Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 831–844 | Cite as

Emotions without objects

  • Daniel ShargelEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is widely assumed that emotions have particular intentional objects. This assumption is consistent with the way that we talk: when we attribute states of anger, we often attribute anger at someone, or at something. It is also consistent with leading theories of emotion among philosophers and psychologists, according to which emotions are like judgments or appraisals. However, there is evidence from the social psychology literature suggesting that this assumption is actually false. I will begin by presenting a criterion for determining whether a mental state has a particular object. It is not sufficient for that state to be caused by an object or by a representation of a given object—the state must influence the subject’s thought and behavior in ways that are specific to that object. I will present evidence that emotions fail this test, and describe some of the reasons why we persistently attribute objects to our emotions. My view may seem untenable, because the literature on various aspects of emotional life such as normativity, linguistic expression, and behavioral influence consistently appeals to intentional objects. I will conclude by presenting a sketch of how I could address this concern.

Keywords

Emotions Objects Intentionality Moods 

References

  1. Bodenhausen GV, Shepard L, Kramer GP (1994) Negative affect and social judgment: the different impact of anger and sadness. Eur J Soc Psychol 24:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deonna JA, Scherer KR (2010) The case of the disappearing intentional object: constraints on a definition of emotion. Emot Rev 2(1):44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeSteno D, Petty RE, Wegener DT, Rucker DD (2000) Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:1052–1068Google Scholar
  4. Ekman P (1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cogn Emot 6(3/4):169–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fodor JA (1987) Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes G (1997) How much substitutivity? Analysis 57(2):109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kenny A (1963) Action, emotion and will. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Lerner JS, Keltner D (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nussbaum MC (2001) Upheavals of thought: the intelligence of the emotions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Prinz JJ (2004) Gut reactions: a perceptual theory of emotion. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Roeser S (2011) Nuclear energy, risk, and emotions. Philos Technol 24(2):197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, Jordan AH (2008) Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34(8):1096–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schwarz N, Clore GL (1983) Mood, misattribution and judgments of well-being: informative and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schwarz N, Clore GL (2003) Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychol Inq 14(3/4):296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sizer L (2000) Towards a computational theory of mood. Br J Philos Sci 51:743–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Solomon RC (1976) The passions. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wheatley T, Haidt J (2005) Hypnotically induced disgust make moral judgments more severe. Psychol Sci 16:780–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whiting D (2011) The feeling theory of emotion and the object-directed emotions. Eur J Philos 19(2):281–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy ProgramThe Graduate Center, CUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and CommunicationsLawrence Technological UniversitySouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations