Authors
- Kucherenko Alexander Vladimirovich Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor
Annotation
The article examines the problem of the relationship between reason and the emotional sphere, within which reason must operate, having its own immutable nature in its pure, i.e., a priori form. The problem itself was identified in ancient times, has passed through the ages, and affects our daily lives, actively contributing to contemporary
philosophical reflections and interdisciplinary discourse. Spinoza’s expanded understanding of the entire emotional sphere as affects, which differs from the modern interpretation of affects in psychology and jurisprudence, is most suitable for examining the dialectical relationship between feeling and reason, in which reason can manifest both its strength and its weakness. The metaphysical approach, which views these values as self-contained domains with their own qualitative differences from all other values, is complemented by the dialectical approach, which considers not only their connections but also the contradictory unity within these qualitatively distinct domains. The inductive method used in the article makes it possible to move from taking into account personal experience of emotional experiences to pointing out certain characteristics of a pure mind that is affected by emotions. When solving the problem of the manifestation of the mind’s activity under the influence of emotions, it is impossible to do without using descriptive methods that push the mind to perform predetermined actions and make final decisions. In fact, the topic of the relationship between feelings and reason touches on all areas of philosophical thought in one way or another. The article uses the activities of telephone scammers who manipulate their victims’ emotions and influence their minds as an example of this problem, which ultimately causes enormous economic damage to our country. An interdisciplinary approach to addressing this issue is presented through the reflections of various contemporary authors in the fields of philosophy, sociology and psychology.
How to link insert
Kucherenko, A. V. (2025). PURE REASON IN THE CAPTIVITY OF HETERONOMY Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 4 (56), 32. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2025-456-32-43
References
1.
1. Spinoza, B. (2001). Ethics. Harvest; AST. (In Russian).
2.
2. Plato (2007). Phaedrus. In Plato. Works in 4 volumes (vol. 2, pp. 161–228). Publishing House of St. Petersburg University. (In Russian).
3.
3. Kant, I. (1997). Criticism of practical reason. In Kant, I. Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian (vol. 3, pp. 277–733). Moscow Philosophical Foundation.
(In Russian).
4.
4. Kant, I. (1964). Criticism of pure reason. In Kant, I. Essays in 6 volumes (vol. 3). Mysl.
5.
5. Kant, I. (1994). Criticism of the ability of judgment. In Kant, I. Essays in 8 volumes (vol. 5). Choro.
6.
6. Guseynov, A. A. (2025). Kant forever. The Philosophy Journal, 18 (2), 5–14. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2025-18-2-5-14
7.
7. Sychev, A. A. (2024). “New ethics”: Cultural foundations and prospects for dialogue. Ethical Thought, 24 (2), 19–33. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2024-24-2-19-33
8.
8. Savelyev, I. A. (2025). Polysubjectivity as a category of sociology of management. Sociological Journal, 31 (2), 96–110. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2025.31.2.5
9.
9. Mironova, O. I., & Aleksapolskaya, M. M. (2024). Approaches to studying coping behavior in situations of uncertainty. Psychology. Historical-Critical Reviews and Current Researches, 13 (12A), 17–32.