Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Emotional judgments can explain recalcitrance to reason

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Recalcitrant emotions are better explained by non-cognitive physiological arousal states that operate independently of judgment formation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William James and Jesse Prinz demonstrate that bodily feedback mechanisms, not competing judgments, sustain emotions against rational revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If emotions were judgment-based, therapeutic rational persuasion would reliably dissolve them, but empirical evidence from affective neuroscience shows it does not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Holding contradictory judgments simultaneously violates basic norms of rational agency in ways that make the posited mechanism explanatorily incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent judgment-contradictions resolve into temporally or modally partitioned beliefs, eliminating genuine simultaneity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If recalcitrance merely reflects partitioned rather than truly contradictory judgments, the emotional judgment framework explains nothing distinctive about emotional persistence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Emotional judgments are capable of being held jointly with contradictory judgments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The capacity to hold contradictory judgments simultaneously accounts for why emotions persist despite contrary rational verdicts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.