For years I've been touting Antonio Damasio's books to our list. His Descartes' Error was first published in 1994. Checking that date in my now yellowing paperback edition, I am a little shocked that more than fifteen years have passed since then.
Oliver Sacks said,"Descartes' Error is a fascinating exploration of the biology of reason and its inseparable dependence on emotion". I urge all to read this book and Damasio's later books that further develop the thesis of combined reason-emotion/feeling. Damasio does distinguish between emotions and feelings, saying the latter are expressions of the former and are always responses to body-states. Thus feelings have their origin in the brain's continual monitoring of the body, and essentially of its brain state of pleasure and pain (like Michael's fear/safety?) He is not superficial or generalizing and examines his topic in detail. I can't summarize his thesis except to say that thinking and reasoning are interdependent in multiple ways despite the distinct initial source for each in the brain. He backs up his claims through extensive clinical work, mostly devoted to the study of people who have suffered various brain lesions. Although Damasio is not easy to follow, especially when he discusses intricate neural pathways and brain functions, unavoidably using technical terms, his writing is accessible and fluid. I think we absolutely cheat ourselves in efforts to understand aesthetics, and how aesthetic feelings through rationality enable us to call them such, if we ignore the breakthrough's in neurological and biological science. Damasio is also saying that since his books don't avoid connecting his science to philosophical concepts. Thus Descartes' Error, and then, his Looking for Spinoza, and his The Feeling of What Happens. I don't want to be evangelistic but I can't see how the philosophy of art can proceed without the findings of people like Damasio and certainly Oliver Sacks. wc . William wrote: "I just can't understand why some of us keep insisting on a balance of thought and feeling. The distinction is over, gone, eliminated by recent neurological research and controlled lab testing." Can you explain? Again? I got as far as Leibnitz and had to stop. Kate Sullivan
