Fabrice Teroni

Suppose you are happy when Breaking Bad’s Walter White outwits law enforcement or embarrassed for Harry Burns when Sally Albright fakes an orgasm at the diner in When Harry Met Sally… What sort of epistemological role, if any, do these emotions for fictional entities play? This paper focuses on how they impact on our epistemic standing vis-à-vis the thick values (the happy, the embarrassing) that are at stake in these fictional situations and to which the emotions of being happy and embarrassed respond. It has often been claimed that engagement with fictional entities is key to the development of our affective sensitivities, but the reasons why this is the case have not been thoroughly investigated. I shall argue that emotions for fictional entities have epistemic merits because they rest on an aesthetic or appreciative attitude. Given that this attitude can silence many concerns that bear on our real-life engagements and that the relevant fictions subvert our normal patterns of attention, the emotions that are elicited during aesthetic engagement can attune us to evaluative aspects of our environments that we would otherwise have missed and feed into our thick value concepts.

In this chapter, the idea that emotions are evaluations is introduced. It explores two approaches attempting to account for this idea in terms of attitudes that are alleged to become emotional when taking evaluative contents. According to the first approach, emotions are evaluative judgements. According to the second, emotions are perceptual experiences of evaluative properties. This chapter explains why this theory remains unsatisfactory insofar as it shares with the evaluative judgement theory the idea that emotions are evaluations in virtue of their contents. An alternative is then outlined—the attitudinal theory of emotions. It parts with current theorizing about the emotions in elucidating the idea that emotions are evaluations not in terms of what they represent, but in terms of the attitude subjects take towards what they represent. Finally, the issue of what sorts of attitudes emotions are is examined, and the conclusion reached that they are felt bodily attitudes.

How does shame differ from guilt? Empirical psychology has recently offered distinct and seemingly incompatible answers to this question. This article brings together four prominent answers into a cohesive whole. These are that (a) shame differs from guilt in being a social emotion; (b) shame, in contrast to guilt, affects the whole self; (c) shame is linked with ideals, whereas guilt concerns prohibitions and (d) shame is oriented towards the self, guilt towards others. After presenting the relevant empirical evidence, we defend specific interpretations of each of these answers and argue that they are related to four different dimensions of the emotions. This not only allows us to overcome the conclusion that the above criteria are either unrelated or conflicting with one another, it also allows us to tell apart what is constitutive from what is typical of them. -/- .

Philosophers interested in our sense of diachronic identity have typically emphasized that it relies on some form of psychological continuity. Traditionally, they have insisted on the continuity constituted by memory and, more generally, Mental Time Travel (MTT). More recently, the continuity characteristic of the stream of consciousness has also been emphasized. Focussing on these two kinds of continuity may foster an inaccurate picture of our sense of diachronic identity, however. Some data indeed suggest that what is most important to this sense are rather long-standing character and personality traits. In this chapter, my aim is to build bridges between recent approaches that emphasize the role of character and personality traits and more traditional accounts that give pride of place to MTT and/or the stream of consciousness. In §1, I present data suggesting that memory is less important for our sense of personal identity than the preservation of character and personality traits. Next, in §2 and §3, I lay out an account of these traits according to which they are multitrack dispositions whose central manifestations are emotions – for that reason, moral and personality traits are constituents of the affective self. If this is along the right track, emotions have an important influence on our sense of diachronic identity. But how do emotions relate to the two kinds of continuity introduced above? §4 explores how emotions impact the stream of consciousness. I argue that the processual nature of emotions supports the conclusion that they are crucial contributors to the sense of identity characteristic of the stream of consciousness. In §5, I explore how emotions relate to the sense of identity generated by MTT. Considering the role of emotions at the time of encoding and at the time of remembering, I conclude that emotions are central determinants of the sense of continuity generated by MTT.

This chapter explores the intuition that affective dispositions are the building blocks of personality. We understand personality along Aristotelian lines as the unified set of one’s affective dispositions. We start with some recent data showing that affective dispositions such as character and personality traits are key determinants of the sense of who we are. At first sight, this goes against mainstream tendencies to approach the issue of personal identity by reference to other processes and capacities, such as memories and narratives. This appearance is in our opinion misleading and we use affective dispositions as a privileged vantage point to understand the relations between our sense of who we are, memory, and narrative competency. The drift of our argument is that the sense of who we are, which crucially builds on affective states, has a deep impact on how we remember and narrate our lives.

In contemporary psychology and philosophy, influential theories approach the emotions via their relations to values and evaluations. My aim is to contribute to our understanding of how these evaluative theories in psychology and philosophy relate to one another. I first explain why this presupposes that we make up our minds about the relations between “molecular” and “molar” properties. The rest of my discussion explores some ways of understanding the relation between the molar and the molecular: as a relation of epistemological support, of identity or of the determinable‐determinates type.

Negative emotions are familiar enough, but they have rarely been a topic of study in their own right. This volume brings together fourteen chapters on negative emotions, written in a highly accessible style for non-specialists and specialists alike. It starts with chapters on general issues raised by negative emotions, such as the nature of valence, the theoretical implications of nasty emotions, the role of negative emotions in fiction, as well as the puzzles raised by ambivalent and mixed emotions. The second part of the volume consists of studies of specific emotional phenomena, ranging from the emotion of being moved and the sense of uncanniness to jealousy, hatred, shame, contempt, anxiety, and grief.

The emotions are at the centre of our lives and, for better or worse, imbue them with much of their significance. The philosophical problems stirred up by the existence of the emotions, over which many great philosophers of the past have laboured, revolve around attempts to understand what this significance amounts to. Are emotions feelings, thoughts, or experiences? If they are experiences, what are they experiences of? Are emotions rational? In what sense do emotions give meaning to what surrounds us? _The Emotions: A Philosophical Introduction_ introduces and explores these questions in a clear and accessible way. The authors discuss the following key topics: the diversity and unity of the emotions the relations between emotion, belief and desire the nature of values the relations between emotions and perceptions emotions viewed as evaluative attitudes the link between emotions and evaluative knowledge the nature of moods, sentiments, and character traits. Including chapter summaries and guides to further reading, _The Emotions: A Philosophical Introduction_ is an ideal starting point for any philosopher or student studying the emotions. It will also be of interest to those in related disciplines such as psychology and the social sciences.

In this paper, we explore the links between emotions and creativity. Building on what we perceive as key examples, we distinguish instrumental and constitutive senses in which emotions can be creative. Emotions are instrumentally creative when they sustain novel and valuable thought processes aiming at maintaining or modifying a given emotional situation. They are constitutively creative when they function as essential parts of value understanding and when they come to carve and sometimes change the evaluative landscape. Despite their alleged passivity and rigidity, we claim, emotions sometimes manifest the kind of skillfulness that creativity presupposes.

Contemporary philosophers are attracted by the Indispensability Claim, according to which emotions are indispensable in acquiring knowledge of some important values. The truth of this claim is often thought to depend on that of Emotional Dogmatism, the view that emotions justify evaluative judgements because they (seem to) make us aware of the relevant values. The aim of this paper is to show that the Indispensability Claim does not stand or fall with Emotional Dogmatism and that there is actually an attractive alternative way of developing it. We first argue that the Indispensability Claim requires a deflationary account of the cognitive bases of emotions, which we call the Simple View and defend against a variety of criticisms. Armed with the Simple View, we show that the Indispensability Claim is made true by three roles of the emotions: they help us access the relevant evidence, provide a needed hook-up between evidence and judgement, and contribute to evaluative understanding.

Cet ouvrage propose un examen détaillé et une évaluation des positions et arguments principaux des Méditations et de leurs ramifications dans la philosophie moderne et contemporaine. Il a pour but premier d’accompagner la lecture des Méditations pour le lecteur intéressé par la nature et l’évaluation des arguments et thèses cartésiens. Le texte suit la structure des Méditations et se divise donc en six chapitres suivant de près le texte tout en l’éclairant par l’ensemble du corpus cartésien et les commentaires de son œuvre. Cette discussion systématique des arguments et positions cartésiens se complète d’une attention soutenue à la façon dont ils se lient à des débats en philosophie contemporaine. Cette démarche permet à l’auteur non seulement de développer des interprétations souvent originales des positions et arguments cartésiens, mais aussi de les évaluer et de cerner leurs liens avec des débats en philosophie contemporaine. Dans son ensemble, l’ouvrage se présente donc comme un exercice de philosophie rigoureux autour des thèmes cartésiens qui permet au lecteur d’aborder successivement la nature du doute, la forme de l’argument du Cogito et la nature des idées claires et distinctes, les preuves de l’existence de Dieu, la théorie du jugement, notre connaissance des essences et son impact sur la preuve ontologique et la conception que se fait Descartes des rapports entre le corps et l’esprit.

The paper is structured as follows. §1 lays out the worry that the FA analysis fosters a revisionary understanding of emotional values. §2 introduces the distinction between enablers and favourers and how it is pressed into service by Toni to reply to this worry. While I agree that the reply is attractive, since casting emotions in the role of enablers chimes well with how we pre-theoretically understand the relations between emotions and values, I observe that doing so requires that we tackle two connected issues. First, how do emotions function as value enablers? Second, is the resulting picture compatible with the FA analysis? The rest of the discussion is structured around these issues. §3 looks at the role of emotions within the FA analysis so as to specify the kind of enabling role they can play. On this backdrop, I explore in §4 a contrast between how belief relates to truth and how emotions relate to values, a contrast which helps uncover what we are after. A first reaction to this contrast, according to which emotions are value enablers by allowing us to access values, which differ from truth, is examined in §5. I argue that this idea cannot do justice to the key insight of the FA analysis. §6 defends an alternative idea, according to which emotions are enablers in virtue of their attitudinal shapes.

Julien Deonna et Fabrice Teroni Cet article explore l’intuition hédoniste convaincante selon laquelle les émotions affectent le bonheur parce qu’elles sont des états de plaisir et de déplaisir. La discussion s’intéresse à deux contraintes sur une version plausible de l’hédonisme et explique quels récits des émotions satisfont ces contraintes. La section 1 s’articule autour de la contrainte de non-aliénation : les constituants du bonheur d’un sujet doivent l’engager. Nous soutenons que l’intuition selon laquelle les émotions ont une valeur prudentielle présuppose que les émotions sont des formes d’engagement, une condition que seules certaines conceptions des émotions satisfont. La section 2 est centrée sur la contrainte de l’unité: si nous reconnaissons une grande variété de (dé)plaisirs, nous devons encore comprendre ce qui en fait des (dé)plaisirs. Concevoir les émotions comme des formes d’engagement, soutenons-nous, permet de résoudre les difficultés concernant la variété et l’unité des (dé)plaisirs qui pèsent sur l’hédonisme traditionnel. Dans la section 3, nous défendons la forme d’hédonisme affectif qui se dégage de ce qui précède. Nous soutenons que cette approche peut être étendue des émotions à d’autres états affectifs et que le rôle central que nous donnons aux tendances à l’action dans notre conception de l’affectivité ne remet pas en question l’idée selon laquelle les émotions contribuent au bonheur en raison de leur valeur hédonique.

In this paper, we contrast the different ways in which the representationalist and the attitudinalist in the theory of emotions account for the fact that emotions have evaluative correctness conditions. We argue that the attitudinalist has the resources to defend her view against recent attacks from the representationalist. To this end, we elaborate on the idea that emotional attitudes have a rich profile and explain how it supports the claim that these attitudes generate the wished-for evaluative correctness conditions. Our argument rests on the idea that emotional attitudes manifest a sensitivity to evaluative evidence and that this sensitivity secures the kind of normativity we expect of the emotions. We bring our discussion to a close by assessing whether the psychological underpinnings of this sensitivity to evaluative evidence are such as to threaten the foundation of attitudinalism: the idea that emotions do not represent values. Given the available models of how we might access values prior to emotional experience, we conclude that the attitudinalist is still in the game.

According to the fitting attitude (FA) analysis of value concepts, to conceive of an object as having a given value is to conceive of it as being such that a certain evaluative attitude taken towards it would be fitting. Among the challenges that this analysis has to face, two are especially pressing. The first is a psychological challenge: the FA analysis must call upon attitudes that shed light on our value concepts while not presupposing the mastery of these concepts. The second challenge is normative: the FA analysis must account for the fittingness of the relevant attitudes in terms of a kind of normativity intimately related to these attitudes, but again without presupposing the mastery of the relevant value concepts. In this paper, we show that real progress is possible if we pay close attention to the nature of the attitudes recruited by the analysis. More specifically, we claim that an FA analysis that appeals to emotions conceived as evaluative attitudes — as opposed to, for instance, evaluative judgements or evaluative perceptions — has the best prospects of meeting the two challenges and of putting the FA analysis on a strong footing.

Pre-theoretically, it seems obvious that there are deep and multifarious relations between memory and emotions. On the one hand, a large chunk of our affective lives concerns the good and bad events that happened to us and that we preserve in memory. This is one amongst the many ways in which memory is relevant to the nature and causation of emotions. What does recent research teach us about these relations? § 1 surveys some key issues in this regard. On the other hand, which events we happen to preserve in memory very much depends on how we affectively reacted to them when they took place. Emotions are relevant to the nature and causation of memory in this and many other ways. Key issues regarding these relations are surveyed in § 2.

Contrary to the emotions we feel in everyday contexts, the emotions we feel for fictional characters do not seem to require a belief in the existence of their object. This observation has given birth to a famous philosophical paradox (the ‘paradox of fiction’), and has led some philosophers to claim that the emotions we feel for fictional characters are not genuine emotions but rather “quasi-emotions”. Since then, the existence of quasi-emotions has been a hotly debated issue. Recently, philosophers and psychologists have proposed to solve this debate by using empirical methods and experimentally studying differences between ‘real’ and ‘fictional’ emotions. In this paper, our goal is to assess the success of these attempts. We begin by surveying the existing empirical literature and stressing the methodological problems that plague most studies that might seem relevant to the debate, before focusing on recent studies that avoid this pitfall. We then argue that, due to conceptual problems, these studies fail to be relevant to the philosophical debate and emphasize new directions for future empirical research on the topic.

Meinong’s early essay, Zur erkenntnistheoretischen Würdigung des Gedächtnisses1, provides, despite its brevity, a very important discussion of mnesic phenomena. In this paper, I investigate some points I believe to be of particular interest: some of them are briefly broached by Meinong, whereas others form an important part of his argument. Moreover, I will connect the discussion with more recent concerns in analytical philosophy. This presentation is structured in the following way. In section, I present Meinong’s definition of memory, and contrast it with more recent conceptions. In section, I present his epistemological discussion of memory judgements, which is further investigated in section, where I discuss the notion of presumptive evidence via the criticisms it elicited from Franz Brentano. At the end of this presentation, we will understand why Meinong’s essay is a landmark in the philosophical investigation of memory.

What is an emotion? No one will seriously doubt that it is a psychological entity of some sort. Rich and lively philosophical debates have failed to generate any stable picture regarding the nature of emotions that extends much beyond this platitude, however. At most, a bare majority of philosophers would agree that emotions exemplify the following features. First, emotions are characterized by a certain phenomenology: they are felt. Second, they are intentional phenomena and, as such, are in one way or another directed to various sorts of entities in the world (one is amused by the joke, sad at the death of a dear friend or proud that one is a self-made man). Third, they are closely connected with evaluations of these entities Ð amusement connects with a positive evaluation of the joke, sadness with a negative evaluation of the death. Fourth, emotions are relatively short-lived: unlike other phenomena that are closely related to them, such as character traits and sentiments that may endure for substantial stretches of one's life, emotions endure at most for some hours. Beyond that, disagreement reigns and the debates, which have become increasingly important in the past two decades or so, have almost exclusively revolved around the identification of the necessary and sufficient conditions of the emotions.

Bodily (dis)pleasures and emotions share the striking property of being valenced, i.e. they are positive or negative. What is valence? How do bodily (dis)pleasures and emotions relate to one another? This chapter assesses the prospects of two popular theses regarding the relation between bodily (dis)pleasures and emotions in light of what we can reasonably think about valence. According to the first thesis, the valence of bodily (dis)pleasures is explanatory prior vis-à-vis the valence of emotions. According to the second, emotions contain bodily (dis)pleasures. I argue that bodily (dis)pleasures are intentional states whose valence is to be understood in terms of evaluative experience, and bring to light the similarities and dissimilarities between their intentional structure and that of emotions. On this backdrop, I offer reasons to conclude that we should adopt neither of the two theses.

The aim of this article is to explore in a systematic way the rationality of emotions elicited when we engage with works of fiction. I first lay out the approach to the emotions on which my discussion is premised. Next, I concentrate on two facets of emotional rationality—the first pertains to the relation between emotions and the mental states on which they are based, the second to the relation between emotions and the judgements and behaviour they elicit. These observations about emotional rationality are then applied to emotions elicited by works of fiction. After having distinguished several families of emotions, I concentrate on what I call blob-emotions and emotions-for. I argue that, given their nature as direct responses to a restricted range of stimuli, blob-emotions are not irrational. As regards emotions-for fictional entities, I emphasize that a subject’s rationality shows in the way her emotions-for respond to evidence. On this basis, I discard an influential reason to think that emotions-for fictional entities are irrational. Finally, I offer an argument to conclude that they are typically correct and rational.

A l’instar de bien d’autres activités, manger du chocolat suscite du plaisir. Mais comment articuler de manière satisfaisante les différents sens en jeu dans l’ingestion d’un aliment – le goût, bien sûr, mais aussi l’odorat, l’ouïe et le toucher – avec ce plaisir ? Selon une approche traditionnelle, ce dernier n’est rien de plus qu’une expérience ineffable qui, si elle s’avère accompagner certaines stimulations sensorielles ou des activités plus intellectuelles, ne porte sur rien du tout. Est-ce plausible ? Ou faudrait-il plutôt comprendre le plaisir comme un sens supplémentaire qui viendrait prêter main forte au goût, à l’odorat et au toucher afin de parachever notre appréhension du chocolat ? Et, après tout, qu’est-ce qu’un plaisir ? Je suggère dans ce qui suit que la variété des types de plaisirs que nous sommes susceptibles de ressentir ainsi que la manière dont nous les ressentons vont à l’encontre de l’approche traditionnelle : les plaisirs portent sur quelque chose et nous renseignent à son propos. Cependant, cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il faille situer le plaisir sur le même plan que les sens. Il se situe plutôt en aval de leur activité, présuppose les informations qu’ils délivrent et constitue une réaction évaluative à leur endroit.