Welcome   |   Login   |   Sign Up   |

SCHOOL/ Who eliminated the reason of the heart?

MANUELA CERVI discusses the problems in education today and emphasizes the importance of teaching emotive reasoning, a person’s ability to observe and assess the reality around him.

The Rondanini Pieta' The Rondanini Pieta'

One of the problems of education today lies in schools that believe they are educating, when actually most of them are merely instructing. The two things are in fact very different. Integral reason is what is lacking today in education, not a rational algorithm, or a flash of genius, but emotive reason. In fact, if emotions are not understood in their true nature and are not educated, they go crazy, and what remains is an impaired rationality. This is the issue addressed by Manuela Cervi in her book La ragione del cuore. Antropologia delle emozioni (The reasons of the heart. Anthropology of emotions). IlSussidiario.net spoke with the author.

In your work,
you study, and rehabilitate emotive reasonCould you explainhow “emotion” and “reason” can go together?
I do not rehabilitate emotive reason. I introduce it. Historically, outside of rationalistic areas that influence a certain path of science in the modern era and that inspire positivism and idealism, in the West there has always been an awareness of a large, strong, energetic, vital reason, a tool for man to enter into reality, to know it and love it. However, this awareness has been channeled into more or less underground paths that have often hidden it. Then, on the psychological side since the 60's, and the philosophical side since the 80's, a handful of scholars were able to demonstrate the intrinsic cognitive capacity of emotion, and in particular, its capacity to assess. I have shown how and why this assessment capacity is an essential part of our thinking. I do not think that, up until today the construct of emotive reason has ever been introduced.

What is
an emotion?
Emotion, every mood, passion or consolidated attitude, is the way that all of us continually use to assess reality, evaluating how much it may grant us life.

You wrote: “instincts already are a part of human emotionaldynamics, and not even they are subject to the strict determinismstimulus-response) of the organic level alone.The erroris to interpretthe human instinctas biological when it is,instead,at the biological levelof an anthropological structure, which goes farbeyond biology”Can you explain this
For example, the instinct of self-preservation pushes me to live, the same as animals, but if I cannot find an adequate reason to live, I can kill myself, whereas animals do not. Instinct pushes me to eat, as is the case for animals, but I can decide to fast if I have an adequate reason to do so, while animals cannot. In humans, the organic level is inserted into a complex structure, which requires an I, that is, a freedom, a reason, a conscience.

That would be theanthropological level?