philosophy, in his Ethics, part 3 is about, "the origin and the nature of our emotions." Spinoza's definition 3 of an emotion is clear. If you understand, there's no debate. The question is, are you in touch with your pain, hate, and anger. What triggers your emotions, and do you understand the definition and the meaning of the affects, the emotions. Trying to define is and debate is intellectual and has not reality to change and understand one's nature. The Way of Spinoza.
A emocao é a expressao do movimento percebido por sua estrutura psicologica pela mudanca sentida por algo estimulante externo a ela. A questao é o self identificar sua forma simbolica.
Dogs/pets can get antsy when owners come home late, I doubt animals do not have a 'conception of time' as we understand it
holy crap the whole channel went down...
Nao se usa o mesmo simbolo para se referir as aparencias/empiricos ou qdo. se refere às causas/abstrato do fenomeno.
Dogs are philosophers and have language, it's just we don't understand it.