Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:45:40.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quick and Smart? Modularity and the Pro-Emotion Consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Karen Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within both philosophy and psychology, a new pro-emotion consensus is replacing the old dogmas that emotions disrupt practical rationality, that they are at best arational, if not outright irrational, and that we can understand what is really central to human cognition without studying them. Emotions are now commonly viewed as evolved capacities that are integral to our practical rationality. An infinite mind, unencumbered by a body, might get along just fine without emotions; but we finite embodied creatures need them if we are to be capable of responding appropriately to our reasons and navigating in a risky world with poor information, limited attention, and restricted computational power. Emotions are clever design solutions to the problem of making fast decisions in response to significant practical problems posed by the natural and social worlds: we perceive a danger and fear immediately primes us to take protective action. On this view, the theory of emotions is an essential part of a theory of ecologically situated and constrained rationality - that is to say, of human rationality (Samuels et al. 1999; Gigerenzer 2000).

Type
1. Modularity and the Rationality of Emotions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 32: The Modularity of Emotions , 2006 , pp. 3 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antony, L. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A Mind of One's Own, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte, 185–225. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Arpaly, N. 2000. On acting rationally against one's best judgment. Ethics 110 (3): 488–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. 1974. The conscience of Huckleberry Finn. Philosophy 49: 123-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J.. 2000. Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed.), ed. Lewis, M. and Haviland Jones, J., 91–115. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2003. The mind is a system of modules shaped by natural selection. In Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Hitchcock, Christopher, 293–311. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clore, G. 1994. Why emotions are felt. In The Nature of Emotion, ed. Ekman, Paul and Davidson, Richard, 103-11. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Gossett/Putnam.Google Scholar
de Sousa, R. 1987. The Rationality of Emotion. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. 1999. Basic emotions. In Handbook of Emotion and Cognition, ed. Dalgleish, T. and Power, M., 5∼0. Chichester, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. 2003. The Face Revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., and Davidson, R. J.. 1994. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.Google Scholar
Flanagan, O. 1991. Varieties of Moral Personality. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frijda, N. 1994. Emotions are functional, most of the time. In The Nature of Emotion, ed. Ekman, P. and Davidson, R., 112-22. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2000. Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T. 1993. How We Know What Isn't So. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Greenspan, P. 1988. Emotions and Reasons: An Inquiry into Emotional Justification. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. 1997. What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago: University of.Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. 1998. The emerging field of emotional regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology 2(3): 271-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. 1884. What is an emotion? Mind 9: 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. 2003a. Emotion, weakness of the will and the normative conception of agency. In Philosophy and the Emotions (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement: 52), ed. Hatzimoysis, A., 181–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. 2003b. Gender and rationality. In The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, ed. Mele, A. and Rawlings, P., 301-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. 2003c. Emotional rationality as practical rationality. In Setting the Moral Compass: Essays by Women Philosophers, ed. Calhoun, Cheshir, 333-52. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. [1984]1993. The Man of Reason (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Long, A., and Sedley, D.. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers: Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.Google Scholar
Oatley, K. 1992. Best Laid Schemes: The Psychology of Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. 2004. Gut Reactions: A Perceptual Theory of Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University.Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, R., Stich, S., and Tremoulet, P.. 1999. Rethinking rationality: From bleak implications to darwinian modules. In What Is Cognitive Science, ed. LePore, E. and Pylyshyn, Z.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2005. Ethics and intuitions. Journal of Ethics 9: 331-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, K. 2003. Thought in a Hosthe World. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K., and Griffiths, P.. 1999. Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of.Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L.. 1990. The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J., and Cowie, F.. 2003. The mind is not (just) a system of modules shaped (just) by natural selection. In Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Hitchcock, Christopher, 312-34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar