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
