What's Wrong With Recalcitrant Emotions? From Irrationality to Challenge of Agential Identity

I argue that, in experiencing a recalcitrant emotion, one does not violate a rational requirement of any sort. Rational requirements, as the expression has come to be used, are requirements of coherence (for instance, the requirements to be consistent in your beliefs and in your intentions). Accordingly, my argument is that there is nothing incoherent in any way about experiencing a recalcitrant emotion. One becomes incoherent (i.e., irrational) only if one allows the emotion to influence one's reasoning and/or action, in which case one violates the 'consistency principle' and/or the 'enkratic principle'. From the standpoint of rationality, it would even be counterproductive to put subjects under the obligation that their emotional experiences and their evaluative judgements must always fit together. When we nevertheless intuitively sense that the subject is irrational in experiencing a recalcitrant emotion this is in cases in which the emotion challenges the subject's agential identity. However, emotions can, but need not, challenge one's agential identity, and, furthermore, perceptions can do so as well. In any case, challenges of this kind do not involve the violation of a rational requirement.