The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life

Robert Solomon has gone the extra mile to make his profound philosophy accessible to the well-educated layman. At the same time, the reader needs to stretch at times to follow some of the more difficult parts of the book. The core message, though, is simply stated; if there is meaning in our lives, it is to be found in our emotions. Contrary to what philosophers, psychologists, religious authorities, and educators have said for centuries, emotions don't "happen" to us as though we were passive victims, instead we create them to give order, substance, depth, and involvement to our lives. Furthermore, it is possible to modify and improve our emotions to give ourselves a better quality of life. The methods for doing this are surprisingly simple, though not easy.

Solomon's "The Passions," for me, was a life-changing read. In many ways, he anticipates and correlates psychologist Rollo May through his synthesis of philosophy, psychology, and literature into a seamless existentialist whole. While borrowing heavily from existentialist thought, Solomon does not limit himself only to that vein of philosophy, but borrows heavily from all periods of philosophical history. Even though he admits to having been schooled in the often arcane mode of Anglo-American philosophy, neither he nor his readers would know it by his mellifluous prose. And, while he opens himself up to Continental philosophy, especially Heiddegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Sartre, he recognizes that this tradition is largely an ideological rather than experiential framework. The resulting work is compendious. Solomon starts with the dominant paradigm in Western history of philosophical thought: Plato, especially the metaphor of the charioteer and two steeds (in the "Phaedrus"). According to Plato and nearly every thinker subsequently, "reason" and "emotion" are each of the two steeds, while the "soul" (i.e., mind) is the charioteer. The purpose of the charioteer is to extol reason and depreciate the emotions. And, for most of the intervening 2,500 years, most sages have depreciated the passions (i.e., the emotions) in favor of extolling reason (i.e., ratiocination). Even the early Stoics had an aversion to all things emotional. Boethius define humans as "a rational animal," a coinage that has remained unchanged for millennia. And as late as Freud, this dualism persists in the "ego" and the "id." But is that really how things are? Solomon insists this whole tradition is bunk. His thesis is that reason and the emotions, while uniquely different aspects of the mind, are essentially and incontrovertibly united. I'm not sure that a conflationary claim can be defended against some of the insights of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. But, he's not claiming these aren't different aspects; he's only claiming that the emotions and reason are intimately conjoined. The two are not separate and distinct, as Western tradition would have us believe, but that the two are integral to our very being. Indeed, it's their conjunction that gives "meaning to life," and without both of them together, our lives would be sterile and inchoate. And this thesis, I believe, he can defended. When one looks back over one's life and recalls the most significant (and even the less significant) events, they all entail our emotions: Fear, hope, love, jealousy, revenge, lust, anger, etc. Nothing remotely "rational" alone stands out among the pinnacles of life. Yes, there is an occasional ratiocinative "eureka," but even then it's our pride in discovery that's controlling our pleasure, not reason alone. Indeed, all our interesting and engaging moments involve our emotions (or "passions"). Convincingly, I could not find a counter instance in my life to refute this claim. The "fu

The development of a 'Philosophy of Emotion' is flourishing. Trends in philosophy come and go but what makes Robert C. Solomon's "The Passions" interesting is that it challenges an immensely popular faulty dichotomy: emotions vs. rationality. Nowadays it is hard to maintain that our rational thinking is entirely isolated from our deepest emotions, still the myth of the 'irrationality of emotions' is prevailing. If we are to accept the adaptive and purposive tendencies of emotions within the realm of social relations (even when 'conceding' that emotions were/are essentially biologically based), we must reject theories that are dichotomist or deterministic. Many great works of art presupposed that 'thinking with your heart' meant something entirely different from 'thinking with your mind'. Even the educated student of the philosophy of emotions still apologizes for 'suddenly becoming very emotional' about something or may tend to glorify a period in her/his life in which the ('foolish') passions seemed to rule. Solomon's basic thesis is: "every emotion is a strategy, a purposive attempt to structure our world in such a way as to maximize our sense of personal dignity and self-esteem.". The book has a distinct existentialist flavor: "It is our passions, and our passions alone, that provide our lives with meaning". Personally I find it one of the most stimulating books that I have ever read, it really brings back a spark of `Eros' in your once-upon-a-time enthusiasm for philosophy. Current debates are more or less influenced by Ronald de Sousa's "The Rationality of Emotion", an important book (basically working out a biological and social-adaptation thesis), but very poorly written with obtrusive (not that funny) idiosyncrasies (please fire the editor). Solomon's book leaves you with a better insight why people so often `fall back' on their emotions (and why they should do so!) furthermore if you would like to enhance your sophisticated touchy-feely capacities to gently weasel your way into someone's heart, Solomon's book is your gospel-true cookbook...