Abstract

The best argument for narrow cognitivism is, in summary, as follows. Emotions characteristically dispose one to action. Dispositions to action are explained by combinations of beliefs and desires. Hence, emotions embody beliefs and desires. Countering this argument was Patricia Greenspan's example of the phobic who fears and so avoids all dogs including Fido, whom she believes to be a harmless old hound. The phobic fears — and so avoids — Fido, yet does not believe he is dangerous. Kendall Walton has suggested that the problem caused by one's apparent emotional reaction to fiction is independent of the debate between Greenspan and the narrow cognitivists. For Walton, it is action, not beliefs, which is problematic. According to Walton, the detour through beliefs is unnecessary. Whatever the source, emotions have motivational force.