Exploring the interplay between affect and rationality, this seminar paper critically examines Barrett's claims about the dominance of emotions over rational thought. It argues for the plausibility of a necessary dependency between the two, suggesting that emotions significantly influence rational decision-making. Through a philosophical lens, the paper aims to deepen the understanding of how affect shapes human reasoning, contributing to ongoing discussions in contemporary philosophy.
The paper critically examines Watson's "Skepticism about Weakness of Will," focusing on the ambiguity surrounding the definition of weak-willed actions. It argues that Watson fails to clarify when a person is considered weak-willed and critiques his introduction of "self-control" as a potential solution, highlighting that it raises further questions about accountability and the ability to resist temptation. The discussion emphasizes the difficulties in determining when individuals should exercise self-control and the implications of our inability to define weak-willed behavior clearly.