PD24 - Alternate Translations

Quote from Cassius

Now fear is an emotion / feeling and a human would most certainly experience fear as a natural feeling before ever thinking and describing the experience in words, which seems to be a central part of concepts.

Barrett's point is that a person, say in a dark forest at night, experiences a heightened heart rate, their pupils dilate, their hands may get sweaty, but the identification of these feelings as "fear" is culturally conditioned. Another person may experience those same biological cues in another context and identify it as anticipation, anxiety, excitement, etc. "Emotions" are entirely contextual and constructed in the moment as needed on the fly. There is no universal called Fear (in this example) that applies to all people in all places at all times.

That's the point: We don't "think" about it. It's not "Well, I'm experiencing fear now." Your brain takes in all its sensory input, compares it to past experiences, and pairs this input with a "concept" of "fear." The process is entirely pre-rational. You can look at your fear post facto and realize that wasn't a snake, just a branch on the ground.

This is how people become over sensitive to certain stimuli and jump at everything. Their brains become conditioned to see threats around every corner. Everything is paired with their "fear concept."

Her and others' research showed that those photos of paradigmatic "emotions" we can "read on people's faces" are without merit. Those paradigms do not exist. So I would be careful with phrases like " all animals and all humans appear to share" especially when it comes to anthropomorphizing animals.

Godfrey is welcomed to fact check me in my interpretation here! It's been awhile since I read the book now.

I interpret LFB the same way as Don in post #22 and as Cassius in post #23.

Quote from Cassius

what we might call "the concept of fear."

Exactly. LFB (I like Godfrey 's initialism) would probably call that ("what we might call") something like the ideation or idea or realization of fear and the pre-rational instance the "concept."

I haven't had a chance to read this full paper but it appears to lay out some interesting points of hers

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/articles/future_of_psych.pdf

Quote from Cassius

I didn't read any further than the abstract but that is one of the key issues that we answer philosophically rather than through science. What does "real" mean really mean?

She defines two definitions of what she means by "real":

Quote from Barrett

Natural sciences like physics deal with scientific categories that are assumed to be observer independent (they are real in the natural sense and can be discovered by humans)

Social sciences like sociology or economics deal with categories that are observer dependent (and are real because they are invented and shared by humans).

I think those are good basic definitions of how we use "real" in conversation. And Epicurus advised using definitions that could be agreed on by the average person. Photosynthesis - a natural process discoverable by science - is "real" in the first sense. Money - a culturally agreed-upon system of commerce - is "real" in the second sense.

I think your premise that philosophy is the arbiter of what's "real" is a tad restrictive unless you read her definitions as broadly "philosophical."

Quote from Cassius

In the first she uses the word "discoverable" -- Does that mean that they are discoverable to the five senses,

Yes, because they are "observer independent" in her words. They exist and *can* be observed, and they exist whether being observed or not. The sun is real in this sense. It's going to exist whether humans are observing it or not.

Quote from Cassius

In the second she says "real because they are invented and shared by humans. Does that also mean subject to verification through the senses? In fact I am not at all sure this whole second category is consistent with a common sense view of "real." Are economics and sociology "real"? I am pretty well prepared to say that they are great time-wasters but does that mean they are "real"?

Justice is real in this sense, "real because they are invented and shared by humans)." Humans can agree to a contract and talk about "justice" in relation to that contract, but it's not"real" like the sun is real. Without humans (I'm sticking to Earth-based examples), the "observers", there is no such thing as justice. The agreed-upon general idea is "observer dependent." Epicurus obviously thought justice was important, he devoted several Principal Doctrines to it, so it is a "real" concept with which to grapple, it "exists" in the real world but it is contextual and cultural. It doesn't exist like the sun or atoms and void, but there is a thing we name "justice."

That's how I'd characterize her two categories of real.

If you reject even one sensation and you will not separate (1) a theory about what is still pending, versus (2) what is actually present according to the senses, feelings, and the whole visual focus of the mind: then you will disturb the remaining senses with empty thought – as you will be rejecting the whole basis of judgment.

Also, if you accept (1) all that which is still pending in theoretical concepts, along with (2) that which is not still pending full confirmation: you will not avoid error – since you will have retained all doubt regarding all judgment of what is true or not true.