Posted by zeugma on October 19, 2003, at 17:20:29
In reply to Re: MamaB --About personal responsibility » MamaB, posted by madwand on October 19, 2003, at 14:28:29
The real subject here IMO is not the nature of emotion, and whether control resides in the person who acts first or in the person who responds.
The real question seems to be about judgment. AS in having a good judgment (or faculty of judgment) versus having a poor one. If someone is 'bragging' about drug abuse, that is a judgment call. A fairly difficult one,perhaps. It's a lot more complex than simply 'being able to control your reaction' of anger or whatever. It's a process that demands a certain degree of introspection as well as insight into another person. It's a lot more subtle (and important) than just having a good 'theory of emotion,' and every person has to find out about this in their own way."...it appears that, though understanding is capable of being instructed, and of being equiped with rules, judgment is a peculiar talent which can be practised only, and cannot be taught. It is the specific quality of so-called mother-wit; and its lack no school can make good. For although an abundabce of rules borrowed from the insight of others may indeed be proffered to, and as it were grafted upon, a limited understanding, the power of rightly employing them must belong to the learner himself; and in the absence of such a natural gift no rule that may be prescribed to him for this purpose can ensure against misuse."- Immanuel Kant
I think that it's important not to try to pre-empt others' judgments by force because that does two things: 1) imposes possibly unsound judgments on others arbitrarily; and 2) robs people of their right to exercise their own capacities for judgment.
poster:zeugma
thread:270830
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031011/msgs/270902.html