A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsBook ChapterResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Philosophers have long been perplexed by the way in which works of art move us when they elicit so-called negative emotions such as pity, fear, sorrow, and anger. What is perplexing is that these emotions are generally considered to be unpleasant to experience, yet people seem to enjoy and value the works of art that arouse them. Depending on the context, this fact is referred to as ‘the paradox of tragedy’, ‘the paradox of horror’, or simply ‘the paradox of negative emotion’. Today there is no generally accepted solution to this ‘paradox’. But the situation is certainly not due to a lack of effort on the part of philosophers to come up with a solution. Levinson, in his excellent (1997) survey, counts at least five types of solution. In what follows, my focus will be on three of them, or more accurately, four, because one comprises two types distinguished by Levinson. The types have been selected mainly because they seem to represent what are today considered to be good candidate solutions. My own preferred solution belongs to one of the types, but differs, to the best of my knowledge, from any of the existing token solutions. (If this last claim turns out to be false, then my aim in this chapter is simply to contribute to the defence of an existing candidate solution.) Crucial to the defence of this new solution is the normative sense of predicates such as ‘is moving’, ‘is touching’, ‘is powerful’, and ‘is gripping’. Roughly, the solution itself is that, in their normative sense, these predicates designate aesthetic properties that we enjoy and value experiencing, even though, in the cases which generate the paradox at issue, the enjoyment comes at a price.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationSuffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art
EditorsJerrold LEVINSON
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
Pages111-122
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9781137313713
ISBN (Print)9780230349834
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Paradox
Emotion
Works of Art
Philosopher
Aesthetic Properties
Anger
Sorrow
Pity
Tragedy
Enjoyment

Cite this

DE CLERCQ, R. (2014). A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion. In J. LEVINSON (Ed.), Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art (pp. 111-122). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313713_6
DE CLERCQ, Rafael. / A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion. Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art. editor / Jerrold LEVINSON. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. pp. 111-122
@inbook{08100189b7f442b5acd0daeca15449a5,
title = "A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion",
abstract = "Philosophers have long been perplexed by the way in which works of art move us when they elicit so-called negative emotions such as pity, fear, sorrow, and anger. What is perplexing is that these emotions are generally considered to be unpleasant to experience, yet people seem to enjoy and value the works of art that arouse them. Depending on the context, this fact is referred to as ‘the paradox of tragedy’, ‘the paradox of horror’, or simply ‘the paradox of negative emotion’. Today there is no generally accepted solution to this ‘paradox’. But the situation is certainly not due to a lack of effort on the part of philosophers to come up with a solution. Levinson, in his excellent (1997) survey, counts at least five types of solution. In what follows, my focus will be on three of them, or more accurately, four, because one comprises two types distinguished by Levinson. The types have been selected mainly because they seem to represent what are today considered to be good candidate solutions. My own preferred solution belongs to one of the types, but differs, to the best of my knowledge, from any of the existing token solutions. (If this last claim turns out to be false, then my aim in this chapter is simply to contribute to the defence of an existing candidate solution.) Crucial to the defence of this new solution is the normative sense of predicates such as ‘is moving’, ‘is touching’, ‘is powerful’, and ‘is gripping’. Roughly, the solution itself is that, in their normative sense, these predicates designate aesthetic properties that we enjoy and value experiencing, even though, in the cases which generate the paradox at issue, the enjoyment comes at a price.",
author = "{DE CLERCQ}, Rafael",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1057/9781137313713_6",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780230349834",
pages = "111--122",
editor = "Jerrold LEVINSON",
booktitle = "Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",

}

DE CLERCQ, R 2014, A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion. in J LEVINSON (ed.), Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313713_6

A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion. / DE CLERCQ, Rafael.

Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art. ed. / Jerrold LEVINSON. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. p. 111-122.

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsBook ChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion

AU - DE CLERCQ, Rafael

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Philosophers have long been perplexed by the way in which works of art move us when they elicit so-called negative emotions such as pity, fear, sorrow, and anger. What is perplexing is that these emotions are generally considered to be unpleasant to experience, yet people seem to enjoy and value the works of art that arouse them. Depending on the context, this fact is referred to as ‘the paradox of tragedy’, ‘the paradox of horror’, or simply ‘the paradox of negative emotion’. Today there is no generally accepted solution to this ‘paradox’. But the situation is certainly not due to a lack of effort on the part of philosophers to come up with a solution. Levinson, in his excellent (1997) survey, counts at least five types of solution. In what follows, my focus will be on three of them, or more accurately, four, because one comprises two types distinguished by Levinson. The types have been selected mainly because they seem to represent what are today considered to be good candidate solutions. My own preferred solution belongs to one of the types, but differs, to the best of my knowledge, from any of the existing token solutions. (If this last claim turns out to be false, then my aim in this chapter is simply to contribute to the defence of an existing candidate solution.) Crucial to the defence of this new solution is the normative sense of predicates such as ‘is moving’, ‘is touching’, ‘is powerful’, and ‘is gripping’. Roughly, the solution itself is that, in their normative sense, these predicates designate aesthetic properties that we enjoy and value experiencing, even though, in the cases which generate the paradox at issue, the enjoyment comes at a price.

AB - Philosophers have long been perplexed by the way in which works of art move us when they elicit so-called negative emotions such as pity, fear, sorrow, and anger. What is perplexing is that these emotions are generally considered to be unpleasant to experience, yet people seem to enjoy and value the works of art that arouse them. Depending on the context, this fact is referred to as ‘the paradox of tragedy’, ‘the paradox of horror’, or simply ‘the paradox of negative emotion’. Today there is no generally accepted solution to this ‘paradox’. But the situation is certainly not due to a lack of effort on the part of philosophers to come up with a solution. Levinson, in his excellent (1997) survey, counts at least five types of solution. In what follows, my focus will be on three of them, or more accurately, four, because one comprises two types distinguished by Levinson. The types have been selected mainly because they seem to represent what are today considered to be good candidate solutions. My own preferred solution belongs to one of the types, but differs, to the best of my knowledge, from any of the existing token solutions. (If this last claim turns out to be false, then my aim in this chapter is simply to contribute to the defence of an existing candidate solution.) Crucial to the defence of this new solution is the normative sense of predicates such as ‘is moving’, ‘is touching’, ‘is powerful’, and ‘is gripping’. Roughly, the solution itself is that, in their normative sense, these predicates designate aesthetic properties that we enjoy and value experiencing, even though, in the cases which generate the paradox at issue, the enjoyment comes at a price.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006377672&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/6253

U2 - 10.1057/9781137313713_6

DO - 10.1057/9781137313713_6

M3 - Book Chapter

SN - 9780230349834

SP - 111

EP - 122

BT - Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art

A2 - LEVINSON, Jerrold

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - New York

ER -

DE CLERCQ R. A simple solution to the paradox of negative emotion. In LEVINSON J, editor, Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2014. p. 111-122 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313713_6