Why should I be bitter
About someone who was
A complete stranger
Until a certain moment
In a day that has passed.
(Saigyo)
I once participated in a public debate which dealt with the question: "What is Love?" In the few minutes I had, I described what is meant by a typical emotion and then what distinguishes love from other emotions. A certain scholar, who also participated in the symposium, severely criticized my research on emotions in general and on love in particular claiming that such research is not merely unable to provide a better understanding of emotions, but also that it ruins the very nature of the emotional experience. He believes that we cannot explain the nature of love, but can only describe specific cases of love. For example, he can describe his intense love for his wife or how his mother fell in love with his father, but he maintained that no-one can provide interesting insights on the nature of love.
The above criticism actually consists of two separate claims; the first is descriptive and the second normative:
(a) In light of the complexity of emotions, there is no general regularity typical of emotions and we must settle for descriptions of specific cases;
(b) Knowing the nature of our emotions will ruin emotional experiences.
I believe that both claims are basically mistaken.
I agree that the description of specific cases are of utmost importance in various forms of art. Such a description is valuable, too, for understanding emotions; the best descriptions of emotions have so far been provided by artists rather than by psychologists or philosophers. The artistic point of view is, however, only one possible perspective on emotions; its success should not undermine the value of other more general perspectives. The artist's perspective is highly personal, but if we limit ourselves to this perspective our understanding will remain partial and narrow. As the poet Rachel wrote: "Only about myself I could speak, my world is as narrow as the ant's world." The artist may be able to speak only about herself, but it would be pretentious to assume that only artists can speak about emotions. Philosophers, psychologists and other scientists can also shed useful light on the mechanisms which generate emotions. Despite the generality and diversity inherent in the concept of emotions, we nevertheless can provide plausible generalizations, expressing the logic of emotions.
The ability of art to describe emotions stems, among other things, from the fact that the specific cases described by artists have implications for other cases, especially those with which the reader can identify. The artists do not explain the general characteristics underlying the particular cases they describe, but such characteristics are present in their descriptions. A specific case having no implications for and similarity to other cases, or which has no special relevance to me, will have no emotional significance for me.
Assuming that the descriptive claim (that is, we are unable to describe general regularities typical of emotions) is false, then the normative claim criticizing such a description carries more weight. Although I believe that the normative claim is more interesting than the descriptive claim, it is nevertheless mistaken as well-even if less obviously.
There is a long tradition which considers knowledge to be an obstacle to happiness. Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise because they want to know more about the world. And the myth about Pandora implies that all troubles were released in the world because she wanted to know what was inside the box given to her by the gods. Also relevant to this tradition, is the story about a man who has a long beard; the man is asked whether he puts his beard above or beneath the blanket at night. From this time on, the man is unable to fall asleep. Along this tradition, a character in Oscar Wilde's short story, The Remarkable Rocket, says: "love is not fashionable any more, the poets have killed it. They wrote so much about it that nobody believed them, and I am not surprised. True love suffers, and is silent." Such criticism is even more forceful once it is directed at scientific investigations of the emotions.
Contrary to this tradition, I believe that scientific progress enables us to better know our environment and ourselves, thereby increasing our adaptivity and more fully realizing our capacities. Although scientific progress is not a unitary and direct march toward greater happiness, neither is it a constant downward spiral into misery. The life of our ancestors was not better than ours and they were not happier than we are. There are, of course, many cases in which knowing more will make us sadder-hence the great value of positive illusions. But such cases should not be taken as recommendations for ignorance. Ignorance is a local value in specific circumstances; it cannot be recommended as a way of living. Coping with the complexity of life is not simple: sometimes we need to open our eyes and sometimes close them; constant sleep is not a solution-it is rather, a complete surrender.
It is good to explain, as well as to express, our love for the other, although this can often be difficult. This process could reveal that we are not actually in love with the other; equally, it could reveal just how deep our love is and hence increase it. Ignorance, which is often associated with stupidity, is not a remedy for dealing with the negative implications of a situation. Just as starving to death is not the optimal solution for weight problems, so repressing our emotions and refusing to discover their nature does not help us to solve our problems or fulfill our lives. Quite the contrary: the expression and knowledge of our emotions greatly enhances our self-awareness and is likely to lead to greater emotional intelligence and more mutual satisfaction in our interaction with others.
In the wonderful words of John Lubbock:
Do not be afraid of showing your affection. Be warm and tender, thoughtful and affectionate. Men are more helped by sympathy, than by service; love is more than money, and a kind word will give more pleasure than a present.
Adapted from The Subtlety of Emotions
