Íngrid Vendrell-Ferran

This paper explores Landmann-Kalischer’s analogy between the sensing of secondary qualities and the feeling of values in her work “Philosophie der Werte” (Philosophy of Values) (1910). Attention is paid to the epistemic motivation of the analogy, the distinction between pure feelings and affects, and the relation of pure feelings to value judgments. Her account is contrasted with two other accounts of the Brentanian tradition: Scheler’s approach within early phenomenology and Meinong’s account within the Graz School. I demonstrate that Landmann-Kalischer’s pioneering work helped to forge a new view of affectivity which became dominant among Brentano’s followers. According to this new view, there is a type of affective experience which is both intentional and cognitive. More precisely, she argued that the affective experience in question is a feeling. The paper also argues that her account can enrich today’s meta-ethical research. It is argued that her account of pure feelings provides arguments against the view that makes emotions responsible for the apprehension of value. Furthermore, it is shown that we need an analysis of how objective knowledge of value can be obtained from our affective intuitions.

In diesem Aufsatz werden die Fragen nach dem Ort der Werte in der Erfahrung und nach ihrer Natur als Qualität besonderer Art anhand von Ansätzen der Brentanoschule und der Gestaltpsychologie untersucht. Konkret geht es darum, diejenigen Positionen innerhalb dieser Schulen zu analysieren, welche die Werte sowohl in Abhängigkeit von den Eigenschaften des Objektes, an dem diese haften, als auch von der psychophysischen Konstitution des Subjektes, welche sich auf Werte bezieht, verstehen. Brentanos Dispositionalismus, Meinongs erste und zweite dispositionalistische Theorie der Werte und Landmann-Kalischers Theorie der Werte als sekundäre Qualitäten werden exemplarisch als Vertreter der Brentanoschule untersucht, während Köhlers These der Werte als Gestaltqualitäten die Auffassung der Berliner gestalttheoretischen Schule repräsentieren soll. Die Untersuchung dieser Positionen wird einen neuen Blick auf das Wertphänomen werfen, die sich sowohl vom Realismus als auch vom Emotivismus unterscheidet, und welche darin besteht, es in Abhängigkeit von unseren affektiven Dispositionen zu erklären, seien diese als Gemütsbewegungen, Begehrungen, Gefühle oder emotionale Wahrnehmungen verstanden.

This paper explores Max Scheler’s metaphilosophical views. In particular, the paper seeks to reconstruct and assess Scheler’s thesis according to which philosophical knowledge presupposes a moral attitude which he describes as an “act of upsurge” on the part of the whole person of the philosopher toward the essential, an act which cannot be found in either the natural worldview or the sciences. After motivating the topic in the introduction (section 1), the paper explores how Scheler approaches the question about the nature of philosophy by focusing on the type of person of the philosopher (section 2). It then examines Scheler’s claim according to which philosophy is fundamentally distinct from the sciences (section 3), before exploring the moral attitude of the philosopher by examining three of its constitutive attitudes: love, self-humbling, and self-mastery (section 4). The paper presents some challenges and objections against Scheler’s metaphilosophical thesis. In particular, critiques of its metaphysical implications and of the view of science implicit in it are provided (section 5). Finally, it is also argued that the thesis contains a grain of truth and as such a moderate interpretation of it could be defended (section 6). The main findings are summarized in the conclusion (section 7).

A vast range of our everyday experiences seem to involve an immediate consciousness of value. We hear the rudeness of someone making offensive comments. In seeing someone risking her life to save another, we recognize her bravery. When we witness a person shouting at an innocent child, we feel the unfairness of this action. If, in learning of a close friend’s success, envy arises in us, we experience our own emotional response as wrong. How are these values apprehended? The three most common answers provided by contemporary philosophy explain the consciousness of value in terms of judgment, emotion, or perception. An alternative view endorsed mainly by authors inspired by the phenomenological tradition argues that values are apprehended by an intentional feeling. In this model, it is by virtue of a feeling that objects are presented as being in different degrees and nuances fair or unfair, boring or funny, good or bad. This paper offers an account of this model of feeling and its basic features, and defends it over alternative models. To this end, the paper discusses different versions of the model circulating in current research which until now have developed in parallel rather than in mutual exchange. The paper also applies the proposed account to the moral domain and examines how a feeling of values is presupposed by several moral experiences.

This paper maintains that empathy with fictional characters, aka fictional empathy, is morally valuable insofar as it can provide the empathizer with knowledge of values. More precisely, the paper argues that fictional empathy enables the empathizer to become imaginatively acquainted with the other’s values, even if these values are very different from one’s own. After motivating the topic in the introduction (section 1), the paper presents some thoughts about the epistemology of value and empathy, establishing a distinction between direct and imaginative acquaintance with values (section 2). Next, it argues that empathy can lead the empathizer to co-experience the other’s values and, in so doing, make her directly or imaginatively acquainted with them (section 3). The paper discusses a possible challenge concerning the epistemic function of the imagination and explores different ways in which we can become imaginatively acquainted with values (section 4). It then examines features of fiction that explain why fictional empathy might be better suited than empathy for real others in pursuing this task (section 5). The paper closes by providing some reasons why we should regard the imaginative acquaintance with value attained through fictional empathy as morally valuable (section 6).

Drawing on insights found in both philosophy and psychology, this paper offers an analysis of hate and distinguishes between its main types. I argue that hate is a sentiment, i.e., a form to regard the other as evil which on certain occasions can be acutely felt. On the basis of this definition, I develop a typology which, unlike the main typologies in philosophy and psychology, does not explain hate in terms of patterns of other affective states. By examining the developmental history and intentional structure of hate, I obtain two variables: the replaceability/irreplaceability of the target and the determinacy/indeterminacy of the focus of concern. The combination of these variables generates the four-types model of hate, according to which hate comes in the following kinds: normative, ideological, retributive, and malicious.

This paper examines the notion of aesthetic pleasure within the framework of an aesthetics of value. The topic is introduced in sect. 1, while sect. 2 presents Moritz Geiger’s distinction between two kinds of aesthetic pleasure: liking, which enables us to grasp the aesthetic values of the artwork; and enjoyment, which is understood to be an emotional response. Sect. 3 reassesses the main tenets of Geiger’s account in the light of current research. In particular, I provide arguments in favor of Geiger’s distinction between liking and enjoyment, but I call into question the claim that liking reveals aesthetic values. In sect. 4, I suggest that liking is a form of feeling motivated by the cognition of aesthetic value and I distinguish it from both the grasping of values and emotional responses. I conclude in sect. 5 by briefly summarizing my main claims.

In ordinary language, “calmness”, “melancholy”, “cheerfulness”, and “sadness” are employed to describe affective states experienced by sentient beings. More precisely, these terms are used to report instances of moods. Yet, the very same terms are used to describe what seem to be properties of certain objects (e.g., things, situations) which, unlike sentient beings, are unable to feel. We usually describe atmospheres employing these terms: We speak about the calmness of a forest, the melancholy of a painting, the cheerfulness of a field of flowers and the sadness of a landscape. Are we in fact referring to the same phenomenon? If not, why then do we employ the same terms?

This paper argues that certain literary works can only be fully appreciated if the reader is able to experience through empathy the character’s values. I call it "the axiological account" because it makes the grasping of aesthetic values dependent on the experience of other values embodied in the work. I develop my argument in three stages. First, I argue that in empathy we not only apprehend but also experience something similar to what the target is going through. Next, I show how this experience is necessary to extract the aesthetic values of certain works. The final section addresses two challenges to the proposed account.

A very basic form of experience consists in feeling energetic, vital, alive, tired, dispirited, vigorous and so on. These feelings – which I call feelings of vitality or vital feelings – constitute the main concern of this paper. My aim is to argue that these feelings exhibit a distinctive form of affectivity which cannot be explained in terms of emotions, moods, background feelings or existential feelings and to explore different paths for their conceptualization. The paper proceeds as follows. After introducing the topic (sect. 1), I show that these feelings cannot be subsumed under any of the current categories of the affective mind (sect. 2). Against this backdrop, I present and critically assess Scheler’s notion of vital feelings as an alternative model for capturing their distinctive nature (sect. 3). Next, I explore varieties of vital feelings by focusing on different levels of the bodily-felt experience (sect. 4) and analyze their specific form of self-involvement (sect. 5). Finally, I conclude by showing how the study of vital feelings might contribute to phenomenological bioethics (sect. 6).

Dieser Beitrag handelt von der Empathie in der Kunst. Ich beginne mit einer Reflexion über die Ursprünge des Begriffes und seine Verwendung in der Ästhetik. Es folgt eine Analyse der Empathie im Vergleich zu anderen Formen der Anteilnahme an Kunstwerken. Im dritten Teil untersuche ich die Mechanismen der Empathie in der Kunst und die Funktion der Imagination. Der vierte Teil widmet sich der Bedeutung der Gefühle bei der Empathie für Kunstfiguren. Schließlich thematisiere ich den epistemischen, moralischen und ästhetischen Wert der Empathie für die Kunst.

According to «the emotional intentionality thesis», emotional experiences exhibit a sui generis intentional structure which consists in presenting the values of the objects they target. This paper examines the versions of this thesis put forward by Meinong and Scheler. While Meinong’s «emotional presentation account» maintains that emotions present values, Scheler’s «value-ception account» carefully dis-tinguishes between the apprehension of value in a feeling and the emotional response. The comparative study of both accounts is articulated around two issues central to contemporary emotion research: 1) the «epistemic question» that examines which emotional experience is in fact responsible for the appre-hension of value; and 2) the «cognitive bases question» which explores the relation between emotional experiences and the cognitive states responsible for presenting the objects that the emotional experiences target. After introducing the emotional intentionality thesis and its historical roots in Brentano (sec-tion 1), the next two sections examine in turn the versions of this thesis provided by Meinong and Scheler (sections 2 and 3). The paper concludes by summarizing the results of the comparative study and extracting some teachings for current research (section 4).

Aunque la figura de Meinong se asocia a posiciones realistas acerca delos valores, un análisis más cuidadoso de su obra revela al menos tres concepcionesdiferentes de esta noción. El objetivo de este artículo consiste en examinar sistemáti-camente las tesis acerca de los valores sostenidas en tres de sus obras. Se analizará primero la teoría disposicionalista defendida en Psychologische ethische Untersuc-hungen zur Werttheorie (1894) según la cual los valores son posibles sentimientosde valor. Centraremos después nuestra atención a los cambios realizados en “ÜberWerthaltung und Wert” (1895), obra en la que se explica el concepto de valor rela-cionándolo con los conceptos de emoción y deseo. Finalmente, nos centraremos enlas tesis realistas expuestas en Emotionale Präsentation (1917) y mostraremos la actualidad de las mismas para el debate contemporáneo.

Ziel des Aufsatzes ist es, das Projekt angewandter interkultureller Philosophie „Briefe über Philosophie weltweit“ vorzustellen. Der Beitrag ist in vier Teile gegliedert. Im ersten Abschnitt werden Anlass und Profil des Projektes vorgestellt. Der „akademische Nomadismus“ der Gegenwart verstärkt die immer schon interkulturelle Verfasstheit der akademischen Praxis und stellt den lebensweltlichen Anlass des Projektes dar, dies in Form von Briefen über die verschiedenen Bedingungen des Philosophierens auch zu reflektieren. Im zweiten Abschnitt wird genauer nach Erfahrungen gefragt, die in den Briefen zum Ausdruck kommen und die wir als „interkulturelle Erfahrungen“ bezeichnen und näher bestimmen wollen. Thema des dritten Abschnitts ist die gewählte Darstellungsform für derartige interkulturelle Erfahrungen, nämlich die Briefform als Medium für Perspektivität. Im vierten Abschnitt machen wir abschließend den Versuch, das Projekt als Form angewandter interkultureller Philosophie zu profilieren.

This paper examines the model of the emotions put forward by Reinach and Scheler at the beginning of the 20th century and presents it as a plausible alternative to the contemporary “perceptual model.” According to the Reinach-Scheler view, emotions are not perceptions of value, but possible responses to values given to us in value-feelings. The paper is divided into two parts. The first is an historical investigation of the origins of the model in Reinach’s and Scheler’s works within the broader context of early phenomenology. The second part presents systematic arguments for the distinction between value-feeling and emotional response.

This paper examines the dynamic of belittlement and self-affirmation that is characteristic of hate. It argues that in hate we respond to a belittlement of our feeling of self-worth with an extreme form of self-affirmation which consists in regarding the other as evil and as deserving of being annihilated. Analyzing the origins and causes of hate, I develop a taxonomy of its main forms and distinguish between retributive, normative, malicious, and ideological hate. I show that all forms of hate aim at increasing our feeling of self-worth. This common aim, however, is not always achieved: while retributive and normative hate can lead to an enhancement of one’s feeling of self-worth, in malicious and ideological hate such enhancement remains illusory and subject to self-deception. Finally, I argue that hate can never be morally justified.

Dieser Aufsatz widmet sich dem Begriff "Männlichkeit". Die Klärung des Begriffes soll mithilfe dreier philosophischer Strategien unternommen werden. Erstens werde ich zwei philosophische Modelle von Männlichkeit einander gegenüberstellen. Harvey C. Mansfields Theorie soll mithilfe von Pierre Bourdieus Konzept der männlichen Herrschaft kritisiert werden. Während Mansfield eine verbreitete Auffassung von Männlichkeit vertritt, die diese mit Assertivität, Mut und Adel verbindet, bietet Bourdieu uns ein gutes Instrumentarium dafür, versteckte Strukturen der männlichen Ordnung hinter diesem Bild zu entdecken. Zweitens wird diese Kritik mit Bourdieu durch einen phänomenologischen Hintergrund motiviert. Dabei werde ich sowohl die phänomenologischen Wurzeln von Bourdieus Denken als auch die Möglichkeit der phänomenologischen Weiterführung seiner Ideen berücksichtigen. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird den Übereinstimmungen von Bourdieu und Max Scheler gewidmet. Schließlich werde ich den Vorschlag machen, „Männlichkeit“ als einen offenen Begriff zu verstehen, der historisch, sozial und kulturell wandelbar ist. Die Idee des offenen Begriffs bietet eine Alternative zu essenzialistischen Definitionen anhand notwendiger und hinreichenden Kriterien, lässt genügend Freiraum, um die Interdependenz zwischen gesellschaftlichem Wandel und un-seren Männlichkeitskonstruktionen zu berücksichtigen

It is widely assumed that the expression of an emotion is the external bodily manifestation of an internal psychological state. In contrast to this “general view”, this paper presents and discusses an alternative view put forward by Scheler and developed by authors close to the phenomenological tradition. According to the “phenomenological view”, emotional expression is a phenomenon of the lived body. In exploring this view, the paper analyzes four of its main tenets: a) the concept of the lived body as distinct from the physical body; b) the idea that emotional expression functions as a symbol; c) the thesis of the universal grammar of emotions; and d) the distinction between final and expressive movements. In the conclusion, I discuss the value and relevance of the phenomenological view to contemporary research.

This paper offers a reading of Hartmann’s philosophy of literature from the perspective of contemporary aesthetics. In particular, I focus on his defense of the truth-value of literary works. After outlining the main concern of the paper (sect. 1), I place Hartmann’s view within the context of current aesthetic cognitivism (sect. 2). In the following three sections, I discuss Hartmann’s account, examining his critique of the thesis that literature is cognitively valuable because it transmits factual truths (sect. 3); his defense of the view that literature discloses life (sect. 4); and the link between cognitive value and the ontology of the literary work (sect. 5). Finally, I discuss Hartmann’s focus on the concept of “truth” in the light of recent debates on knowledge of “what it is like” and on “understanding” (sect. 6).

One important aspect of Nussbaum´s thesis on the moral value of literature concerns the power of literature to enhance our ability to empathise with other minds. This aspect will be the focus of the current article. My aim is to reflect upon this question regarding the moral value of our empathy for fictional characters. The article is structured in two main parts. I will first examine the concept of “empathy” and distinguish between empathy for human beings and empathy for fictional characters. I will call the latter “literary empathy”. In the second part of the paper I will examine the arguments for and against the double thesis that reading literature enhances our ability to feel empathy, and that feeling empathy prompts altruistic behaviour.

In diesem Aufsatz argumentiere ich für die These, dass alle Dokumentarfilme darauf abzielen, uns Erkenntnis über einen Aspekt der Realität zu vermitteln. Dieser These zufolge sind Dokumentarfilme – im Unterschied zu anderen Filmgattungen – der Wirklichkeit verpflichtet. Vor diesem Hintergrund sollen in diesem Aufsatz zwei Aspekte genauer untersucht werden: zum einen, wie der kognitive Wert von Dokumentarfilmen genauer zu verstehen ist, und zum anderen, inwiefern ausgehend von diesem epistemischen Aspekt Unterscheidungskriterien zwischen Dokumentarfilmen und anderen Filmgattungen entwickelt werden können. Der Aufsatz gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Im ersten Teil werde ich die Frage untersuchen, inwiefern Dokumentarfilme „Dokumente“ der Realität sind. Dabei werde ich verschiedene Interpretationen des epistemischen Ziels von Dokumentarfilmen besprechen und auch die „Vergegenwärtigungsansicht“ als Ergänzung zu der „assertorischen Ansicht“ (Plantinga, Carroll und Currie) und zu der „Verstehensansicht“ (Dromm) anbieten. Im zweiten Teil sollen die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen Dokumentarfilmen und Spielfilmen besprochen werden, um genauere Unterscheidungskriterien zu entwickeln. Ich werde hierfür den phänomenologischen Begriff der Imagination (Sartre, Meunier) einführen und seine Produktivität für die Debatte über den kognitiven Wert von Dokumentarfilmen aufzeigen.