This reply engages with five commentaries on my target article advancing the goal‑directed theory (GDT). Stussi et al. expand the discussion by emphasizing epistemic goals, whereas Scarantino, Bonard, Pacherie, and Prinz resist my eliminativist conclusion to varying degrees by raising objections in the form of counterexamples (e.g., decisional paralysis, emotional recalcitrance, responding with vs. without emotional heath) and other puzzles (e.g., identity-based irrational emotions). By clarifying several misunderstandings about the GDT (e.g., about the revisability, automaticity, and complexity of goal-directed processes), I show how the theory can accommodate these objections, thereby further strengthening its viability.
Agnes Moors (Mon,) studied this question.