Passage Discussion

[uhdang]

Had to spend more time understanding the text completely, probably because the topic is unfamiliar to me, but it was an interesting reading.

[Passage Analysis]

P1:
Frijda argues that emotions are only elicited by something appraised as real, but her argument isn't 100% convincing.

P2:
F’s law advocates that degree of recognizing something as "real" determines emotional response, but it isn't sufficient to explain emotional response from something you know it's not real -- Ghost in the movie and Mozart's Requiem. / F's law would claim for no emotional response to art.

P3:
Most psychologists argue that emotions from aesthetic experience is not genuine but from a different kind / Gombrich — emotions are triggered previous experience, not genuine. / Radford — Do experience emotion in response to the art, but irrational. / F’s law does not explain these.

P4:
F suggests vivid imagination accounts for “property of reality”, but since the person knows that it is not reality, the question remains unanswered as to why he/she experiences that emotion.

Overall:
Frijda’s law of apparent reality does not explain some of the phenomena of experiencing certain emotions illustrated by other psychologists.