Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:41:26.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Emotions as Natural and Normative Kinds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

In earlier work I have claimed that emotion and some emotions are not ‘natural kinds’. Here I clarify what I mean by ‘natural kind’, suggest a new and more accurate term, and discuss the objection that emotion and emotions are not descriptive categories at all, but fundamentally normative categories.

Type
Biological Kinds and Human Kinds
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Adolphs, Ralph (2000), “Emotions Really Are Social”, Emotions Really Are Social 3 (Fall): 472478.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1991), “Realism, Anti-foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds”, Realism, Anti-foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds 61:127148.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999), “Homeostasis, Species and Higher Taxa”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 141185.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2003), “Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminitivism”, Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminitivism 70 (Proceedings): 13051316.Google Scholar
Brown, Richard, Murphy, Dominic, Stich, Stephen, Dryden, Donald, Redding, Paul, MacNaughton, Neil, and Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), “Eliminating Emotions?” (review symposium on What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories by Paul E. Griffiths), Metascience 8(1): 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charland, Louis C. (2002), “The Natural Kind Status of Emotion”, The Natural Kind Status of Emotion 53(4): 511537.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Ronald (1999), review of What Emotions Really Are by Paul E. Griffiths, Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 38(4): 908911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Ray J. (1998), “How We Feel”, How We Feel 391:3536.Google Scholar
Doris, John M. (2000), review of What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories by Paul E. Griffiths, Ethics 10(3): 617619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (2001), Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Raphael (1986), “What Is a Gene?”, What Is a Gene? 17:133173.Google ScholarPubMed
Falk, Raphael (2000), “The Gene: A Concept in Tension”, in Beurton, Peter J., Falk, Raphael, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 317348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrans, Phil (2000), review of What Emotions Really Are by Paul E. Griffiths, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77(4): 512515.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1954), Fact, Fiction and Forecast, 1st ed. London: Athlone Press, University of London.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1997), What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 208228.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (2001), “Emotion and the Problem of Psychological Categories”, in Kaszniak, Alfred W (ed.), Emotion, Qualia and Consciousness. Singapore, New Jersey, Hong Kong, and London: World Scientific, 2841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (2003), “Is Emotion a Natural Kind?”, in Solomon, Robert C. (ed.), Thinking about Emotion: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotion. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 233249.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1992), “World-Making by Kind-Making: Child Abuse for Example”, in Douglas, Mary and Hull, David L. (eds.), How Classification Works: Nelson Goodman among the Social Sciences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 180238.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1995), Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1998), “By What Links Are the Organs Excited?Times Literary Supplement 4972 (July 17): 1112.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1999), “Making Up People”, in Biagioli, Mario (ed.), The Science Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 161171.Google Scholar
Hinde, Robert A. (1985), “Was ‘The Expression of Emotions’ a Misleading Phrase?”, Was ‘The Expression of Emotions’ a Misleading Phrase? 33:985992.Google Scholar
Moss, Lenny. (2002), What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2001), Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (1997), Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesising Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rottschaefer, William A. (1998), review of What Emotions Really Are by Paul E. Griffiths, Bridges (Fall), 274283.Google Scholar
Slater, Carol (1998), review of What Emotions Really Are by Paul E. Griffiths, Philosophy in Review 18(5): 335337.Google Scholar
Solomon, Robert C. (1999), review of What Emotions Really Are by Paul E. Griffiths, The Philosophical Review 108(1): 131134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, Kenneth (1994), “Genes Made Molecular”, Genes Made Molecular 61:163185.Google Scholar
Whewell, William ([1860] 1971), On the Philosophy of Discovery. New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
Williamson, David (1998), “Mixed Feelings”, Australian’s Review of Books (April), 1415.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1999), “Realism, Essence, and Kind: Resuscitating Species Essentialism?”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 187207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar