In Defense of Epistemic Perceptualism

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Donnie Barnett
{"title":"In Defense of Epistemic Perceptualism","authors":"Donnie Barnett","doi":"10.1007/s12136-026-00697-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Epistemic perceptualism is the view that emotions provide immediate <i>prima facie</i> justification for evaluative beliefs. I defend this view against recent criticism by Michael Brady. I address two of his arguments in particular: what I have termed the Proxy and Symmetry Arguments. According to the former, emotions are only <i>proxy</i> reasons. They can stand in for genuine reasons, but they lack justificatory force of their own. This objection fails, I argue, because it assumes that proxy reasons can always be rendered epistemically superfluous in light of other reasons. I show that this is not always true, and in particular that it is not true of emotions. Far from being superfluous, emotions appear to play an important epistemic role: to independently verify the veracity of our evaluative judgments. Finally, I show that the Symmetry Argument is sound only if Brady’s account of proxy reasons is generally correct.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":"41 4","pages":"1107 - 1123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12136-026-00697-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-026-00697-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epistemic perceptualism is the view that emotions provide immediate prima facie justification for evaluative beliefs. I defend this view against recent criticism by Michael Brady. I address two of his arguments in particular: what I have termed the Proxy and Symmetry Arguments. According to the former, emotions are only proxy reasons. They can stand in for genuine reasons, but they lack justificatory force of their own. This objection fails, I argue, because it assumes that proxy reasons can always be rendered epistemically superfluous in light of other reasons. I show that this is not always true, and in particular that it is not true of emotions. Far from being superfluous, emotions appear to play an important epistemic role: to independently verify the veracity of our evaluative judgments. Finally, I show that the Symmetry Argument is sound only if Brady’s account of proxy reasons is generally correct.

为认知感知主义辩护
认知感知主义认为情绪为评价性信念提供了直接的初步证明。我为自己的观点辩护,反对迈克尔·布雷迪(Michael Brady)最近的批评。我特别讨论他的两个论点:我称之为代理论点和对称论点。根据前者,情绪只是代理原因。他们可以有真正的理由,但他们缺乏自己的正当力量。我认为,这种反对意见是站不住脚的,因为它假设代理理由总是可以根据其他理由在认识论上显得多余。我要说明的是,这并不总是正确的,尤其是对于情感来说,这并不总是正确的。情绪远不是多余的,它似乎扮演着重要的认知角色:独立地验证我们评估判断的准确性。最后,我表明,只有布雷迪对代理原因的描述总体上是正确的,对称论证才是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书