Recently, emotion has attracted much attention in many areas of philosophy. In the philosophy of mind, some argue that emotions are individuated and identified with reference to feelings, beliefs, desires, or perceptions. Furthermore, they are often claimed to be changeable, unstable, and ambivalent. However, despite their instability, emotions are sometimes long-standing. They have, in addition, perspective. These characteristics of the emotions, I argue, help us in solving one of philosophy’s most enduring problems, that is, the problem of personal identity. In order to il ustrate this claim I elaborate on the conception of ‘experiential memory’ suggested by Wollheim. To understand memory as experiential, I argue, we need to understand the affective element attached to some memories. I argue that memory affects not only my past thought but also my past emotions, and those emotions deriving from the past stay on to affect my whole being and my future. Hence, I argue that experiential memory is not just confined to the recal ing of events or experiences that the subject has experienced, but concerns the narrative structure of a person’s life as a whole., V poslední době emoce přitahovala mnoho pozornosti v mnoha oblastech filozofie. Ve filozofii mysli, někteří argumentují, že emoce jsou individualizované a identifikované s odkazem na pocity, víry, touhy nebo vnímání. Navíc se často tvrdí, že jsou proměnlivé, nestabilní a ambivalentní. I přes jejich nestabilitu jsou však emoce někdy dlouhodobé. Mají navíc perspektivu. Tyto vlastnosti emocí nám pomáhají při řešení jednoho z nejtrvalejších problémů filozofie, tj. Problému osobní identity. Abych toto tvrzení využil, rozebírám koncepci „zážitkové paměti“, kterou navrhl Wollheim. Abych pochopil paměť jako zkušenost, musíme pochopit, že afektivní prvek spojený s některými vzpomínkami. Domnívám se, že paměť nemá vliv pouze na mé minulé myšlenky, ale také na mé minulé emoce, a ty emoce, které pocházejí z minulosti, ovlivňují celou mou bytost a mou budoucnost. Proto argumentuji, že zkušenostní paměť není omezena pouze na připomenutí událostí nebo zážitků, které subjekt zažil, ale týká se narativní struktury života člověka jako celku., and Sunny Yang
In explaining emotion, there are strong cognitive views, which reduce emotion to belief/thought or judgment. Misgivings about assimilating emotion to belief/thought/judgment have been a main reason for moving towards perceptual accounts for many authors. My aim in this paper is to defend a perceptual theory. To this end, I first argue against a crude version of cognitivism that views emotion essentially in terms of thought or belief. I then argue that doubts about the assimilation of emotion to belief explain the appeal of ‘perception’ as the ‘cognitive element’ most appropriate to the analysis of emotion. Then I shall discuss why perception is the right category to fit emotional responses into by contrasting some considerations adduced by Sabine Döring and by Jesse Prinz. I shall show that Prinz ignores the perspective aspect of perception, while Döring fails to explain the indiscriminability in perceptual experience. For these reasons, both Prinz’s and Döring’s views are insufficient to explain emotional recalcitrance or unmerited emotional response. To explain emotional recalcitrance, I argue that we must appeal to a disjunctivist theory of visual experience. I shall demonstrate why we should prefer the explanation in terms of indiscriminability over one which appeals to a common element, such as a thought or representation of something as dangerous, for example. The present critical examination will afford an alternative view of the appropriateness of emotions., In explaining emotion, there are strong cognitive views, which reduce emotion to belief/thought or judgment. Misgivings about assimilating emotion to belief/thought/judgment have been a main reason for moving towards perceptual accounts for many authors. My aim in this paper is to defend a perceptual theory. To this end, I first argue against a crude version of cognitivism that views emotion essentially in terms of thought or belief. I then argue that doubts about the assimilation of emotion to belief explain the appeal of ‘perception’ as the ‘cognitive element’ most appropriate to the analysis of emotion. Then I shall discuss why perception is the right category to fit emotional responses into by contrasting some considerations adduced by Sabine Döring and by Jesse Prinz. I shall show that Prinz ignores the perspective aspect of perception, while Döring fails to explain the indiscriminability in perceptual experience. For these reasons, both Prinz’s and Döring’s views are insufficient to explain emotional recalcitrance or unmerited emotional response. To explain emotional recalcitrance, I argue that we must appeal to a disjunctivist theory of visual experience. I shall demonstrate why we should prefer the explanation in terms of indiscriminability over one which appeals to a common element, such as a thought or representation of something as dangerous, for example. The present critical examination will afford an alternative view of the appropriateness of emotions., and Sunny Yang
Emotion theorists in contemporary discussion have divided into two camps. The one claims that emotions are reducible to bodily feelings; the other holds that emotions are reducible to belief, desire or evaluative judgement. In an effort to avoid such reductionist view, Goldie suggests that emotions involve two kinds of feelings: bodily feelings and feeling towards. In spite of Goldie’s efforts, I argue that explaining our emotional disposition in terms of ''feeling toward'' remains distinctly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, though sympathetic to his project, I give reasons for doubting that there are two such distinct kinds of feeling, one of which has only borrowed intentionality, while the other has intentionality intrinsically., Teoretici emocí v současné diskusi rozdělili do dvou táborů. Ten tvrdí, že emoce jsou redukovatelné na tělesné pocity; druhá si myslí, že emoce jsou redukovatelné na víru, touhu nebo hodnotící úsudek. Ve snaze vyhnout se takovému redukcionistickému pohledu Goldie navrhuje, aby emoce zahrnovaly dva druhy pocitů: tělesné pocity a pocity. Navzdory snahám Goldieho tvrdím, že vysvětlení naší emocionální dispozice ve smyslu ,,pocitu vůči'' je i nadále značně neuspokojivé. Kromě toho, i když sympatizuji s jeho projektem, dávám důvody k pochybnostem, že existují dva takové odlišné druhy pocitu, z nichž jeden má pouze půjčeno záměrnosti, zatímco druhý má záměrně vlastní., and Sunny Yang
My aim in this paper is to illuminate the question of how vicarious feeling is possible, by advancing our understanding of vicarious emotions. I address this problem by classifying the reactive attitude into two categories: the vicarious, and the self-reactive. I argue that guilt is constitutively tied to personal responsibility and that the appropriateness of vicarious feeling of group harm derives from a reflection on the appropriateness of our own reactive attitude, that is, vicarious reactive attitude, e.g., indignation or outrage.