It has been argued recently that some basic emotions should be considered natural kinds. This is different from the question whether as a class emotions form a natural kind; that is, whether emotion is a natural kind. The consensus on that issue appears to be negative. I argue that this pessimism is unwarranted and that there are in fact good reasons for entertaining the hypothesis that emotion is a natural kind. I interpret this to mean that there exists a distinct (...) natural class of organisms whose behavior and development are governed by emotion. These are emoters. Two arguments for the natural kind status of emotion are considered. Both converge on the existence of emotion as a distinct natural domain governed by its own laws and regularities. There are then some reasons for being optimistic about the prospects for consilience in emotion theory. 1 The mantra 2 Griffiths on emotions as natural kinds 3 Panksepp on emotions as natural kinds 4 Emotion as a neurobiological kind 5 Emotion as a psychological kind 6 Response to the mantra 7 Unification or fragmentation? 8 Concluding remarks. (shrink)

La thérapie rationnelle des émotions est basée sur l’hypothèse qu’un trouble de la pensée conduit à des troubles du sentiment qui eux-mêmes conduisent à des troubles de comportement. Du point de vue thérapeutique, la stratégie consiste à corriger les sentiments et le comportement en modifiant le trouble de raisonnement. Cette forme très en vogue de psychothérapie des troubles émotionnels fournit une illustration intéressante des relations nomologiques intriquées qui peuvent exister entre les patrons relativement fixes d’états émotionnels, d’états comportementaux et d’états (...) sensoriels physiologiques. En tant que telle, elle fournit une source d’évidences plausible en faveur de l’hypothèse que les émotions sont une forme spécialisée de système nomologique ou une « espèce ». Le succès de la théorie rationnelle des émotions jette le doute sur le mantra philosophique actuel qui refuse aux émotions le statut d’espèce naturelle, car elle suggère précisément l’inverse, c’est-à-dire que les émotions sont bel et bien une forme d’« espèce naturelle ». Cet appui n’a pas été pris en considération dans le débat en cours au sujet du statut d’espèce naturelle de l’émotion. Il est particulièrement intéressant de noter la façon dont il nous force à repenser la notion d’espèce naturelle telle qu’elle est employée dans les débats philosophiques sur la question. D’autres formulations qui correspondent mieux aux pratiques des sciences concernées pourraient être nécessaires. -/- [English abstrast] Rational Emotive Therapy is based on the hypothesis that disordered thinking leads to disordered feeling, which then leads to disordered behavior. Therapeutically, the strategy it is to correct disordered feeling and behavior by changing the disordered thinking. This immensely popular form of psychotherapy for emotional disorders provides an interesting illustration of the intricate law-like relationships that can exist between relatively fixed patterns of emotional, behavioral, and physiological sensory states. As such, it provides a plausible source of evidence for the hypothesis that emotions form a specialized law-like system or ‘kind’. Evidence of the success of Rational Emotive Therapy casts doubt on the contemporary philosophical mantra that emotions do not form a natural kind. It suggests precisely the opposite, namely, that emotions do form a ‘natural kind’ of some sort. This evidence has not been considered in the ongoing debate over the natural kind status of emotion. Especially interesting is how it forces us to rethink the way in which the notion of a natural kind is usually deployed in philosophical debates in this area. Alternative formulations more in line with the practices of the relevant sciences may be needed. (shrink)

Philosophical discussions regarding the status of emotion as a scientific domain usually get framed in terms of the question whether emotion is a natural kind. That approach to the issues is wrongheaded for two reasons. First, it has led to an intractable philosophical impasse that ultimately misconstrues the character of the relevant debate in emotion science. Second, and most important, it entirely ignores valence, a central feature of emotion experience, and probably the most promising criterion for demarcating emotion from cognition (...) and other related domains. An alternate philosophical hypothesis for addressing the issues is pro- posed. It is that emotion is a naturally occurring valenced phenomenon that is.. (shrink)