I. Kant for I Am Not Enlightened

(never have i struggled to write a paper, especially one only requiring 800 words. as the title alludes, i conclude it is my lack of philosophical enlightenment that i remain alluded. if you read this and conclude that i know not what i speak, i applaud and offer you an award for seeing through the muck.)

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. “ (“What Is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant)

Immanuel Kant explains Enlightenment as a way for the individual to achieve freedom through the courage to think for self : “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life.” (Kant, 1784)

Whilst Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx are enlightened thinkers, it is Rousseau who best aligns with Kant’s ideal Enlightenment figure. Rousseau does not believe that Enlightenment can be obtained if held by the chains of society – man’s separation from ‘nature’ incurs vast inequality. Rousseau insists that man must remain removed from any social structure in order to live free and equal from fellow-man:

“I conceive two species of inequality among men; one which I call natural, or physical inequality, because it is established by nature, and consists in the difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind, or of the soul; the other which may be termed moral, or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized, by the common consent of mankind. This species of inequality consists in the different privileges, which some men enjoy, to the prejudice of others, such as that of being richer, more honoured, more powerful, and even that of exacting obedience from them.”
(“A Discourse Upon The Origin And The Foundation Of The Inequality Among
Mankind” J.J. Rousseau)

It is this belief that inequality, as reinforced by society, a society controlled by one class over another, prevents the individual from achieving personal liberty. It is the ability to think without influence of another, with maturity, that Kant champions as the way to Enlightenment. Kant exemplifies the Enlightened man through his ability to reason the conceits of religion:

“I have portrayed matters of religion as the focal point of enlightenment, i.e. of man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. This is firstly because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of guardians over their subjects so fir as the arts and sciences are concerned, and secondly, because religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonourable variety of all.” (“What is Enlightenment?” I. Kant)

This focus on theology helps support Rousseau’s role as an Enlightenment figure. In Discourse on the Arts and Sciences”, he cautions, if not mocks, the learned man who explores religion and then writes of his own belief for the masses:

If they read you, you will not leave them in any perplexity about the question we are dealing with today. And unless they are more foolish than we are, they will lift their hands to heaven and will say in the bitterness of their hearts, “Almighty God, You who hold the minds of men in your hands, deliver us from the enlightenment and the fatal arts of our fathers, and give us back ignorance, innocence, and poverty, the only goods which can make our happiness and which are precious in Your sight.” (“Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” J.J. Rousseu)

This may seem in direct contradiction to Kant, but rather it reinforces the idea that the individual must have “courage to use it (knowledge) without guidance from another”. Kant recognizes, as Rousseau does, that the Age of Enlightenment does not mean Enlightened men. Quite opposite if one refuses to question the rules established by authority, be it clergy or prince.

“The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!” (“What is Enlightenment?” I. Kant) Rousseau was beyond courageous when he offered his criticism on the Age of Enlightenment. He called out his peers with objection, believing that no man may find Enlightenment in an age that embraced property. Even the thinking man became chained by a society obsessed with status if he viewed his worth through their eyes. Rousseau continued to write and live in opposition to his peers – to think as a solitary man of nature.

As I write this paper, I still grapple with choosing Rousseau over Marx as the figure of Enlightenment. With each paragraph presented above, in my mind a counter argument has been posed as to why Marx would also fit within these conceits. I leave this paper dissatisfied – both men certainly fit the role of an Enlightened figure. Rousseau, though, unlike Marx, who studied under Hegel, truly formulated his own vision, a contrarian to the times. It is this courageous, individualist thinking which seems to best address Kant’s Enlightenment cry, “Sapere aude!”

About these ads
Leave a comment

20 Comments

  1. I have been thinking a lot about this lately, though not in the context of Kant, Rousseau, or Marx. Strangely enough, it was my daughters mentioning a song by the Rolling Stones thay got me on this track. (What do the Stones have to do with enlightenment?)

    Hope the paper goes well!

    Reply
  2. Kant is one of my favorite philosophers. His ideas about how people learn and we perceive reality offer up some interesting ways to think about the world around us. :-)

    Reply
    • CB ~ if you a title of Kant’s writings you would rec, please share! ~ a

      Reply
      • While his works are numerous, he is most famous for “The Critique of Human Reason.” The philosophy he presents in this work is what I admire him for. Here, he attempts to deconstruct how humans perceive and process knowledge. For Kant, our experiences are shaped through the filter of the mind, but we cannot discount the “objects” that exist outside of our sphere of understanding.

      • Intrigued ~adding it to my list, many thanks!! Ironically, the other Coursera course I am in is also a philosophy course and Kant is one our subjects this week. The focus is whether to believe what we are told….the lectures are quite brief so I don’t think I shall become greatly enlightened, lol!

  3. It seems to me Kant’s idea of enlightenment can only happen with all of a society involved. Since Rousseau believed it was society itself that ‘de-evolved’ man, he seems to be working counter to Kant’s idea. Marx, on the other hand, was idealistic in the same way as Kant: all of society had to be involved. That’s my thinking now as I attempt to puke out those 800 words.

    Reply
    • I fear I approached this wrong ~ are they not both figures of Enlightenment?

      Reply
      • I don’t think Rousseau was. He believed we had no choice but to work with what we have – no going back to Eden. It was imperative to try and improve society. But he didn’t have the optimism or the idealism of Kant.

      • It is so interesting for I take a different angle – the one where he believes that the only way to achieve freedom is to achieve through self – society can not but cloud one’s perceptions. Self-think vs Group-think = self-think is the Enlightened man. Granted, this is not optimistic, but I did not work optimism into the equation. hmm…

  4. Immanuel Kant explains Enlightenment as a way for the individual to achieve freedom through the courage to think for self

    On the other hand being enlightened is the willingness to read and discuss the works of others who are, the willingness to examine these new and alternative ideas. This would be opposed to the propensity to ridicules, condemn, repress and persecute.

    Reply
    • Very astute observation, Carl – it seems that society today is rather unenlightened on many levels – especially the boys gathering around the table in DC ~ a

      Reply
  5. Done puking, w/2 hrs to spare. My conclusion: Marx, in broad outline, was an “enlightenment figure”, but in many important details was not an enlightenment figure.

    Reply
    • Congrats! I must have read it wrong for I thought it had to be turned in this AM… does not matter for I just arrived home from libraryland. I do hope you are posting your paper on blog???

      Do you not consider Rousseau Enlightened? It is interesting for when I went digging around online I found several papers that take quotes from a book Kant wrote at the end of his life giving great credit to Rousseau for his own beliefs. I do believe this jaded me a bit in my approach, though, I do stand by thinking that Marx was not as Enlightened for he oft didn’t see the holes in his own arguments… again, a novice, what do I know?! ~ a

      Reply
      • Maybe I’ll post it for you. I do think Rousseau was an “enlightened” individual, but Kant’s concept of enlightenment means a state of maturity for all of society, not a segment of it.

      • I would like that, or you are welcome to shoot me an email – I dig what you write here, ergo, I shall be the one puking. Should have asked you for a bit of discussion before hand . …sigh…

  6. I wonder what Kant would have made of Ashbery:

    . . . Better, you said, to stay cowering
    Like this in the early lessons, since the promise of learning
    Is a delusion, and I agreed, adding that
    Tomorrow would alter the sense of what had already been learned,
    That the learning process is extended in this way, so that from this standpoint
    None of us ever graduates from college,
    For time is an emulsion, and probably thinking not to grow up
    Is the brightest kind of maturity for us, right now at any rate.

    Reply
  7. severalfourmany

     /  2013/03/03

    The book C. B. Wentworth is talking about is usually known in English as The Critique of Pure Reason. It is Kant’s greatest book and is very important in the history of philosophy and Western culture. Kant did his best to be rigorous, thorough and complete. As a result the book is over 500 pages of fairly dense philosophy. I would not discourage anyone from reading it, it is truly brilliant. However, it can be a bit overwhelming. Kant understood both the importance of his work and it’s difficulty.

    He knew that most readers probably didn’t need an extensive explication of the Paralogism of Substantiality but would still want to understand the basic concepts. For these readers he wrote the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which despite the title, is an easier to follow description of the most important ideas in the Critique. It is short (100 pages) and can be read as an Introduction to, or instead of, a reading the Critique.

    Having any luck with Historical Progress this week?

    Reply
    • Thank you so much for your comment and recommendation! It reads as if you are quite well versed in Philo – are you taking the course as a refresher?

      Historical Progress — just posted a bit of mental meandering after a Very Long day in libraryland – all weekend has been crazy, which really is not bad for job security AND it means people still believe in reading… That said, we shall see if anything gets wrapped up before dawn (deadline is early morn??). Cannot lie – not terribly motivated to spend much time for our peers after seeing peer review last night – no comments, just numbers, oy!

      (no blog found for you, btw, so if you would like to share your paper, let me know if there is a link – cheers! ~ a )

      Reply
      • severalfourmany

         /  2013/03/04

        I’ll keep that in mind when I do peer reviews and be sure to add comments. You seem to get a good variety of comments on the blog. Perhaps that is a better avenue for feedback.

        I have been reading philosophy for a while. I took the course because it looked interesting. The readings are not like paperback mysteries where its not as much fun if you already know the ending. You get something new every time you revisit them. I’m pretty familiar with Flaubert but I had never thought of him as having an opinion on historical progress so even though I just joined yesterday I’ve learned something already. I guess I look at it as a chance to get together with old friends (the books) and make some new ones!

        I don’t know why my name doesn’t link through to my blog (like everyone else). Here is a link to the essay I wrote. I cut about 20% to get to the 800 word limit.

        http://severalfourmany.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/marx-and-flaubert-at-opposite-ends-of-history/

what's brewing ~

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: