Accueil > Séminaires/Colloques > Archives > Colloques > 2016-2017 > The Philosophy of Moods > Presentation
Le 21 juin 2017
Matin : Salle du Centre Cavaillès, 3ème étage, Ecole normale supérieure, 29 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris.
11h30-13h: Stéphane Lemaire (Université de Rennes1)
"Unconscious emotions and emotions without conscious intentional object".
Apres-midi : Salle du Centre Cavaillès, 3ème étage, Ecole normale supérieure, 29 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris.
15h-16h30: Christine Tappolet (Université de Montréal)
"The Metaphysics of Moods"
Abstract: Moods are familiar, but their nature is elusive. After presenting three important characteristics of paradigmatic moods, like anxiety or irritability, I discuss the main accounts that have been proposed in the literature, namely, dispositional accounts and accounts according to which moods are kinds of emotions, such as the generalized emotions accounts. I argue that these accounts are flawed and have to be replaced by the view that moods concern the likelihood of evaluative possibilities.
16h30-18h: Uriah Kriegel (CNRS, IJN)
"The Phenomenal Intentionality of Moods"
Abstract: Moods are sometimes claimed to constitute the sole exception to the thesis that all mental phenomena are intentional: their phenomenal character is said to be diffuse and undirected, in a way that rules out a characterization in intentional terms. This paper considers three attempts to provide an intentional account of moods after all – two already present in the extant literature, and a novel third one. The first account, which I call ‘global intentionalism,’ claims that moods represent the world as a whole, or everything indiscriminately, without representing anything in particular. The second account, which I call ‘objectless intentionalism,’ claims that moods represent ‘unbound properties,’ that is, properties that are not any thing’s properties. The third account, which I call ‘impure intentionalism,’ does not attempt to characterize moods in terms of what they might represent, but rather in terms of how they represent, that is, in terms of a distinctive manner or mode in which they represent what (if anything) they do. I argue that the first two accounts face severe difficulties which a version of the third elegantly overcomes.