98923 - Philosophy of Emotions (2) (LM)

Learning outcomes

This course examines central issues in current emotion research through the work of philosophers, psychologists, and cognitive and affective scientists. It is expected that students will become familiar with debates and theories about emotion and affectivity and will develop an ability to analyse and critically assess them.

Course contents

                                EMOTIONS AND REASONS

By laypersons and philosophers alike, emotions are often assessed on various grounds. For example, one’s emotional response to a certain event can be assessed morally (does it reflect a virtuous or a vicious trait of one’s personality?) or prudentially (does it lead to behaviour that promotes the agent’s interests?). In this course, we shall discuss epistemological issues concerning assessments of fittingness (whether an emotion is appropriate or not to its particular object) and justification (whether the emoter has reasons for her/his/their emotional response).

Specifically, we shall examine the problem of affective disagreement, that is situations where people react to the same events and narratives with contrasting emotional responses. Focusing on the relation between emotions and values, we shall also raise metaethical issues, e.g. whether values are mind-independent or response-dependent, what role affectivity plays in bringing forth moral values, and whether (at least some) emotions are sources of moral knowledge. Our main case study will be the ambiguous affective experience of victims of microaggressions.

Readings/Bibliography

 

Reasons of fit (week 1)

Mandatory

• D’Arms J. (2022), ‘Fitting emotions’, in C. Howard and R. A. Rowland (eds), Fittingness: essays in the philosophy of normativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–129. Available here: https://academic.oup.com/book/44566/chapter/376624185
• D’Arms and Jacobson (2000), ‘Sentiment and value’, Ethics, Vol. 110, No. 4, pp. 722–748.

Recommended

• Goldie, P. (2004), ‘Emotion, feeling, and knowledge of the world’, in R.C. Solomon (ed.), Thinking about feeling: Contemporary philosophers on emotions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–106.
• Rabinowicz, W. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2004), ‘The strike of the demon: On fitting pro-attitudes and value’, Ethics, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. 391–423.

 

Emotions, oppression, and resistance (week 2)

Mandatory

• Jaggar, A.M. (1992), ‘Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology’, in A. Garry and M. Pearsall (eds.), Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 129–156.
• Spelman, E.V. (1992), ‘Anger and insubordination’, in A. Garry and M. Pearsall (eds.), Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 263–274.

Recommended

• Srinivasan, A. (2018), ‘The aptness of anger’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 123–144.
• Chemaly, S. (2018), Rage becomes her: The power of women’s anger, New York: Atria Books.

 

Microaggressions (week 3)

Mandatory

• Rini R. (2021), The ethics of microaggression, Oxford and New York: Routledge, Introduction, chapter 1 and chapter 2 (pp. 1-70).
• Pierce C. (1970). ‘Offensive mechanisms’, in F.B. Barbour (ed.), The Black Seventies, Boston: Porter Sargeant, 265-282.

 

Standpoint (week 4)

Mandatory

• Harding, S. (1992), ‘Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”?’, The Centennial Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 437–470.
• Dotson, K. (2011), ‘Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing’, Hypatia, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 236–257.

Recommended

• Collins, P.H. (1986), ‘Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought’, Social Problems, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. s14–s32.
• hooks, b. (1989), ‘Choosing the margin as a space of radical openness’, Framework, No. 36, pp. 15–23.

 

Epistemic oppression (week 5)

Mandatory

• Abramson, K. (2014), ‘Turning up the lights on gaslighting’, Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1–30.
• McKinnon, R. (2017), ‘Allies behaving badly: Gaslighting as epistemic injustice’, in I.J. Kidd, J. Medina, and G. Pohlhaus Jr. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 167–174.

Recommended

• Gaslight (1944, US), a film by G. Cukor. Based on Gas Light (1938 play by P. Hamilton).

 

It is required that non-attending students read both mandatory and recommended texts.

Teaching methods

My teaching goals are to help students become familiar with key philosophical concepts and topics, gain confidence in using the relevant terminology, develop strong skills in argument analysis, and cultivate critical thinking. These goals cannot be achieved by me alone; they require active participation and shared effort from both teacher and students. Reaching these goals depends on our mutual commitment to the learning process, where students engage fully and contribute meaningfully to the classroom environment. 

Readings of around 50–100 pages per week will be assigned each week. One class per week (most likely on Wednesdays) will take the form of discussion, so your preparation will be important.

Assessment methods

Attending students are required to attend no less than 12 classes.

Grades will be distributed as follows:

 

Participation: 5%

Participation means active engagement in class discussions through questions, comments, or responses. What matters is the quality of your contributions, not the quantity.

 

Weekly Discussion Questions: 15%

Each week, you are required to submit at least one discussion question for every assigned reading. Questions should reflect your engagement with the readings and must address key claims or concepts, the implications or structure of arguments, or challenges to the text.

Submitted questions will be compiled and shared with the class, and they will help shape our discussions.

Questions must be submitted via email by 5:00 PM on Tuesdays.

You may miss one submission without penalty. Each additional missed submission will result in a 5% deduction from your final grade.

 

Weekly Reflection Board Contributions: 15%

You are required to post a brief reflection (approximately 200 words) on the Virtuale discussion board after the final class of each week and no later than 5:00 PM on Fridays. Reflections should summarize the key points from that week’s topic. The purpose of this exercise is to consolidate your understanding of core concepts and promote critical engagement with the course material.

You may miss one reflection without penalty. Each additional missed post will result in a 5% deduction from your final grade.

 

Final Paper: 65%

You will be required to submit a final paper of 5-6 pages on a topic of your choice. The paper should engage critically with a theme or debate covered in the course, offer an argument and/or present critical responses to the texts we read. All paper topics must be approved by the instructor in advance; you are therefore encouraged to submit a proposal by the end of the course.

NB The final class will be dedicated to guidance on writing a philosophy paper of the sort required in the final assessment.

Writing assessment rubric available here.

 

Non-attending students will be evaluated on the basis of a viva voce examination.

The viva voce examination will commence with a ten-minute presentation by the student on a topic of their choice from within the course prescription. It will also include questions by the instructor on any other part of the prescription.

--

During the 2025/2026 academic year, exam sessions are scheduled in the following months:

• one session in November 2025 for students with outstanding exams;

• one session in January 2026 for students with outstanding exams;

• one session in March 2026 for students with outstanding exams;

• one session in May 2026 for all students;

• one session in July 2026 for all students;

• one session in September 2026 for all students.

Please note: These are general indications. The final dates for each exam session will be published according to the following schedule:

• by the end of July 2025 for sessions from September 2025 to January 2026;

• by the end of November 2025 for sessions from February to July 2026.

 

--

Students with disabilities and Specific Learning Difficulties (SLD)

Students with disabilities or Specific Learning Difficulties have the right to special adjustments according to their condition, following an assessment by the Service for Students with Disabilities and SLD. Please do not contact the instructor but get in touch with the Service directly to schedule an appointment. It will be the responsibility of the Service to determine the appropriate adjustments. For more information, visit the page:

https://site.unibo.it/studenti-con-disabilita-e-dsa/en/for-students

It is recommended that students contact the University office in advance. Any proposed adjustments must be submitted at least 15 days in advance for the professor’s approval, who will evaluate their appropriateness in relation to the learning objectives of the course.

Teaching tools

Traditional lectures will be complemented by class discussions, debates, and other interactive formats. I will use a variety of tools to support teaching and foster active participation, including ppt presentations, paper handouts, and tools such as Wooclap.

Office hours

See the website of Pia Campeggiani