Can Damasio's Somatic Marker Hypothesis Explain More Than Its Originator Will Admit?

Frontiers in Psychology

article

Geir Overskeid¹ 

[1] Department of Psychology, University of Oslo

关键词: emotion;    problem solving;    free will;    determinism;    choice;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607310

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

It is a very old conjecture that emotion governs human choice. Early philosophers like Epicurus(1993) and Aristippus of Cyrene [see Parry (2014)] appear to have held this assumption, oftendescribed as “psychological hedonism” [see Overskeid (2002)].British thinkers of the 18th and 19th century were among the most important exponents ofpsychological hedonism. In a well-known dictum, Bentham (1823, p. 1) left little doubt as regardshis own view: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, painand pleasure. . . . They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think . . . ”Famously affirming that human rationality or reason could never on its own control behavior,Hume (1739) was equally clear. Indeed, he claimed (p. 413) that reason “can never oppose passionin the direction of the will.” Instead, said Hume (p. 415), “Reason is . . . the slave of the passions,and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”In the second half of the 20th century, psychologists and neuroscientists tended [with someexceptions, such as Toda (1980)] to stay away from the question of how reason and emotion interactto govern human conduct. Important in turning the tide, however, helping researchers see the roleof emotions in thinking and decision making, were Damasio and his co-workers (e.g., Damasio,1994; Bechara et al., 1997).

【 授权许可】

CC BY