Juan R. Loaiza

In De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de emoción, Andrea Melamed analyzes the main philosophical theories of emotion and argues that none of them alone explains the complexity of our emotional life. Instead, Melamed defends a pluralist metatheoretical proposal that advocates bringing together different theories of emotion to explain specific facets of what we call «emotion». In this critical note, I examine Melamed’s argument on two fronts. First, I compare Melamed’s taxonomy of philosophical theories of emotion with the taxonomy recently proposed by Michael Brady. In doing so, I propose a joint taxonomy that inherits the virtues of both divisions of the literature. Second, I compare Melamed’s metatheoretical proposal with Griffiths’s eliminativism and show the difficulties pluralist approaches face to avoid collapsing into eliminativism.

How should we investigate folk emotion concepts for the purposes of anchoring scientific emotion concepts? In this article, I expand on Mun’s ideas on what she calls the fundamental base for interdisciplinary inquiry in the science of emotion. I argue that first-person intuitions should not be part of the object of study for an adequate approach to the fundamental base. This is because they are epistemically unreliable and subject to private language arguments. I propose a pragmatic account of how to investigate the fundamental base, drawing on Haslanger’s distinction between manifest and operative concepts, as well as some of her views on social constructionism and semantics. This pragmatic account covers the relevant sources of evidence considered by Mun, but also calls for an investigation of cultural variations in emotion concepts, scripts and norms. The upshot of the pragmatic account is a more expansive research program that maintains the interdisciplinary spirit of emotion science.

In our daily lives, we attribute emotions to non-human animals. However,the ontological commitments this implies are still in discussion. Particularly,philosophers still debate whether considerations about the mechanisms un-derlying emotions are necessary or not to attribute emotions to non-humananimals. Here, I argue that such considerations are not sufficient, and that afunctionalist perspective is more fruitful than its main contender, the homo-logy thinking view. To do this, I consider findings from experimental psy-chology on emotion attribution to non-human animals and distinguish twoquestions concerning such emotions. I then discuss functionalism and ho-mology thinking, claiming that homology thinking precludes promising em-pirical hypotheses from the outset, resulting in a more limited position thanfunctionalism. Hence, functionalism inherits many benefits of homologythinking while providing more productive grounds.

One important question in emotion science is determining what emotions there are. To answer this question, researchers have assumed either that folk emotion concepts are unsuitable for scientific inquiry, or that they are constitutive or explanatorily significant for emotion research. Either option faces a challenge from the cultural variability of folk emotion concepts, prompting debate on the universality of emotions. I contend that cultural variation in emotion should be construed as variations in components rather than entire emotional repertoires. To do this, I distinguish between hypotheses concerning emotional repertoires and those focused on specific emotional features within various cultural contexts. I hold that decisions regarding emotional repertoire hypotheses call for either revising current classification systems or maintaining them, but that, given underdetermination by evidence, this entails a preference for maintaining emotion taxonomies. This, in turn, leaves empirical hypotheses on specific emotional features as the most viable avenue for scientific inquiry.

En este texto, sostengo que el estudio psicológico del sesgo implícito puede beneficiarse de los enfoques de segunda persona. Específicamente, muestro que las aproximaciones experimentales dominantes basadas en el Test de Asociación Implícita (IAT por su sigla en inglés) presuponen un internalismo según el cual la posesión de un sesgo implícito se identifica con la posesión de una asociación conceptual. Al equiparar la posesión del sesgo implícito con la posesión de una asociación conceptual, la visión tradicional reduce el sesgo a una activación en memoria particular e ignora los aspectos socioculturales involucrados en este fenómeno. Para evitar esto, sugiero adoptar una perspectiva externalista, considerando el enfoque de segunda persona, que permite incluir en la identificación del sesgo aspectos socioculturales y normativos. Exploro finalmente algunas consecuencias de la propuesta externalista para la medición y la intervención sobre el sesgo implícito.

Functionalism as a philosophical position has been recently applied to the case of emotion research. However, a number of objections have been raised against applying such a view to scientific theorizing on emotions. In this article, I argue that functionalism is still a viable strategy for emotion research. To do this, I present functionalism in philosophy of mind and offer a sketch of its application to emotions. I then discuss three recent objections raised against it and respond to each of them. These objections claim that functionalism is intractable because (i) it does not support a scientifically interesting taxonomy of emotions for experimental settings, (ii) it is inherently teleological, and (iii) it cannot be falsified. I argue that these objections either rely on a simplified version of functionalism as a philosophical position or they pose challenges that functionalists can readily address. Lastly, I conclude by drawing some lessons these objections suggest for a tractable functionalist account of emotions.

Munch-Jurisic’s account of perpetrator disgust raises important new questions concerning the complexity of emotions and their connection with moral actions. In this commentary, we discuss this account by applying some of the author’s ideas to the case of anger. We suggest that just as the relations between disgust and moral action are much more nuanced than previously thought, as Munch-Jurisic explains, analyses of anger can also profit from a more careful approach to such connections. Specifically, we propose that contextual factors can affect the moral character of anger reactions, which in turn can provide them with moral value. We also argue that the contextual view deployed to study disgust reactions can also support distinctions between core forms and socio-moral forms of the same emotion, which in turn raises interesting questions concerning different forms of anger. Lastly, we extend the contextual approach to problems of emotion individuation and theories in emotion science, showing how current scientific emotion theories can learn from a detailed examination of disgust, anger, and other context-sensitive emotions. We aim to highlight some important contributions of Munch-Jurisic’s work to broader discussions on emotions, morality, and how to theorize about emotions overall.

Sostengo que la controversia entre la teoría de las emociones básicas y el construccionismo psicológico yace en diferencias sobre el rol de los conceptos cotidianos de emoción en el ámbito científico. Para esto, analizo las discusiones en torno a la universalidad de las expresiones faciales y a la existencia de correspondencias neurofisiológicas para cada emoción. Muestro que en ambas discusiones estamos en un espacio de subdeterminación empírica, lo que impide saldar la controversia aludiendo a resultados experimentales. Finalizo con algunas sugerencias sobre cómo podría saldarse la controversia.

In the xvii century, William Molyneux asked John Locke whether a newly-sighted person could reliably identify a cube from a sphere without aid from their touch. While this might seem an easily testable question, answering it is not so straightforward. In this paper, I illustrate this question and claim that some distinctions regarding the concept of consciousness are important for an empirical solution. First, I will describe Molyneux’s question as it was proposed by Molyneux himself, and I’ll briefly say something about its early debates. Second, I will go over some empirical attempts to solve this question, including recent experiments coming from neuroscience. Third, I will introduce some distinctions with regards to consciousness, and in the following section I will apply them to the Molyneux case. Finally, I will shortly consider some consequences of this approach. I conclude by suggesting researchers pay attention to different senses in which Molyneux’s question might be posed for empirical purposes.

In this dissertation, I address the question of how to construct scientific theories of emotions that are both conceptually sound and empirically fruitful. To do this, I offer an analysis of the main challenges scientific theories of emotions face, and I propose a meta-theoretical framework to construct scientific concepts of emotions as explications of folk emotion concepts. Part I discusses the main challenges theories of emotions in psychology and neuroscience encounter. The first states that a proper scientific theory of emotions must explain all and only the phenomena under the vernacular term ‘emotion’ with a common set of conceptual resources and under an overarching generic concept of emotion. The second demands that each emotion category corresponds to well-coordinated sets of neural, physiological, and behavioral patterns of responses. I argue that none of the best contemporary theories of emotions in psychology and neuroscience overcomes these challenges. As a result, a new theory of emotions is required. In Part II, I develop the meta-theoretical framework to construct a theory of emotions that overcomes the challenges above. First, I propose a pluralistic account of scientific kinds based on different patterns of projection that various disciplines may take to justify inductive inferences. These are essentialist, historical, and social patterns. Each of these patterns provides a framework to construct different types of scientific concepts. I argue that among the frameworks for scientific kinds available, the one that is best suited to explicate emotion concepts is a functional framework. Consequently, I conclude by recommending scientists pursue functionalist theories of emotions over essentialist, historical, or social theories.

En la literatura sobre las emociones una de las teorías con mayor fuerza es la llamada “teoría James-Lange”. En esta obra se intenta hacer una crítica a dicha teoría a partir de algunas observaciones de Wittgenstein sobre el uso de conceptos psicológicos, sacando a la luz dos confusiones gramaticales que surgen en ella. Para ello, se construye primero la categoría de “programa de naturalización de las emociones” que recoge las teorías del Descartes, James y Prinz, siguiendo la metodología de Lakatos. Luego, se identifica como problema central el de la naturalización de la intencionalidad. Para luego exponer algunas herramientas de Wittgenstein para estudiar la gramática de la pregunta por el objeto y la intencionalidad las emociones, mostrando que las respuestas del programa de naturalización no son satisfactorias y no respetan las reglas de ciertos usos del lenguaje.

In the last decades there has been a great controversy about the scientific status of emotion categories. This controversy stems from the idea that emotions are heterogeneous phenomena, which precludes classifying them under a common kind. In this article, I analyze this claim—which I call the Variability Thesis—and argue that as it stands, it is problematically underdefined. To show this, I examine a recent formulation of the thesis as offered by Scarantino (2015). On one hand, I raise some issues regarding the logical structure of the claim. On the other hand, and most importantly, I show that the Variability Thesis requires a consensus about what counts as a relevant pattern of response in different domains, a consensus that is lacking in the current literature. This makes it difficult to assess what counts as evidence for or against this thesis. As a result, arguments based on the Variability Thesis are unwarranted. This raises serious concerns about some current empirical theories of emotions, but also sheds light on the issue of the scientific status of emotion categories.

I propose a reading of Berkeley's Essay towards a New Theory of Vision in which Molyneux-type questions are interpreted as thought experiments instead of arguments. First, I present the general argumentative strategy in the NTV, and provide grounds for the traditional reading. Second, I consider some roles of thought experiments, and classify Molyneux-type questions in the NTV as constructive conjectural thought experiments. Third, I argue that (i) there is no distinction between Weak and Strong Heterogeneity theses in the NTV; (ii) that Strong Heterogeneity is the basis of Berkeley's theory; and (iii) that Molyneux-type questions act as illustrations of Strong Heterogeneity.

En el presente artículo se muestra que en la cosmología cartesiana no resulta claro cómo se puede hablar o referir a cuerpos individuales en el marco de un universo absolutamente compacto. Se defiende que el concepto de cuerpo individual en el interior de dicha cosmología se puede construir como una ficción del espíritu. Un cuerpo individual se puede construir como la extensión que se encuentra encerrada en una superficie maximal cuyas subdivisiones carecen de movimiento relativo entre sí. Se muestra, también, que la cosmología cartesiana puede presentarse como un modelo trivial de la Teoría M.