Switch to: References

Citations of:

A Sentimentalist’s Defense of Contempt, Shame, and Disdain.

In Peter Goldie (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 189–213 (2009)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Philosophical Anthropology, Shame, and Disability: In Favor of an Interpersonal Theory of Shame.Matthew S. Rukgaber - 2016 - Res Philosophica 93 (4):743-765.
    This article argues against a leading cognitivist and moral interpretation of shame that is present in the philosophical literature. That standard view holds that shame is the felt-response to a loss of self-esteem, which is the result of negative self-assessment. I hold that shame is a heteronomous and primitive bodily affect that is perceptual rather than judgmental in nature. Shame results from the breakdown and thwarting of our desire for anonymous, unexceptional, and disattentive co-existence with others. I use the sociological (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On the fittingness of agential evaluations.Roberto Keller - 2022 - Philosophical Explorations 25 (2):251–268.
    According to a leading view, emotions such as admiration, contempt, pride, and shame are important vehicles of agential development. Through admiration and contempt, we establish models and countermodels against which to shape our character; through pride and shame, we get a sense of how we measure up to them. Critics of this view object that these emotions always deliver uncompromising evaluations: admiration casts people in a completely positive light, while contempt casts aspersion on them. Therefore, insofar as they lack the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations