La thérapie rationnelle des émotions est basée sur l’hypothèse qu’un trouble de la pensée conduit à des troubles du sentiment qui eux-mêmes conduisent à des troubles de comportement. Du point de vue thérapeutique, la stratégie consiste à corriger les sentiments et le comportement en modifiant le trouble de raisonnement. Cette forme très en vogue de psychothérapie des troubles émotionnels fournit une illustration intéressante des relations nomologiques intriquées qui peuvent exister entre les patrons relativement fixes d’états émotionnels, d’états comportementaux et d’états (...) sensoriels physiologiques. En tant que telle, elle fournit une source d’évidences plausible en faveur de l’hypothèse que les émotions sont une forme spécialisée de système nomologique ou une « espèce ». Le succès de la théorie rationnelle des émotions jette le doute sur le mantra philosophique actuel qui refuse aux émotions le statut d’espèce naturelle, car elle suggère précisément l’inverse, c’est-à-dire que les émotions sont bel et bien une forme d’« espèce naturelle ». Cet appui n’a pas été pris en considération dans le débat en cours au sujet du statut d’espèce naturelle de l’émotion. Il est particulièrement intéressant de noter la façon dont il nous force à repenser la notion d’espèce naturelle telle qu’elle est employée dans les débats philosophiques sur la question. D’autres formulations qui correspondent mieux aux pratiques des sciences concernées pourraient être nécessaires. -/- [English abstrast] Rational Emotive Therapy is based on the hypothesis that disordered thinking leads to disordered feeling, which then leads to disordered behavior. Therapeutically, the strategy it is to correct disordered feeling and behavior by changing the disordered thinking. This immensely popular form of psychotherapy for emotional disorders provides an interesting illustration of the intricate law-like relationships that can exist between relatively fixed patterns of emotional, behavioral, and physiological sensory states. As such, it provides a plausible source of evidence for the hypothesis that emotions form a specialized law-like system or ‘kind’. Evidence of the success of Rational Emotive Therapy casts doubt on the contemporary philosophical mantra that emotions do not form a natural kind. It suggests precisely the opposite, namely, that emotions do form a ‘natural kind’ of some sort. This evidence has not been considered in the ongoing debate over the natural kind status of emotion. Especially interesting is how it forces us to rethink the way in which the notion of a natural kind is usually deployed in philosophical debates in this area. Alternative formulations more in line with the practices of the relevant sciences may be needed. (shrink)

In a provocative and important article, Robert Solomon argues that emotion researchers should abandon the notion of valence: it is used many different ways, and no single construct captures the pretheoretical distinction between positive and negative emotions. I echo Solomon in arguing that some of the most popular theories of valence are unlikely to succeed, though my case against these constructs comes from a noncognitive, as opposed to cognitive, perspective. I then argue that there is one notion of valence, related (...) to reward and punishment, that may apply to all emotions, and align with pretheoretical taxonomies. (shrink)

It has been argued recently that some basic emotions should be considered natural kinds. This is different from the question whether as a class emotions form a natural kind; that is, whether emotion is a natural kind. The consensus on that issue appears to be negative. I argue that this pessimism is unwarranted and that there are in fact good reasons for entertaining the hypothesis that emotion is a natural kind. I interpret this to mean that there exists a distinct (...) natural class of organisms whose behavior and development are governed by emotion. These are emoters. Two arguments for the natural kind status of emotion are considered. Both converge on the existence of emotion as a distinct natural domain governed by its own laws and regularities. There are then some reasons for being optimistic about the prospects for consilience in emotion theory. 1 The mantra 2 Griffiths on emotions as natural kinds 3 Panksepp on emotions as natural kinds 4 Emotion as a neurobiological kind 5 Emotion as a psychological kind 6 Response to the mantra 7 Unification or fragmentation? 8 Concluding remarks. (shrink)

An internal critique of anthropology in recent decades has shifted the focus and scope of anthropological work on emotion. In this article I review the changes, explore the pros and cons of leading anthropological approaches and theories, and argue that—so far as anthropology is concerned—only detailed narrative accounts can do full justice to the complexity of emotions. A narrative approach captures both the particularity and the temporal dimension of emotion with greater fidelity than semantic, synchronic, and discourse-based approaches.

Philosophical discussions regarding the status of emotion as a scientific domain usually get framed in terms of the question whether emotion is a natural kind. That approach to the issues is wrongheaded for two reasons. First, it has led to an intractable philosophical impasse that ultimately misconstrues the character of the relevant debate in emotion science. Second, and most important, it entirely ignores valence, a central feature of emotion experience, and probably the most promising criterion for demarcating emotion from cognition (...) and other related domains. An alternate philosophical hypothesis for addressing the issues is pro- posed. It is that emotion is a naturally occurring valenced phenomenon that is.. (shrink)

This dissertation contributes to the philosophy of empathy and biomedical ethics by drawing on phenomenological approaches to empathy, intersubjectivity, and affectivity in order to contest the primacy of the intersubjective aspect of empathy at the cost of its affective aspect. Both aspects need to be explained in order for empathy to be accurately understood in philosophical works, as well as practically useful for patient care in biomedical ethics. In the first chapter, I examine the current state of clinical empathy in (...) medicine including professional opinions about empathy, the dominant definition being employed, and the problems that arise from this definition. By trying to define empathy in a way that is useful to the current presuppositions in medicine, clinical empathy aligns with simulation theory, which has three problems: the discrepancy between the way empathy is defined and the way it is explained, the lack of diversity that this theory of empathy allows in our understanding of others, and the lack of affective understanding and affective engagement involved in the patient-physician interaction. These three problems are used to derive three questions that are important for any theory of empathy: (1) What is the phenomenon being explained? (2) What is the intersubjective context of empathy? (3) What is the affective dimension of empathy? The best theory of clinical empathy can be formulated by answering these three questions as they relate to phenomenological theories, which are more attuned to overcoming presuppositions. Chapters two and three each examine a different phenomenological approach to empathy from opposite extremes in their theories of intersubjectivity. Husserl and Stein begin from an isolated, transcendental subject that needs empathy to bridge the gap between itself and others, while Scheler begins from a primary intersubjectivity in which self and other are undifferentiated, making empathy a largely unnecessary skill. Despite their strongly opposed positions, and the acknowledgement that their theories of intersubjectivity necessitate their theories of empathy, I argue that both fail to understand the affective dimension of empathy. Husserl and Stein leave no room in empathy for it to be an affect, while Scheler prioritizes affects that reunite subjects, but leaves empathy itself as a non-affective skill. Chapter four explains Gallagher’s interaction theory as a more moderate approach to the relation between empathy and intersubjectivity. He draws on the insights of the other two theories, but conceives of empathy as a multi-leveled phenomenon that allows for an understanding of others. While this theory does aid in addressing the intersubjective context of empathy in a way that best solves the first two problems with clinical empathy, interaction theory still fails to fully address the affectivity of empathy, maintaining empathy as a largely cognitive ability. Gallagher does acknowledge the affective core of empathy, but he does not explain the way in which it is affective. In response to this problem, I explain Anya Daly’s application of Merleau-Ponty’s theory of reversibility to affectivity as a possible solution to the problematic gap in Gallagher’s theory. Chapter five focuses on theories of clinical empathy in order to address the neglected affective aspects of empathy, and respond to the problem of detached concern. The problems caused by detached concern are explained, as well as why the theories discussed in the middle chapters are still unable to solve them. This is done in two parts. In the first part, I explain the basis of this issue in the cognitive/feeling divide, as explained in the philosophy of emotion. Then, I give a brief overview of the phenomenology of affectivity to be used as a guide to the affectivity of empathy. In the second part, I examine three theories of clinical empathy that attempt to solve the problem of detached concern, noting their strengths and weaknesses based on their similarities to phenomenological approaches to empathy and affectivity. (shrink)

The debate over whether human nature is good or bad and how this is related to self-cultivation was central in the minds of traditional Chinese thinkers. This essay analyzes the interrelationship between the key concepts of xing 性, qing 情, and xin 心 in the Guodian text of the Xing Zi Ming Chu 性自命出 discovered in 1993 in Hubei province. The intellectual engagements evident in this Guodian text emerge as more syncretic and dynamic than those that can be found in (...) the discourse of any single tradition, such as Gaozi, Mencius, or Xunzi. Its thesis on human nature and moral cultivation reveals the existence of a possibly more diverse intellectual discourse from which the different foci of philosophical debate represented by later thinkers developed. (shrink)