First of all I've been reading an old textbook on childhood development that I find fascinating. Today I sat in the car while Al went into a store and read about the development of humor. It was really interesting how they defined humor (as an incongruity that relates back to the original context) and how they broke down it's development in terms of stages of cognitive development. People who catch me reading a book on childhood development wonder if I want to be a teacher or counselor or something but I think this is the kind of thing that should be studied in philosophy courses. What gets more to the core of understanding than the origins of understanding itself?
Second, I saw this video online concerning defining emotion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7MqAbL1Q7o I think it's interesting that emotion is defined as a belief, an evaluation, and a feeling. Definetly worth considering although I don't know how I feel about it. What I don't like is how the author this student is reading about seems to feel that it's possible to have 'right' and 'wrong' emotions, that it is possible to judge emotions. However, I guess that is because I don't believe that there is ever such a thing as a 'right' or 'wrong' period. Whether in terms of action, understanding, beliefs, evaluations, or anything else for that matter.
I'm out, peace!