MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
122 bytes added
, 20:08, 10 August 2011
Line 2,117: |
Line 2,117: |
| | | |
| One thing is apparent: If reflective inquiry, based on the rationality of the intellectual share of reason, addresses instinctive inquiry, based on the sensibility of the affective, emotional, and motivational portion, as something wholly other, indeed, as its logical opposite, then it obstructs the eventuality and even precludes the possibility of discovering their compatibilities and continuities, and it interferes with the chances of seeing how each form of inquiry completes and extends the other. | | One thing is apparent: If reflective inquiry, based on the rationality of the intellectual share of reason, addresses instinctive inquiry, based on the sensibility of the affective, emotional, and motivational portion, as something wholly other, indeed, as its logical opposite, then it obstructs the eventuality and even precludes the possibility of discovering their compatibilities and continuities, and it interferes with the chances of seeing how each form of inquiry completes and extends the other. |
| + | </pre> |
| | | |
− | Thus we can understand that "the entire sensible world and all the beings with which we have dealings sometimes appear to us as a text to be deciphered". | + | {| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%" |
− | Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, [Ric, 222],
| + | | |
− | quoting Jean Nabert, Elements for an Ethic, [Nab, 77].
| + | <p>Thus we can understand that “the entire sensible world and all the beings with which we have dealings sometimes appear to us as a text to be deciphered”.</p> |
− | </pre> | + | |- |
| + | | align="right" | |
| + | <p>Paul Ricoeur, ''The Conflict of Interpretations'', [Ric, 222],<br> |
| + | quoting Jean Nabert, ''Elements for an Ethic'', [Nab, 77].</p> |
| + | |} |
| | | |
| Before this discussion can proceed any further I need to introduce a technical vocabulary that is specifically designed to articulate the relation of thought to action and the relation of conduct to purpose. This terminology makes use of a classical distinction between ''action'', as simply taken, and ''conduct'', as fully considered in the light of its means, its ways, and its ends. To the extent that affects, motivations, and purposes are bound up with one another, the objects that lie within the reach of this language that are able to be grasped by means of its concepts provide a form of cognitive handle on the complex arrays of affective impulsions and the unruly masses of emotional obstructions that serve both to drive and to block the effective performance of inquiry. | | Before this discussion can proceed any further I need to introduce a technical vocabulary that is specifically designed to articulate the relation of thought to action and the relation of conduct to purpose. This terminology makes use of a classical distinction between ''action'', as simply taken, and ''conduct'', as fully considered in the light of its means, its ways, and its ends. To the extent that affects, motivations, and purposes are bound up with one another, the objects that lie within the reach of this language that are able to be grasped by means of its concepts provide a form of cognitive handle on the complex arrays of affective impulsions and the unruly masses of emotional obstructions that serve both to drive and to block the effective performance of inquiry. |