Kant's Understanding of the Relation Between Reason and Passion/Emotion - Essay Example

? Kant's understanding of the relation between reason and passion/emotion The explanation of human behavior can be characterized as a challenging task. Usually, human actions are based on specific causes, but this rule is not always applicable, as for example in the case of automated human responses to certain events. Still, it seems that there are rules that can explain human behavior, at least up to a level. Kant has tried to explore the reasons of human actions, as these reasons are related to emotions. In his study, the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant presents the key characteristics of the above relationship. It seems that reason, as a critical element of human decisions/ actions, is closely related to emotions, even if this relationship is not easily distinguished, as explained below. In the third Chapter of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant focuses on the importance of will, as a reflection of the freedom of each individual to decide. It is also in this chapter that reason, as an approach used for understanding the external world, is described. Emotions are also evaluated, as elements affecting human behavior. In order to understand the relation between reason, or cause, and emotions it would be necessary to understand the criteria on which human behavior is based; reference should be made especially to the concepts of freedom and causality, as related to will on which human behavior is highly based. At this point the following fact should be highlighted: reason may have two different contexts: cause, as a factor influencing freedom, is related to morality; reason, is a term that can be also used for showing the criteria on which the understanding of external world is based. Both these terms, which can be considered also as identical, will be explained so that the relationship between reason and emotions is made clear. According to Kant, will, as an element of human behavior, may not be based on cause in the case that the individual is free to decide in regard to a particular action. In other words, will is independent from cause when the freedom of individual is absolute, a term that is quite difficult to be met (Kant, Ch3, p.41). In the above case it is assumed that the action fully reflects the personal perceptions and emotions of the individual involved. In other words, when the freedom of will of the individual is absolute, the relation between cause and emotions is quite limited, almost non-existent. In the above case, emotions have absolute power on a person’s will, setting the criteria on which the actions of the individual are based. Kant explains that the above form of freedom cannot exist in practice since it would lead to the lack of any control on human behavior (Kant Ch3, p.41), meaning that human behavior would be out of the control of law, a phenomenon that would severely threaten societies worldwide. On the contrary, freedom seems to be necessarily depended on law, a view that is based on the following fact: ‘freedom, as a concept, incorporates causality, which, by its turn, is related to law’ (Kant Ch3, p.41). It is implied that freedom is related to law, a view that is reflected in the following statement of Kant: ‘free will and will under moral laws are identical’ (Kant Ch3, p.41). In other words, freedom is related to law and not just the written law but also the moral law. Under these terms, emotions cannot have a decisive power on human behavior; the latter is necessarily influenced by morality, or else causality, and needs to be aligned with the principles of moral laws. At this point, the relation between emotions and reason, or cause, can be weak, serving different interests; emotions promote an increased freedom of the individual to act while the latter sets limits to the freedom of humans. At this point the following issue should be discussed: would emotions and reason have another relation, i.e. apart from the relation discussed above? Kant notes that there are two different types of world: ‘the sensible world, being influenced by the emotions and thus being opened to changes, and the intelligible world which tend to remain the same’ (Kant Ch3, p.44). This means that an individual could use emotions, as part of his behavior, but he should set certain limits; in other words, the level at which emotions can intervene in human actions is limited. At the same time, Kant explains that each individual has a particular capacity in understanding things around him (Kant Ch3, p.45); the term ‘things’ in the above case incorporates two, different, frameworks: the individual’s external environment, meaning the external world which can be of two different forms, as described above (Kant Ch3, p.45) and the position of the individual within his environment. Kant notes that the capacity of the individual to understand these two frameworks is reflected through the term ‘reason’ (Kant Ch3, p.45), a term that it is not related in this case to morality, as explained earlier. In the context of the above role, reason can be highly related to emotions. In fact, as Kant notes, without using emotions the understanding of things, as described earlier, would have no point (Kant Ch3, p.45). More specifically, according to Kant, when having to understand and evaluate things each individual needs to use his sensibility, meaning his senses in general (Kant Ch3, p.45). Otherwise, ‘the understanding of things would have no thoughts at all’ (Kant Ch3, p.45). However, it is at this point also that the roles of reason and emotions are made clear: reason needs to use sensibility in order to offer an objective view of things; however, in order for reason to respond to this role it needs to help to the distinction between the sensible world and the intelligible world, the two types of external world as described by Kant (Kant Ch 3, p.44). On the other hand, emotions are elements of the above process, helping the reason to make the distinction between sensible and intelligible world. According to the issues discussed above, each individual has to face the following dilemma: he is a member of the intelligible world (Kant Ch3, p.46), meaning that he has the freedom to act as he wishes, under the limitations that morality set. At the same time, the individual is a member of the sensible world, at the level that he is influenced by his emotions (Kant Ch3, p.46). Kant notes that these two forces that the individual has to face are not necessarily contradictive; in fact, reason, as used for explaining things, can be combined with emotions, so that each individual develops an objective view of things around him. However, in order for the above balance to exist the following practice needs to be followed: neither emotions nor reason should be overestimated. Instead, emotions should be used equally with reason for understanding things. In this way, reason and emotions would equally influence human behavior, a phenomenon that is not quite common, as explained in the study of Kant. More specifically, Kant states that each individual may prioritize differently emotions and reason; for example, it is possible for an individual to think that ‘he is a better person if he emphasizes on reason, i.e. if he acts as a member of the intelligible world’ (Kant Ch3, p.46-47). In other words, being influenced by emotions can be considered as a personal characteristic limiting the value of a person as a member of the society; from this point of view, individuals are expected to prefer reason than emotions when having to understand things. The above framework describes the relation between reason and emotions, as derived from the particular study of Kant. It is made clear that reason and emotions have power to affect human behavior; still, their power can be differentiated, at the level that each individual evaluates differently the potential role of emotions and reason in understanding things. For this reason, it can be concluded that reason and emotions are two concepts closely related since they are both used in understanding things and developing decisions. Still, the power of each of these concepts in intervening in human behavior is not standardized mostly because individuals tend to use different approaches for understanding things. From this point of view, emotions and reason can affect human behavior differently even if their presence in all human activities cannot be doubted, as analyzed above. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Read More