Editing William James (section)

== Theory of emotion ==
James is one of the two namesakes of the [[James–Lange theory]] of [[emotion]], which he formulated independently of [[Carl Lange (physician)|Carl Lange]] in the 1880s. The theory holds that emotion is the mind's perception of physiological conditions that result from some stimulus.  In James's oft-cited example, it is not that we see a bear, fear it, and run; we see a bear and run; consequently, we fear the bear.  Our mind's [[perception]] of the higher adrenaline level, heartbeat, etc. is the emotion.

This way of thinking about emotion has great consequences for the philosophy of [[aesthetics]] as well as to the philosophy and practice of education.<ref name="reconstructing" /> Here is a passage from his work, ''[[The Principles of Psychology]]'', that spells out those consequences:

{{blockquote|[W]e must immediately insist that aesthetic emotion, pure and simple, the pleasure given us by certain lines and masses, and combinations of colors and sounds, is an absolutely sensational experience, an optical or auricular feeling that is primary, and not due to the repercussion backwards of other sensations elsewhere consecutively aroused. To this simple primary and immediate [[pleasure]] in certain pure sensations and harmonious combinations of them, there may, it is true, be added secondary pleasures; and in the practical enjoyment of works of art by the masses of mankind these secondary pleasures play a great part. The more classic one's taste is, however, the less relatively important are the secondary pleasures felt to be, in comparison with those of the primary sensation as it comes in. [[Classicism]] and [[romanticism]] have their battles over this point.}}

The theory of emotion was also independently developed in Italy by the anthropologist [[Giuseppe Sergi]].<ref>[[Giuseppe Sergi|Sergi, Giuseppe]]. 1858. ''L'origine dei fenomeni psichici e loro significazione biologica''. Milano: Fratelli Dumolard. {{ISBN|1271529408}}.</ref><ref>[[Giuseppe Sergi|Sergi, Giuseppe]]. 1894. "Storia Naturale dei Sentimenti." ''Principi di Psicologie: Dolore e Piacere''. Milano: Fratelli Dumolard. {{ISBN|1147667462}}.</ref>

=== William James' bear ===
From [[Joseph LeDoux]]'s description of William James' ''Emotion'':<ref>[[Joseph E. LeDoux|LeDoux, Joseph E.]] 1996. ''The Emotional Brain: the Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life''. {{ISBN|0-684-83659-9}}. p. 43.</ref>
<blockquote>
Why do we run away if we notice that we are in danger? Because we are afraid of what will happen if we don't. This obvious answer to a seemingly trivial question has been the central concern of a century-old debate about the nature of our emotions.</blockquote>It all began in 1884 when William James published an article titled "What Is an Emotion?"<ref>James, William. 1884. "[http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/emotion.htm What is an Emotion?]" ''[[Mind (journal)|Mind]]'' 9:188–205.</ref>
The article appeared in a philosophy journal called ''[[Mind (journal)|Mind]]'', as there were no psychology journals yet. It was important, not because it definitively answered the question it raised, but because of the way in which James phrased his response. He conceived of an emotion in terms of a sequence of events that starts with the occurrence of an arousing stimulus (the [[sympathetic nervous system]] or the [[parasympathetic nervous system]]); and ends with a passionate feeling, a conscious emotional experience. A major goal of emotion research is still to elucidate this stimulus-to-feeling sequence—to figure out what processes come between the stimulus and the feeling.

James set out to answer his question by asking another: do we run from a bear because we are afraid or are we afraid because we run? He proposed that the obvious answer, that we run because we are afraid, was ''wrong'', and instead argued that we are afraid because we run:

<blockquote>Our natural way of thinking about&nbsp;… emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My theory, on the contrary, is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion (called 'feeling' by [[Damasio#Looking for Spinoza|Damasio]]).</blockquote>

The essence of James's proposal was simple. It was premised on the fact that emotions are often accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, tight stomach, sweaty palms, tense muscles, and so on; [[sympathetic nervous system]]) and that we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same as we can sense what is going on in the outside world. According to James, emotions feel different from other states of mind because they have these bodily responses that give rise to internal sensations, and different emotions feel different from one another because they are accompanied by different bodily responses and sensations. For example, when we see James's bear, we run away. During this act of escape, the body goes through a physiological upheaval: blood pressure rises, heart rate increases, pupils dilate, palms sweat, muscles contract in certain ways (evolutionary, innate defense mechanisms). Other kinds of emotional situations will result in different bodily upheavals. In each case, the physiological responses return to the brain in the form of bodily sensations, and the unique pattern of sensory feedback gives each emotion its unique quality. Fear feels different from anger or love because it has a different physiological signature (the [[parasympathetic nervous system]] for love). The mental aspect of emotion, the feeling, is a slave to its physiology, not vice versa: we do not tremble because we are afraid or cry because we feel sad; we are afraid because we tremble and are sad because we cry.