As we all know, Immanuel Kant holds the view that human beings are quintessentially rational creatures; hence, the emotions are not much more than a form of excessive psychological baggage that human beings could do w...As we all know, Immanuel Kant holds the view that human beings are quintessentially rational creatures; hence, the emotions are not much more than a form of excessive psychological baggage that human beings could do without. Indeed, for anyone familiar with the television series Star Trek, it would seem that according to Kant human beings bear a quite striking resemblance to the individual known as Spock who is a Vulcan and thus a completely rational creature who does not have emotions and feelings. For Kant, that is how human beings should be when they are at their very best as rational creatures. Interestingly, a question that mightily presents itself is whether or not evolution supports Kant＇s ideal conception of human beings as quintessentially rational creatures. It is quite clear that, unlike Vulcans, human beings are capable of emotions and feelings. Indeed, the capacity for emotions and feelings clearly constitutes a fundamental part of the biological make-up of human beings. With that reality, there are two primary ways we can go. On the one hand, we can hold that notwithstanding the capacity that human beings have for emotions and feelings, it is nonetheless the case that humans should mightily strive to realize the Kantian conception of the rational self. On the other hand, we can hold that the emotions and feelings play a very profound and fundamental role in the survival and self-realization of human beings. In what follows, I shall offer a number of considerations in support of the second line of thought; for in point of fact, the first option is not really an option given the psychological configuration of human beings.展开更多
文摘As we all know, Immanuel Kant holds the view that human beings are quintessentially rational creatures; hence, the emotions are not much more than a form of excessive psychological baggage that human beings could do without. Indeed, for anyone familiar with the television series Star Trek, it would seem that according to Kant human beings bear a quite striking resemblance to the individual known as Spock who is a Vulcan and thus a completely rational creature who does not have emotions and feelings. For Kant, that is how human beings should be when they are at their very best as rational creatures. Interestingly, a question that mightily presents itself is whether or not evolution supports Kant＇s ideal conception of human beings as quintessentially rational creatures. It is quite clear that, unlike Vulcans, human beings are capable of emotions and feelings. Indeed, the capacity for emotions and feelings clearly constitutes a fundamental part of the biological make-up of human beings. With that reality, there are two primary ways we can go. On the one hand, we can hold that notwithstanding the capacity that human beings have for emotions and feelings, it is nonetheless the case that humans should mightily strive to realize the Kantian conception of the rational self. On the other hand, we can hold that the emotions and feelings play a very profound and fundamental role in the survival and self-realization of human beings. In what follows, I shall offer a number of considerations in support of the second line of thought; for in point of fact, the first option is not really an option given the psychological configuration of human beings.
