Abstract

Valence is a key construct in the affective sciences and in the philosophy of emotion. Carruthers (2011, 2017) has recently offered an account of the nature of valence. He defends a (representational) version of what might be called the non-sensory signal theory of valence (NSS). According to the latter, valence is identified with inner signals-which are not themselves perceptual nor conceptual states of any sort-which mark sensory representations as good or bad. In this paper, I argue that Carruthers's version of NSS is problematic on its own, independently of the plausibility of competing theories of valence. Carruthers's arguments to the effect that valence is non-sensory fail to rule out the hypothesis that, together with arousal, valence might also be grounded in bodily, sensory representations. Carruthers's claim that valence is not a sensory item in the furniture of the mind needs to be then more thoroughly substantiated.