The above need further interpretations from various perspectives otherwise it can be misleading.
It is odd to say reason flows forth from the passions.
The term ‘passions’ can also mislead as ‘passion’ generally refers to very strong emotions on the edge of them being uncontrollable by the person with the potential toward extreme good/Beneficent or extreme evil.
In addition, extreme passion with common reason can generate more extreme evil, e.g. those of the psychopath.
It is a fact, the primary and secondary emotions evolved earlier and are embedded ‘deeper’ in the human brain than the neural circuitry that support the faculty of reason [from common to pure reason].
As such, we can agree the faculty of reason emerged with the leverage on emotions and other mental elements. This point is easily recognized, note
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology) (9780521540254): William S. Cooper.
Neuroscientists has also done research to arrive at a very strong hypothesis that reason has to work interdependently with emotions.
Note Antonio Damasio’s
Re Ethics [btw not moral], Kant believed the faculty of reason is the worst element to be relied upon to drive ethical motives and actions.
Despite Kant’s understanding that instincts and emotions are more effective and critique Reason as ineffective for ethical motives, he believed there are good reasons why Reason is necessary for Morals [not ethics]. Kant do not expect Reason* to drive the motives/actions of ethics directly but merely act as a sort of overseeing counselor for ethics.
- Kant analyzed the concept of Reason in great details and the relevant reason in this case is positive Pure Reason with rationality and not Common-Reason or even philosophical logic in general.
Kant’s approach is system-based and he represented sensibility [emotions and other sensual faculty] in its proper place within the human system [mental and physical] in its interdependent interaction with reality.
Kant’s categories are a critical but merely a very small part to his whole system of philosophy. Kant presented his categories in principles and its forms/details are limited within the knowledge available in his time, but its details, forms and complexities can now be explored further via cognitive neuroscience* and other advance knowledge.
Some claim Kant to be a pioneer of cognitive science (thus cognitive neuroscience).
As I had mentioned elsewhere, to made a fairer review and critique of Kant’s views or for comparative purposes, one need to put in a LOT of effort to grasp and understand [not necessary agree with] his philosophical theories.