Posted by Helen on September 26, 1997 at 06:14:12:
In response to "For most of us...", written by Erin on September 25, 1997 at 13:54:46
] But isn't the innate morality we have an emotional one, rather than a rational one (not that I want to argue with Kant, of course)?
] Not necessarily, one can argue (in fact I do) that in this context, the rational is the humanity, and contained therein is both the emotional and the analytic dispositions. I think rationality for Kant, like Plato, is strictly speaking not scientific, mathematical-type of critical thinking --connotations which are usually associated with the term; rather it is our humanity, our soul, for the lack of a better word. It's a priori (fundamental), and transcendent.
] The rational morality is for most of us the learned one, and it is the one which says we should not yield to our impulse to react violently to those who break our innate moral codes.
] Right, but your use of the term "the rational morality" is a derivative of the first, a priori concept of the rational. If I understand you correctly. ;-)
yes, I have a problem with a definition of "rational" which equates it with "soul" - the heart/head dichotomy is too strong a presence in our world-view. Sorry, but Kant is just plain wrong.
Go on, contradict me, I know you want to ;-)
But I also think that Jane Eyre exhibits both rational and emotional qualities in her make-up. She is a character who is presented as containing, and justifying, both a common-sense, pragmatic view of the world and her own situation, and a seething cauldron of emotions - Elinor and Marianne combined!
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.