This paper defends the argument that the irrationality of recalcitrant emotions can only be explained by understanding emotions as yielding a distinctly nonjudgmental assent. The four premises of the argument are identified, and the three controversial premises are defended against recent rejoinders. Particular attention is given to defending the argument from theorists who advocate that (nonassentist) perceptualist models either adequately explain the irrationality of recalcitrant emotions or show that recalcitrant emotions are not, in fact, irrational.

You do not currently have access to this content.