A widespread claim, which I call ‘the Emotionality Claim’, is that imagination but not supposition is intimately linked to emotion. In more cognitive jargon, imagination is connected to the affect system, whereas supposition is not. EC is open to several interpretations which yield very different views about the nature of supposition. The literature lacks an in-depth analysis of EC which sorts out these different readings and ways to carve supposition and imagination at their joints. The aim of this paper is (...) to fill this gap. I shall argue that existing readings of EC fail to properly account for the emotional asymmetry between imagination and supposition. The tendency is to start from narrow conceptions of both imagination and supposition. I shall argue for a novel interpretation of EC pivoting on different ways a mental state can connect to the affect system. (shrink)

A popular view maintains that supposition is a kind of cognitive mental state, very similar to belief in essential respects. Call this view “cognitivism about supposition”. There are at least three grades of cognitivism, construing supposition as (i) a belief, (ii) belief-like imagination or (iii) a species of belief-like imagination. I shall argue against all three grades of cognitivism and claim that supposition is a sui generis form of imagination essentially dissimilar to belief. Since for good reasons (i) is not (...) supported in the literature, I shall dwell on (ii) and (iii). Without further explanation supposition has been very often merely postulated as being nothing but belief-like imagination—that is, (ii). I shall show that at least two considerations undermine (ii). First, supposition and belief-like imagination are governed by different norms, more precisely the former is freer than the latter and requires minimal or no mental effort. Second, contrary to belief-like imagination, supposition is “cold”, in that it is typically dissociated from emotional reactions. Proponents of (iii) face the pressure of explaining these differences between supposition and belief-like imagination too. I shall argue that they have not sufficiently motivated the claim that supposition is belief-like. In particular they fail to accommodate precisely the dimensions of supposition pertaining to its normativity and emotionality. I shall close with a sketch of a new account of supposition. (shrink)

Dialectica, Volume 73, Issue 4, Page 598-602, December 2019.

This paper examines the pretence theories of irony of Jancke (1929) and Currie (2007) and argues for a pretence theory according to which the evaluations of the ironist are more important than his emotions, negative and positive, and bear principally on cognitive values. The formal object of irony is foolishness and not any ethical, political or aesthetic disvalue. I suggest that the view of irony outlined resembles in many respects the conception of irony to be found in the writings of (...) Robert Musil. (shrink)

In the current aesthetic debate fictional emotions has been seen as a challenge for rationality. In this essay I shall examine the notion of “rationality of the emotions” from six different points of view: its cognitive basis, its intentionality, its ability to influence thoughts, its motivational force, its contribution to adaptation and maximization of wellbeing. The aim is to demonstrate that fictional emotions are completely integrated in the paradigm of rationality.