مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد هیجان پذیری و ارتباط آن با حافظه – اسپرینگر 2018

When afectivity is considered in its relation to memory, two issues are at stake. The infuence of afectivity on memory, i.e. emotions as modifers of memory,1 is not the same as the memory of emotions, i.e. the extent to which feelings2 are subject to forgetfulness and remembering.3 For instance, in a highly infuential handbook, The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions (Ekman and Davidson 1994) one of chapters is devoted to “the Relation Between Emotion and Memory”. In this chapter, one paper is about the “major infuence of emotion on memory” (Bower 1994: 303), another about “how emotional memories are elicited and […] the connection between the current encounter and the past emotional memories” (Lazarus 1994: 306). Although Lazarus underscores that “[i]t is important to distinguish emotional memory from memory of emotion”, since “[t]he latter is a declarative, conscious memory of an emotional experience. It is stored as a fact about an emotional episode. […] emotional memory and memory for emotion are stored through diferent brain systems […]” (LeDoux 1994: 312), memory of emotion is not treated. In what follows I shall treat the latter issue.4 Moreover, I intend to approach it from a categorial angle. I look for a conceptual framework of memory of emotions. In such a task empirical evidence may be only of auxiliary use. I resort to such evidence when I need examples of categories suggested within the whole frame. Finally, my concern is to look at afectivity as a hierarchical or multilayered realm. This kind of approach is rare and, what is worse, is often represented by means of notions of depth or the high, both metaphorical and, for that reason, philosophically unsatisfactory. Currently I am working on an attempt to render multilayeredness of afectivity without metaphor. It goes without saying that in what follows I do not intend to give a solid solution. I rather intend to provide room for several categories used in the debate on afectivity. In so doing I undertake a conceptual exercise and point to the taxonomical table. Since, no doubt, my results will be provisional, I prefer my umbrella to be too broad with a further need to restrict it rather than to be too narrow, in which case an item lying outside it would be hard to grasp and integrate. In fact, I believe that it is better to start with too many and then use Ockham’s razor to cut of and throw back what is needless rather then to start with a lack of distinctions and risk losing any element of the whole picture—hence the idea of using something like the periodic table of the chemical elements.