URGENT HELP What emotional experience inspired the first philosophers?

1 answer:

3 0

Early modern philosophy in Europe and Great Britain is awash with discussions of the emotions: they figure not only in philosophical psychology and related fields, but also in theories of epistemic method, metaphysics, ethics, political theory and practical reasoning in general. Moreover, interest in the emotions links philosophy with work in other, sometimes unexpected areas, such as medicine, art, literature, and practical guides on everything from child-rearing to the treatment of subordinates. Because of the breadth of the topic, this article can offer only an overview, but perhaps it will be enough to give some idea how philosophically rich and challenging the conception of the emotions was in this period. Most attention will be devoted to the familiar figures of early modern philosophy and how they conceived of the emotions as valuable, even indispensable aspects of embodied human life, which were largely constitutive of the self and identity that matter to us practically.

A word of caution is in order: there is a plethora of source material, and this entry is offered as a survey for organizing that material. Alas, much worthy material must be excluded here. This article and its supplements are designed for readers browsing for specific information, as well as those hardy souls who may wish to read it straight through. The main document offers a thematic overview of early modern discussions of the emotions. Separate links lead to documents devoted to the pre-history of the topic, as well as to some of the most important individual figures in early modern philosophy. Hope this helps! Mark brainly please this took me a lot of time!

You might be interested in

Could the America federal system survive without the supreme clause

coldgirl [10]

<span>No. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). </span>

8 0

2 years ago

During the effort to desegregate schools in Little Rock, why did Eisenhower place the Arkansas national guard under army command

Fed [463]

D because the president at the time was against racism but the southern governor of Arkansas was for it.

7 0

3 years ago

Which of the following individual rights is not guaranteed by the bill of rights?

Misha Larkins [42]

The answer is b. hope this helps.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Differences between the European monarchies of Spain, France, England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

ozzi

Below answer is the differences between the European monarchies,

The monarchy of Spain is a kind of monarchy that the royal members of the family inside the household organization are the ones facilitates and supports the monarchs in exercising of the duties and rights. It is represented by King Felipe VI with his wife Queen Letizia and daughters Leonor and Infanta Sofia.

The monarchy in France is a monarchy which one emperor is dominant and has supreme authority, where his authority is not restricted by any written legislature, customs or laws.

The monarchy in England is a monarchy that is limited to unbiased functions such as appointing a Prime Minister. The monarch and its immediate family manages official, diplomatic, and ceremonial duties. This monarchy is lead by Queen Elizabeth II.

The monarchy of Austria is a complex monarchy because it composed of territories inside and outside the Holy Roman Empire.

The monarchy of Prussia was the German Kingdom that composed and organized the nation of Prussia. It was the avenue to unify the Germans in 1871.

The monarchy of Russia, it is an empire that defeated Napoleon’s ambitions in controlling England and expanding to the west and south.

4 0

3 years ago

Does the history of the American Revolution prove that owning small firearms is a way for citizens to defend themselves against

Yakvenalex [24]

The history of the American Revolution does not prove that owning small firearms is a means for citizens to defend themselves.

<h3 /><h3>Does the American Revolution support the Second Amendment?</h3>

Proponents of the Second Amendment had the notion that if civilians had small firearms, they would be able to defend themselves against tyrannical governments.

Yet this was not the case in the American Revolution because the people could not rely on small firearms to defend themselves against the British.

They had to rely on heavy artillery and arms which was what the British had as well.

Find out more on the Second Amendment at brainly.com/question/1750552.

#SPJ1

7 0

1 year ago