James vs. Nussbaum: Theories of Emotion in Philosophy of Mind

Introduction

William James defines emotions as solely perceptions of bodily feelings. Martha Nussbaum, by contrast, argues that emotions are eudaimonistic — that is, they are concerned with an agent's flourishing and well-being. Neither extreme of the emotional theory spectrum is sufficient on its own to define emotion adequately. Robert Solomon, for instance, argues that James's theory ignores the essential intentionality of emotions. Nussbaum's theory has responded convincingly to the criticisms posed by other theorists. Although she does not accept that emotions are perceptions of bodily change, she acknowledges that when perceptions and judgments of bodily changes occur simultaneously, they do so in service of the agent's flourishing and well-being. For this reason, Nussbaum's theory is the most persuasive: it captures every factor considered important to the experience of emotion.

The perspective of emotions has generally developed along two lines. One group of scholars holds that emotions are simply perceptions of bodily feelings. The other group — the cognitivists — holds that emotions are judgments and beliefs about intentional objects. Nussbaum, however, does not follow the cognitivist line of completely excluding bodily feelings. Because her argument has successfully countered criticisms from both ends of the emotional theory spectrum, it becomes clear that she has incorporated the insight that the simultaneous occurrence of perceptions of bodily changes and beliefs or judgments accommodates the flourishing of agents.

Nussbaum's Eudaimonistic Theory of Emotion

In her definition, Martha Nussbaum describes emotions as acknowledgements of neediness and a failure of self-sufficiency. This means that when an individual experiences an emotion, it has arisen from some external object that has not satisfied what that person desires in some respect. Nussbaum argues that it is important for emotions to be intentional — that is, directed at something important, particularly with respect to the role that thing plays in the individual's life. She also consistently maintains the crucial point that emotions are eudaimonistic, meaning they revolve around the flourishing of the agent.

Nussbaum affirms that emotions are judgment-based, but she also accepts that bodily feeling plays an important role in the experience of emotion. As derived from her view that emotion is eudaimonistic, bodily feelings and judgments occur simultaneously for the subject's well-being. One might object that Nussbaum fails to give sufficient attention to the importance of bodily feelings; however, her framework is broader than either pure cognitivism or pure bodily-feeling theory, and this breadth is precisely what makes it more persuasive.

William James's Bodily-Feeling Theory

James approaches the definition of emotion from an abstractionist perspective. He begins by arguing that if an individual has not perceived a bodily change, then that person does not have an emotion. Conversely, if an individual has an emotion, then that individual perceives a bodily change. Since emotional occurrences involve bodily changes, emotions must be perceptions of bodily changes. James illustrates this with the example that it is nearly impossible to imagine a state of rage without picturing a flushed face, a feeling of ebullition in the chest, an impulse toward vigorous action, and dilation of the nostrils. He suggests that if all bodily changes were stripped away from an emotion such as anger, nothing would remain but what he calls a cold, neutral state of intellectual perception.

Conclusion

William James and other philosophers have tried to analyze emotions exclusively in terms of judgment, beliefs, or perception of bodily change. Upon scrutinizing James's theory, however, we find that it has left out the most essential aspects of emotion. Nussbaum, by contrast, has acknowledged to a meaningful extent that the functional perception of bodily changes can accompany the judgments that constitute emotions. Taking her argument that emotions are eudaimonistic and revolve around the flourishing of the agent, the conclusion follows that bodily feelings and judgments primarily occur concurrently as emotion, and do so for the benefit of the person experiencing them. For these reasons, Nussbaum's integrative theory of emotion is the most persuasive account, as it captures the full range of factors considered important to emotional experience.