尽管具有无可争议的重要性,关于什么是情绪没有共识,大多数研究都是由特定的世界观来塑造他们的想法。这篇概念性文章探讨了对情感进行伊斯兰分析的案例。这似乎是一个需要检查的特殊领域;通过特定宗教的视角来分析这种普遍的心理概念有什么需要?三点用来论证这一努力。首先,这篇文章强调了这个词的相对不稳定性;关于什么是情绪,还没有普遍同意的定义,以及它们有助于哪些人类进程。由于概念仍在定义中,参与讨论是有好处的,特别是考虑到相对缺乏形而上学的辩论。其次,与情绪有关的特殊性以及它们是如何概念化的。本节深入研究可变因素的方式,比如文化,语言,和世界观,影响情绪如何表现。这里争论的最重要的一点是,情感是如何被体验的,即使经历了哪些情绪,是由在时间和空间上不一致的因素塑造的。因此,不同的世界观将形成不同的“情感味觉”和“情感意识形态”;不同的人群将不同地理解和参与情感。第三,随之而来的是关于科学本质的更广泛的讨论,心理学,以及它们与世俗性的关系。这种讨论包括对世俗主义和科学唯物主义等力量已被“发现”并因此是价值中立的观点的批评。因此,对学院出现的情感的理解,和当代心理学,充满价值。本节还着眼于科学的起源,以确定它本质上是无神论的还是宗教的,因此与宗教世界观对立。本节还挑战了心理学和关键心理学家的明显世俗性。一系列与情绪如何概念化有关的其他方面,比如他们的关系核心,他们与道德能力的互动,以及他们对个人和团体重要的东西的了解,也考虑到了。
Despite being of undisputed importance, there is no consensus on what emotions are, with the majority of research that constructs ideas about them being colored by a particular worldview. This conceptual article examines the case for conducting an Islamic analysis of emotion. It might seem a peculiar area to examine; what would be the need to analyze such a universal psychological concept through the lens of a particular religion? Three points are used to argue for this endeavor. To begin with, this article highlights the relative instability of the term; there is yet no universally agreed upon definition of what emotions are, and which human processes they contribute to. As the concept is still being defined, there is merit in engaging with the discussion, particularly given the relative absence of metaphysics from the debate. Secondly, specificities relating to emotions and how they have conceptualized are considered. This section delves into the way in which variable factors, such as culture, language, and worldview, influence how emotions manifest. The overarching point argued for here is that how emotions are experienced, and even which emotions are experienced, are shaped by factors that are not consistent across time and space. Accordingly, different worldviews will formulate different \"emotional palates\" and \"emotional ideologies\"; different groups of people will understand and engage with emotions differently. Thirdly, a broader discussion ensues pertaining to the nature of science, psychology, and their relationship with secularity. This discussion includes critique of the idea that forces such as secularism and scientific materialism have been \"discovered\" and are therefore value-neutral. Accordingly, understandings of emotions to have emerged from the Academy, and contemporary psychology, are value-laden. This section also looks at the origins of science in order to determine whether it is inherently atheistic or areligious, and therefore antagonistic to a religious worldview. The section also challenges the apparent secularity of psychology and key psychologists. A range of other facets pertaining to how the emotions have been conceptualized, such as their relational core, their interaction with moral faculties, and their enmeshment with what is important to individuals and groups, are also considered.