I am reading a book regarding method of natural healing. I can't catch the distinct differences between mental and emotion. Can anyone help?
Understanding mentalizing skills and understanding emotion are linked to the understanding of the diachronic human experience of truth.
In the classic meaning, there was always an exact coincidence between belief and truth, mental and emotion, heart and mind.The speaker was supposed to give a complete and exact account of what he has in heart and mind, so that the audience was able to comprehend exactly what the speaker thought. This is called verbal parrhesia (chattering), i.e. speak up your mind. Parrhesia was obviously bad democracy since it was linked to a certain social situation, and the danger of exposing yourself.
Contemporaries have a different outlook on truth. Descartes was not sure that what we believe is, in fact, true. Do we say what he thinks is true, or do we say what is really true? He believed that the coincidence between belief and truth is obtained only in mental experience (mental parrhesia) due to the danger of exposing ourselves to risks in society. In other words, we don't speak up our mind, we're not honest in the classic way, but we only tell that truth that will not undermine our position (some call it jokingly 'democrazy').
In conclusion, while for the Greeks, mental and emotion coincided due to the honesty of truth, this no longer occurs in our modern epistemological framework. Mental and emotion, heart and mind are seen as a dichotomy divided by the notion of truth itself. Only truth in the Promethean, creative, original sense can bridge that gap between them. Paradoxes, passion get mental and emotion to coincide.
Or: If your relationship between heart and mind is a paradox, than you're telling the truth. When you love, or hate, you're mentally and emotionally telling the truth.
Last edited by bianca; 12-May-2007 at 09:19.
hi... just saw your query. Well speaking psychologically, there is a distinct difference between MENTAL and EMOTION...Emotion reflects on aspects related to feeling and affection, while by using 'mental' the author might want to focus on the Cognitive aspects of life...that is, more relating to thoughts, reason and use of other analytical skills. Truly speaking, Mental would be a conglomeration of all the three aspects of the mind...that is , Cognitive (related to thought), Affective (related to feeling and emotion) and Conative (related to action or the will/desire to act).
I hope your query is answered
True, and I can only specify that the will/desire to act out our thoughts and emotions is to be examined within the semantic framework of the notion of truthfullness/i.e. honesty. In other words, do we speak up our mind in the classic way (by bridging the gap between thoughts and emotions) or are we inhibited by fear? Also, do we tell the truth (heart and mind) in the parrhesiastic way, or the rhetoric way? How much does a certain social condition for instance constrain our will/desire to act?
And, if you like, has it always been like this, historically?
This relationship is still a conundrum for psychologists.
Last edited by bianca; 12-May-2007 at 12:46.