Online research in philosophy

Abstract: The ‘feeling theory of emotion’ holds that emotions are to be identified with feelings. An objection commonly made to that theory of emotion has it that emotions cannot be feelings only, as emotions have intentional objects. Jack does not just feel fear, but he feels fear-of-something. To explain this property of emotion we will have to ascribe to emotion a representational structure, and feelings do not have the sought after representational structure. In this paper I seek to defend the feeling theory of emotion against the challenge from the object-directed emotions.

This paper presents an analysis of emotional and affectively toned discourse in biomedical engineering researchers’ accounts of their problem solving practices. Drawing from our interviews with scientists in two laboratories, we examine three classes of expression: explicit, figurative and metaphorical, and attributions of emotion to objects and artifacts important to laboratory practice. We consider the overall function of expressions in the particular problem solving contexts described. We argue that affective processes are engaged in problem solving, not as simply tacked onto reasoning but as integral to it. The examples we present illustrate the close relation of emotion to problem solving and experimentation; they also implicate social and cultural dimensions of emotion expression. The analysis underscores a need to consider emotional expression to be intimately and importantly tied to the cognitive achievements and social negotiations of laboratory practices.

The question is how to explain expressions of emotion. It is argued that not all expressions of emotion are open to the same sort of explanation. Those expressions which are actions can be explained, like other sorts of action, by reference to a belief and a desire; however, no genuine expression of emotion is done as a means to some further end. Certain expressions of emotion which are actions can also be given a deeper explanation as being expressive of a wish. Expressions of emotion which are not actions cannot be given a belief-desire explanation: no belief is involved, and a desire is involved only in an honorific sense of 'desire'. The distinction amongst expressions of emotion between those which are actions and those which are not is not a precise one, and the paper concludes with some speculative remarks about borderline cases such as jumping for joy.

Free speech law often protects emotional expression. However, we lack an understanding of the scope and limits of protection for emotional expression. This Essay seeks to make progress toward such an understanding because a better understanding and grasp of the nature of emotion itself is crucial to achieving this goal. If we can arrive at an improved understanding of emotions and how they can be expressed, we will be better able to explain when we do and do not constitutionally protect the expression of emotion.

Some attempts to understand emotion have failed to account for important features of our emotional experience ? notably, the experience of gaining insight when we express our emotions. In this essay I will hold that if we properly understand emotions, then we see that the expression of emotion contributes to the growth of consciousness by providing a process wherein consciousness can recognize and reclaim its inherent wholeness, and thereby overcome fragmentation. Hence, in this essay I will strive to: (1) demonstrate that we do get insight when we express our emotions, (2) offer a suggestion as to why this feature is often overlooked, (3) propose a model for understanding the emotions that helps to explain this holistic feature of emotion, and (4) show how this insight into the nature of emotion contributes to our understanding of the growth of consciousness.

The experimental study of the emotions as pursued by LeDoux and Damasio is argued to be flawed as a consequence of the inadequate conceptual framework inherited from the work of William James. This paper clarifes the conceptual structures necessary for any discussion of the emotions. Emotions are distinguished from appetites and other non-emotional feelings, as well as from agitations and moods. Emotional perturbations are distinguished from emotional attitudes and motives. The causes of an emotion are differentiated from the objects of an emotion, and the objects of an emotion are distinguished into formal and material ones. The links between emotions and reasons for the emotion, for associated beliefs and for action are explored, as well as the connection between emotion and care or concern, and between emotion and fantasy. The behavioural criteria for the ascription of an emotion are clarified. In the light of this conceptual network, Damasio’s theory of the emotions is subjected to critical scrutiny and found wanting.

The experimental study of the emotions as pursued by LeDoux and Damasio is argued to be flawed as a consequence of the inadequate conceptual framework inherited from the work of William James. This paper clarifes the conceptual structures necessary for any discussion of the emotions. Emotions are distinguished from appetites and other non-emotional feelings, as well as from agitations and moods. Emotional perturbations are distinguished from emotional attitudes and motives. The causes of an emotion are differentiated from the objects of an emotion, and the objects of an emotion are distinguished into formal and material ones. The links between emotions and reasons for the emotion, for associated beliefs and for action are explored, as well as the connection between emotion and care or concern, and between emotion and fantasy. The behavioural criteria for the ascription of an emotion are clarified. In the light of this conceptual network, Damasio’s theory of the emotions is subjected to critical scrutiny and found wanting.

Philosophers are all too familiar with the standard epistemological worry that our belief that feelings and emotions lurk behind the outward behaviour of others cannot be justified. Yet there is a more fundamental puzzle about other minds, which asks: How is it possible for us to have developed psychological concepts that apply to both ourselves and others at all? This latter sceptical problem has become known as the conceptual problem of other minds. It is a conundrum precisely because the two most natural ways of addressing it are doomed to failure. For example, on the one hand, if we learn our psychological concepts of experience by making essential reference to our own experiences then it is logically impossible to apply the very same concepts to others. The problem is that any attempt to do so would require reconceiving what is essential to concepts of experience; that is the idea that experiences have an essentially subjective character. Given this, the mere fact of others being ‘other’ makes ascribing experiences to them a conceptual impossibility. Following this line of thinking to its natural solipsistic end, if this were the basis of our concepts of experience then the only ones I could understand would be my own. It would be literally inconceivable that experiences, other than mine, could even exist. On the other hand, if we acquire our concepts of experience by making essential reference to the typical outward behavioural antics of others, then, although it becomes clear how such concepts could apply to them, it also becomes clear that such concepts do not equate to our concepts of experience: They make no room for its subjective character. This problem would remain even if the behavioural responses in question were lawfully conjoined with the appropriate experiential responses in me, for this would bring in the subjective aspects in the wrong way. This sort of 1 2..