> Date sent: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 01:35:50 -0700 (PDT) > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:12652] Re:culture > At 12:34 25/09/97 -0700, Ricardo wrote: > >Yes, Kant is a central figure in the formation of a critical > >discourse on ethics. I believe he was right to argue that ethics > >must be grounded on reason, not feelings, otherwise ethics is > >left open to the whims of the individual. But Kant's > >categorical imperative is strictly formal, so we have to move on to > >Hegel...Dostoyevsky is important because a person may very well know > >what is the moral thing to do, but that person may still > >WILL against what her/his reason says...That's why we need to read > >Hegel. > > > >ricardo > ______________ > > So, back to Hegel! is the slogan, eh? My general sense is that it won't be > too difficult for a Derrida to deconstruct 'reason' and reveal its > extratheoretical grounds. Moreover, I think we should not forget Freud. If > we accept that there is something as unconscious, then morality or guide to > action built soley on 'reason', which is the realm of conscious, may not > lead to 'freedom'. Religon and Mythology, from which many traditional moral > codes are drawn, may have something to do with unconscious. What do you > think? Cheers, ajit sinha > > You cannot emancipate yourself from the dogmas of reason except through the employment of reason: to deconstruct reason you must employ reason. If deconstruction wants to make any claims to validity, it must make claims to truth. Your comments on Freud need clarification; still, let me say this: psychoanalysis implicitly recognizes the ability of a person to self- reflect on their unconscious; therefore it does not (cannot) reject critical reason. ricardo
