Daniel Shargel

Emotions Without Objects

The near consensus among theorists working on emotion, in both philosophy and psychology, is that emotions have objects. When we are angry, we are angry at someone. When we are frightened, we are frightened of something. We can call the theory that emotions have objects the Token Object Theory (TOKEN), though the defenders of this view are so numerous and diverse that they agree on little else. The ubiquity of TOKEN reflects, among other things, Brentano’s influence on the philosophy of mind. It is inconceivable that emotions would fail to manifest features which are taken to be characteristic of all mental states. Adherents rarely treat TOKEN as a theoretical position in need of defense, with empirically falsifiable implications. In fact, some relevant empirical work has been done. I will argue that this research supports an alternative model, the Type Influence Theory (TYPE), according to which emotions of a given kind influence judgements concerning a whole class of objects. For example, anger influences judgments about anything that seems offensive, and fear influences judgments about anything that seem dangerous. According to TYPE, emotions indiscriminately influence judgments about objects of a given type, while TOKEN, I will argue, implies that emotions influence judgments in a way that discriminates between tokens of the same type (e.g. judgments about different offensive things). This distinction allows us to empirically test these theories. Mounting a persuasive defense of TOKEN poses some serious challenges. It is not enough to argue that emotions do not have objects, I need to explain why it seems so clear to so many that they do. The view sounds extremely implausible, particularly to anyone steeped in the literature. In addition, I am arguing that a certain kind of effect does not exist, which is in general difficult to do. Given these obstacles, my more modest goal is to show that TOKEN is less well supported than philosophers tend to acknowledge, and that TYPE presents a challenge that defenders of TOKEN need to address. Part 2 will introduce a criterion for determining whether emotions have objects. In short, we should only consider a mental state, whether it is a belief, desire, or emotion, to be directed at object p, if it influences thought and behavior in ways that are specific to p. Intentional states satisfy this criterion even when there is no such thing as p. In Parts 3 and 4 I will discuss in detail the two psychological studies that form the basis for my argument against TOKEN. These studies are drawn from what is widely known as the emotional misattribution literature, since participants seem to be confused about the true intentional object of their emotions. I will argue that these studies are best interpreted as evidence that there is no true intentional object about which participants are confused. Instead, each type of emotion automatically influences judgments about a given class of phenomena, and tokens of the same emotional type influence the same class of judgments. Any token state of fear makes any apparently dangerous things seem more dangerous. Emotions seem, in part, to have more targetted effects because we often attribute to them intentional objects, and then selectively suppress emotional effects in a manner that is consistent with that attribution. This selective suppression is intrinsic to the emotion, so the emotion itself fails to satisfy my criterion.

In the remainder of the paper I will consider a variety of objections. I will begin by considering other interpretation of the studies, and argue that they are less well supported. The strongest alternative is the view that emotions have two types of effects: primary effects which are specific to the intentional object of the emotion, and secondary effects which apply more broadly. On this view, the studies demonstrate the existence of the secondary effects, but do not prove that there are no additional, object-directed primary effects. In response, I argue that positing these additional effects provides no theoretical advantage. There are no emotional phenomena that can be explained by appealing to this primary effect which I cannot explain with the secondary effect alone. This is a bold claim, and it is impossible in this paper to comprehensively survey emotional phenomena. However, I will discuss a number of factors which contribute to the general impression that we can only explain emotional phenomena by attributing intentional objects. My goal is to put the burden on my opponents to defend TOKEN, rather than taking it for granted.

  • ENGLISH English
  • News
    Tom Rosenstiel, einer der anerkanntesten Denker zur Zukunft der Medien, spricht am 23. Mai um 19.00 Uhr im HS 380 der Kultur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät (Rudolfskai 42) über die Zukunft der Demokratie im Zeitalter von Fake News, den Aufstieg der russischen Trolle im Internet und wie Journalismus in Zukunft aussehen wird.
    Von Essen bis Wickeln: Die Natur bestimmt den Rhythmus vieler Jungeltern. Damit Familienfreundlichkeit auch bei allen ankommt, hier einige Infos, wie und wo an der Universität Salzburg der Alltag mit Kleinkind leichter fällt.
    Zum Auftakt des 20. Österreichischen Juristentags findet am 23. Mai 2018 um 18 Uhr an der Universität Salzburg in der Reihe „Rechtspanorama“ eine Podiumsdiskussion zum Thema „Gefährden Facebook & Co die Demokratie?“ statt. Veranstalter sind die Tageszeitung „Die Presse“ und die Universität Salzburg.
    Ab sofort bis 3. Juli ist die Anmeldung zur ditact_women’s IT summer school der Universität Salzburg, die von 20. August bis 1. September am Unipark Nonntal und an der Fachhochschule Salzburg stattfindet, möglich.
    Renaud Dehousse is President of the European University Institute, a position held since 1 September 2016. Before coming to the EUI, he was Professor and Jean Monnet chair in EU law and European Policy Studies at Sciences Po Paris from 2005 to 2016, where he founded and directed the Centre d'études européennes.
    Vortragsreihe Erziehungswissenschaftliche Migrationsforschung in vergleichender Perspektive, Auftakt am 17. April 2018, 17.15–18.45 Uhr, HS Thomas Bernhard (Unipark)
    Veranstaltungsreihe zum 80-Jahr Gedenken an die Bücherverbrennung in Salzburg
  • Veranstaltungen
  • 23.05.18 Polemik zwischen Kunst und Religion bei Luis Buñuel
    24.05.18 Detection of periodicity in functional time series
  • Alumni Club
  • PRESSE
  • Uni-Shop
  • VERANSTALTUNGSRÄUME
  • STELLENMARKT
  • Facebook-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Twitter-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Instagram-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Flickr-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Vimeo-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg