Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion, "The orator persuades by means of his hearers, when they are roused to emotion by his speech; for the judgments we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow ...
The second approach "is to specify the material conditions of a moral issue, for example, that moral rules and judgments 'must bear on the interest or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent ' ". [9] This definition seems to be more action-based. It focuses on the outcome of a moral emotion.
Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory . [ 4 ]
Download as PDF; Printable version; ... Arguments in philosophy of mind (21 P) S. ... Pages in category "Philosophical arguments" The following 47 pages are in this ...
The practical significance of Scheler's Stratification of Emotional Life is obvious in several respects and points of view. First, Scheler seems to be making a case in favor of what we might refer to today as Emotional Intelligence, as a portal to more ethical behavior and optimum personal development, similar to the ancient Greek concern for promoting virtuous character. [3]
As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", [1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge.
This example looks like the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent ("If A is true then B is also true, and B is true, so A must be true"), but in this example the material conditional logical connective ("A implies B") in the formal fallacy does not account for exactly why the semantic relation between premises and conclusion in the example ...
Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which an individual concludes that their emotional reaction proves something is true, despite contrary empirical evidence. Emotional reasoning creates an 'emotional truth', which may be in direct conflict with the inverse 'perceptional truth'. [ 1 ]