Author name: Editor

Why do we feel emotion when listening to music? Ben Ushedo goes beyond emotivist and cognitivist approaches to answer this intriguing question. “Music can make me feel tense or relaxed; it can disturb, unsettle me, and startle me; it can calm me down or excite me…”Jennifer Robinson, ‘Expression and Arousal of Emotion in Music’. What

Philosophers working on the epistemology of disagreement have asked how one ought, if at all, to revise one’s beliefs or credences when confronted with facts about others who disagree. For it can seem at first blush that the mere existence of disagreement, at least when it is with those who are roughly one’s peers with

Tom Cochrane’s book forges into the philosophy of emotion on a new and powerful vehicle: the idea of valent representations. His project is ambitious. Cochrane uses valent representations to give models of affect, pleasure and pain, emotion, moods, expressive behavior, social intentionality, norms, collective effervescence, inner speech, sentiments, personality, and character. Philosophers interested in any of these topics

Declan Smithies’ book is an extraordinarily strong contribution to debates in philosophy of mind and epistemology. It is ambitious and expansive in scope while being extremely rigorously argued. It will be required reading for epistemologists, as well as for philosophers of mind interested in the value of consciousness for our lives as thinkers and knowers.

In this fine collection, Christian Seidel has brought together innovative new work on consequentialism, with a special focus on the theoretical strategy of “consequentializing” agent-centered (deontological) moral theories. It is an excellent resource for anyone seeking to better understand and evaluate the conceptual foundations of consequentialism. Seidel’s introduction is a real strength of the book,

Joseph C. Pitt’s slim new book argues persuasively that the philosopher’s traditional focus on theories as the essence of science is misplaced. This kind of objection is frequently leveled at philosophers by historians and those in science studies, and for good reason. Pitt’s critique is much broader and more interesting than the typical one since