Blog 1: Aristotle

Aristotle is often celebrated as a pivotal figure in the early days of philosophy, logic, rhetoric, and even zoology—a field in which his work was largely incorrect. Yet, considering the contribution his Rhetoric provided to the understanding of human emotion, I find it remarkable that name is not as frequently or emphatically placed among the revered ranks of psychology’s forefathers. Since Aristotle lived and wrote thousands of years before psychology was established as an independent field, I was intrigued not only by his incisive observations about human emotion, but also by the veracity of the reasons for which he considered emotion so important. Several of the ideas Aristotle expresses in Rhetoric seem to be echoed in the findings of modern research on human emotion.

Aristotle understood emotions as feelings that “change men”, that “affect their judgments”, and that are accompanied “by pain or pleasure” (bk. 2, ch.1, par. 4). This definition is not altogether different from the one used today. Modern emotional theorists understand emotions as consisting of three similar components: a behavioral component, a cognitive component, and a physiological component (Barlow and Durand 58). Using slightly different terminology, Aristotle’s Rhetoric touches on each of these components.

The behavioral component is concerned with the action tendencies that emotions elicit in us (Barlow and Durand 58). Many of these behaviors have evolutionary advantages, such as the tendencies to flee frightening situations. Aristotle touches on the behavioral implications in his description of each of the emotions. For example, Aristotle asserts that in a state of anger our “thoughts dwell upon the act of vengeance” whereas friendly emotions are accompanied an inclination to help our friend achieve good things (bk. 2, ch. 2, par. 1; bk. 2, ch. 4, par. 1).

The cognitive component deals with our thoughts and perception of events. Much of the subject matter in second book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric pertains to cognition. In their book The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, researchers Gerald Clore, Allan Collins and Andrew Ortony define emotions as “valenced reactions to events, agents, or objects…” (13). These aspects are markedly similar to those outlined by Aristotle when he says emotions can be explained in terms of the mental state experienced during the emotion, the object of the emotion, and the grounds for the emotion (bk. 2, ch. 1, par. 4). Clore, Collins, and Ortony go on to say that it is our interpretation of the situation that guides our emotional responses (13). On this point too, Aristotle demonstrates a keen awareness, explaining that it “adds much to an orator’s influence that his own character should look right and that he should be thought to entertain the right feelings towards his hearers” (bk. 2, ch. 1, par. 2).

Most fascinating is the overlap between Aristotle’s observations and modern, empirical research on the physiological elements of emotion. One aspect of the physiological component consists of those familiar, bodily sensations that accompany various emotions. We’ve all felt our hearts race when we’re startled, our stomachs lurch when we’re disgusted, and our palms sweat when we are nervous. Other aspects, however, lie just beyond the reach of consciousness. When Crowley and Hawley discuss the import Aristotle places on the orator’s ability to display the emotion s/he wishes to evoke, they are acknowledging a remarkably intuitive, physiological component of Aristotle’s theory (269). Aristotle approaches the topic with an air of hesitancy, noting that an orator “ought in fairness fight [his or her] case with no help beyond the bare facts” (bk. 3, ch. 1, par. 3). Still, he admits that “we must pay attention to the subject of delivery” since things outside the realm of sheer logic can “affect the result considerably” (Aristotle, bk. 3, ch. 1, par. 3). Aristotle believes emotion plays a key role in an orator’s success, asserting that “an emotional speaker always makes his audience feel with him, even when there is nothing in his arguments” (bk. 3, ch. 7, par. 2). Modern science tells us there is a good deal of truth to Aristotle’s observations. Due to the structure of the neurological pathway connecting the ears and eyes to the brain, auditory and visual information is sent to an emotional structure of the brain, the amygdala, before it reaches the neocortex, an area involved in rational thought (Barlow and Durand 59).

A newcomer to the scene, the mirror neuron system is currently stirring up some excitement among scientific researchers. When you perform an action—let’s say you’re petting your dog, Filibuster—the neurons in your brain fire in a particular way. Amazingly, if I were to merely watch you petting Filibuster, my brain would light up in just the same way (Rizzolatti, Fogassi, and Gallese, par. 3). Through the same mechanism, emotions can be influenced. Since mirror neurons communicate with the limbic system, the emotional hub of the brain, and the limbic system affects the autonomic nervous system, researchers are able to measure changes in emotion through changes in skin moisture (electrical conductivity), pulse, and breathing (Ramachandra, Depalma, and Lisiewski 683). Using such measures, researchers have found that listening to recordings of emotional speech results in physiological changes (Ramachandra, Depalma, and Lisiewski 688). These changes, of course, suggest that mirror neurons may be at work, causing the listener’s brain to act as if s/he were actually experiencing the emotion. This type of research sheds light on the power of language to affect the listener. “Clearly,” declares Aristotle, “the orator will have to speak so as to bring his hearers into a frame of mind that will dispose them to anger,” or whatever the desired emotion may be (bk. 2, ch. 2, par. 5).

Needless to say, Aristotle had an astute understanding not only of human emotions, but also their practical implications for an orator and his or her audience. The marvelous insight with which Aristotle approaches a subject so impalpable as emotion illustrates creative exploration that characterizes both psychology and rhetoric. After all, as Aristotle reminds us, “nobody uses fine language when teaching geometry” (bk. 3, ch. 1, par. 3).

Works Cited

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Comp. Steve Thomas. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. The University
of Adelaide. eBooks@Adelaide, 2007. Web. 30 Jan. 2011.
<http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8rh/>.

Barlow, David H., and V. Mark Durand. Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative
Approach. Ed. James Perkins, et al. 6th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning, 2009. Print.

Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. The Cognitive Structure of
Emotion. 1988. New York: U of Cambridge P, 1994. Print.

Ramachandra, Vijayachandra, Nina Depalma, and Sara Lisiewski. "The Role of Mirror Neurons in Processing Vocal Emotions: Evidence from Psychophysiological Data." International Journal of Neuroscience 119.5 (2009): 681-691. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. EBSCO. Web. 29 Jan. 2011.

Rizzolatti, Giacomo, Leonardo Fogassi, and Vittorio Gallese. "MIRRORS IN THE MIND. (cover story)." Scientific American 295.5 (2006): 54-61. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. EBSCO. Web. 29 Jan. 2011.