Martin Hartmann

This paper discusses recent interpretations of Jean-Paul Sartre's early theory of emotions, in particular his Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. Despite the great interest that Sartre's approach has generated, most interpretations assume that his approach fails because it appears to be focussed on ‘malformed’, ‘irrational’ or ‘distorted’ emotions. I argue that these criticisms adopt a rationalistic or epistemically biassed perspective on emotions that is wrongly applied to Sartre's text. In my defence of Sartre I show that the directional fit of emotions is not towards an evaluatively loaded world which is independently given and, at best, represented by emotions, but towards a world shaped through the impact of emotions themselves. Sartre's idea of emotions ‘magically transforming’ reality for the subject so that the latter is better able to cope with problematic aspects of practically relevant situations encapsulates the world-shaping capacities of emotions, which are thus not reserved for a restricted class of emotions. Recognition of the transformative powers of emotions will also direct attention away from their seemingly representative elements to their normative and practical aspects and offer a new basis for delineating the criteria for judging them. The plausibility of this position is discussed with reference to some of Sartre's examples, such as fear, sadness and horror, but also with reference to Joan Didion's account of grief in The Year of Magical Thinking.

The relatively young discipline of neuroeconomics has taken an interest in forms of interpersonal trust from its very inception in an attempt to correct one-dimensional overrationalistic pictures of homo economicus. This article analyzes the notion of trust as present in these studies, but also takes a look at typical philosophical ways of criticizing neuroscientific uses of everyday concepts such as trust that insist on their irreducible semantic complexity. It is suggested that these critical approaches are justified, but often underrate the extent to which everyday concepts change or modify their meaning under various social, economic and political pressures. If this is granted, it becomes possible to take a deepened look at the neuroeconomic concept of trust. While it is true that this concept is under the influence of an every_day concept of trust it can be shown that this everyday concept of trust gradually takes on a reduced economic twist. If this fact remains unrecognized neuroeconomics in particular and neuroscience in general can take on ideological functions in reflecting back to society a seemingly natural understanding of trust that is, in truth, highly shaped by economic forces.