Abstract

In these comments, I argue that Michael Brady’s analysis of emotions tacitly assumes ideal, non-adverse conditions, and that this makes his theory apt only for certain kinds of lives. I aim to augment his view by considering how certain emotions work differently under one non-ideal circumstance: trauma (specifically, intimate partner violence). The standard function and value of emotions that Brady articulates alters for agents surviving this trauma, and therefore cannot be captured by a theory that assumes ideal conditions. Instead, it requires a different theoretical approach. My overall aim is to make the case that when doing philosophy of emotion, it is imperative to consider the non-ideal, adverse, and messy circumstances of our lives—exemplified by trauma—in order to provide a truly human theory of emotion.