Emotion is an built-in portion of human nature, and can non be separated from it. It is besides a powerful manner of knowing, our window to knowledge which open non merely outside but besides indoors. but is it possible that this profound way towards cognition can be trusted wholly and all the clip? I am traveling to cover with this inquiry in the visible radiation of two countries of cognition, history and humanistic disciplines.
If we try to organize a nexus between emotion and cognition, we will happen that it is non an easy thing, as both have different set of features, and both are based on different sets of rules. Emotion can surely supply us knowledge, but how can we be certain that whatever cognition we derive from emotion is right and valid? This is a major cognition issue that comes to mind when we deal with the subject in inquiry. I will supply some illustrations that will foreground this quandary about swearing our emotions, in the pursuit for cognition.
Recently I had the opportunity to read a twosome of books related with Indian history. As my roots lay in India, I read them with great enthusiasm and ardor. 13One of the books was written by a British historiographer, Nobel Barber. The book was titled the Black Hole of Calcutta and it depicted a historical incident that occurred in the twelvemonth 1756 in the metropolis of Calcutta in India. The book presented the incident in a really different mode by the writer. On reading the book, I found that it was written more like a play instead than a history book, as all the events were narrated from the position of one individual individual, whom the writer used as the chief character to show the predicament and cause of the British people mentioned in the incident. Most of my other friends who had read the book felt that the writer was right in his word picture of the British and the Indian people during the incident and there was nil exaggerated or biased in his sentiment. This was because the emotion in their head was stating that it was the right thing and the cognition they had gathered was based on the emotion that the book had evoked in them. Since the book highlighted the Acts of the Apostless of the Indian people and enlarged on the agonies of the British people, it was natural that any normal individual reading the book would hold been affected by the positions and sentiments of the writer and he or she would had judged the two sides as the writer wanted them to. So my friends, by the virtuousness of emotion, felt that the Indians were excessively rough and inhuman in their attack and behavior, while the British suffered as a clump of doomed inexperienced persons.
However I was non really convinced by the theory and the facts presented in the book, and I started my ain question into the incident by making research on the cyberspace and through other beginnings like libraries. The question and research was really priceless for me, as I got to cognize that non everything was right and factual in the book, as the writer had presented most of the events in a extremely overdone and colored mode. Possibly because the historiographer was British, he was inclined more towards his state and some sort of flag waving: an surplus of nationalism had made him compose in a colored and selective manner, lauding the British work forces and degrading the Indian people.
So the above illustration clearly highlights the built-in defects in depending upon emotion in the chase of cognition in history. However emotion can sometimes take to knowledge, even in history. For illustration, if I take the instance of another historical incident, that of the Indus Valley Civilisation, I find that emotion played a large portion in the defining of the theory that still is presented to modern readers sing the people of this nonextant civilization. Since the Bibles, graven images, and other relics present at the site of the civilization were chiefly Dravidian in nature, the British archeologists deemed the civilization an basically a Dravidian 1. They deduced that the civilization became nonextant as some superior and advanced warrior category belonging to the Aryan folk from Central Asia swooped down on them and annihilated all the Dravidian people at the site. This theory worked good, as most of India at the clip of the find of the site was under British regulation ; and the theory worked good as a psychological and morale supporter for the British swayers, as it straight impacted the emotion of the people. This Indo-european Invasion theory worked good with the pre-Independence British epoch as it was derived from emotional belief and worked good with the emotion of the people, as people found it easier to associate it with their life under British regulation in India. It is another fact that the theory was found to be wholly incorrect as per the research and works of current coevals historiographers like 3,4 Michael Danino, 10Koenraad Elst, and 9Sujata Nahar, all of whom have, in their books and web sites, vociferously criticised the Aryan Invasion Theory to be wholly wrong, based on false premises and incorrect illations.
Even though historiographers have been utilizing emotion as a manner of cognizing in the chase of cognition with even some early success, the fact is that emotion can barely be relied on to derive existent and significant cognition in the cognition of history.
However if we take the instance of another country of cognition, that of art, we will see that it is an country in which emotion matters the most. This is because in the Humanistic disciplines, the ways of knowing of emotion, sense perceptual experience, and linguistic communication have the most outstanding function in order of importance. We interpret a piece of art chiefly by emotion and sense perceptual experience. For illustration, when I see a cheerful and happy face in the signifier of an image, painting or a portrayal, it gives me the emotion of felicity and mild joy, as the portrayal itself is smiling. Due to the virtuousness of emotion, I feel happy and joyous on seeing cheerful images. But when I see an image or image that has a plaintive look, I excessively feel sad and glooming. Thus art has a direct connection with emotion, as it is chiefly based on the virtuousness of emotion and this is one country of cognition that affects the Humanistic disciplines more than any other. To represent, I will show the instance of M. F. Hussain, a celebrated painter, who died late. 6,7,8The painter faced contentions as some of his pictures were such that they hurt the spiritual values of the Hindu people in India. Although the painter maintained till his last yearss that he had ne’er painted something that was intentionally meant to ache the sentiments of the Hindu people, it is a fact that some of his pictures on the Hindu Gods, goddesses, and other divinities provoked and infuriated certain subdivisions of Indians. Possibly, for Hussein, the pictures were merely a piece of art work that portrayed some message, but, for the multitudes, it conveyed negative images and thoughts. Due to emotion, the pictures were chiefly received in a negative mode by most people. However, this doesn & A ; acirc ; ˆ™t intend that emotion ever excites negative feelings and images for people in the Humanistic disciplines, and, hence, can non be used in the chase of cognition. Emotion can besides bring forth much-needed cognition and wisdom for the people. For illustration, on reading the drama 14King Lear, I learnt that one should non swear anyone blindly, nevertheless near he or she might be to one. In King Lear, the old male monarch was unwisely tricked into believing that two of the three girls loved him more than anything else and he gave them all the powers, due to which he had to endure miserably for the remainder of his life. I learnt, from the drama, that emotion can supply both right and wrong cognition. We should use our heads and think profoundly before we act on the cognition which is derived from emotion.
Emotion has the power to alter perceptual experiences, positions, sentiments, and cognition, and can be contorted or distorted by erroneous premises. However, emotion can be good to us, provided it is used with cautiousness, logic, and reason, since we can analyze and filtrate the cognition we derive through it through ground. In the above instances of Nobel Barber, the Aryan Invasion Theory in history ; M. F. Hussian, and King Lear in the Arts ; I highlighted how emotion can rock peoples & A ; acirc ; ˆ™ minds if findings are non interpreted decently. In decision, it becomes extremely slippery to swear our emotion in chase of cognition, as the results reached thereby are seldom predictable and can be either good or harmful for us. We can non truly predict results and measure them entirely on the footing of emotion.
