We did not discuss...much...a king/ruler/monarch's role in people's enlightenment. How can they give freedom to their people and still have them obey?
Kant claims that a public that is free to reason publicly will enlighten itself. Given the relatively free intellectual environment in contemporary America, is this statement correct? Is freedom sufficient for enlightenment or it is a necessary condition that must be supplemented with other conditions?
We did not really discuss the issue of courage of "the minority" to change their way of thinking and to break away from the oppression that they experienced for so long. it is interesting that Kant claims it is not due to lack of understanding but instead it is a "lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another." Kant's whole idea is that the minority have been guided by others for so long that they don't know how to act on their own, even though they certainly have the power and intelligence to do so. I am curious as to who these oppressors are that Kant is referring to.
Deadline: Saturday (2/26), midnight.
7 comments:
The “oppressors” of the minority aren’t a tangible society that can be pinpointed down. Rather, they consist of the ingrained ideologies of a society that get continually reproduced and remediated by members of that society. Kant shows how any profession can unknowingly pass on their oppressive ideas, “If I have a book that understands for me, a spiritual advisor who has a conscious for me, a doctor who decides upon a regimen for me, and so forth, I need not trouble myself at all” (600). The danger lies in complacency and lack of courage to step outside society’s norms. The oppressors are the society itself, which doesn’t try to change anything. The ideas themselves aren’t oppressing – there is no tyrant ruler or unreasonable laws – but people accustom themselves to what they expect out of society and the danger comes from a stall in progress.
On page 601 and then again on page 604, Kant uses a phrase that speaks of obeying. Examining how Kant uses this “obey” phrase helps to understand the pragmatism imbued into Kant’s arguments. Rather than use absolutes, Kant meanders through the gray areas of his topic. He can imagine the ideal while knowing the necessity of working within the possible.
For example, the first time Kant uses the “obey” phrase, his entire sentence reads, “Only one ruler in world says: Argue as much as you will and about whatever you will, but obey!” [emphasis from text] (601). Here I feel Kant is slyly gray about his ruler’s part in enlightenment. With one statement he praises Frederick the Great of Prussia for having the most enlightened attitude in the world but leaves open the possibility that there may be rulers in the future who “[surpass] the one we honor” (604). I interpret this as Kant pragmatically playing the politics he must in order to present his ideas.
The second time Kant uses the “obey” phrase, he says that “… a free state dare not say: Argue as much as you will and about what you will: only obey” [emphasis from text] (604). Kant is recognizing the grays again when he states that “almost everything is paradoxical” (604). In regard to the above situation, Kant is saying the paradox is too much civil freedom will dampen the development of freedom of spirit. In other words, for pragmatic reasons, we need laws. And though rulers need laws to rule, Kant tells us “[t]he touchstone of whatever can be decided upon as law for a people lies in the question: whether a people could impose such a law upon itself” (602).
I appreciate the lack of absolutes in Kant’s point of view because, to me, there is nothing absolute in human behavior or understanding. I think Kant knew this, too. Absolutes are the antithesis of what a free-spirited people will create. Looking at the varied interpretations Kant’s essay has engendered in our class blogs demonstrates just how diverse people's conclusions can be when people think for themselves.
Kind of irrelevant to the conversation, I want to address the question of whether the America public is Enlightened. It's very interesting. So Kant's definition of enlightenment, basically, is thinking for yourself and coming up with your own opinions and what not. I'm guessing that the asker of said question is thinking about the masses of people that are addicted to pop culture, like pop ("hip-pop") music, pop literature, blockbuster films - most of American media - and then like mindless partying and Youtube browsing and Facebook-ing. At least from my perspective, I don't know what goes on in other peoples' heads, there are a lot of people that just do stuff, without too much thinking. From my understanding, people do the stuff that's pleasurable like watching epic movies, listening to fun music, drinking alcohol, being silly with your friends, and having sex. One could argue that American people waste their freedom with more or less pointless activities. European films tend to be more artsy and philosophical for example. I feel a lot of foreigners view American culture as fun but also pointless in way. It would seem we waste our lives chasing after instant gratification. Americans are cool but they don't really seem to take the time to reflect - they don't have the zen that's characteristic of Asian culture. You could say that in order for "true" enlightenment to be reached that there needs to be something additional that to think about "deep stuff."
Perhaps we have it figured out though, us Americans. Life is a fleeting moment and we're human. The only biological directive is to reproduce, nothing more. There isn't really any point in trying to reach some sort of enlightenment through careful thoughts. "I am free to think for myself and I think that I just want to be happy." Nothing more.
I actually don't think I addressed the question too well and considered not posting this...but I thought I'd let you all have a look.
I agree with Kathiebug5's interpretation when she says any profession can unknowingly pass on their oppressive ideas. Indeed, I think this is true of any person or persons given the right recipient. What I find interesting is that Kant lists authors, spiritual advisors, and doctors specifically, but doesn’t mention the universal first ruler of nearly all people: parents. I don’t feel Kant has omitted parents however. I feel Kant actually highlights parents without making a direct accusation. He does this by describing the machinations of oppression using the example of a “walking cart” (600) which is, of course, a device used exclusively by parents to control their children. Parents are a large segment of the population who mostly want to believe they are doing the proper thing when raising their children. If Kant were to accuse them of oppressive behavior directly, he would run the risk of putting them on the defensive and becoming closed-minded. As I have blogged earlier, I believe Kant sometimes constrains himself for pragmatic reasons and how he handles parent’s roles in oppression is an example.
Kant takes a different tact with the clergy. There is little subtlety when he speaks of the clergies “crime against human nature” (602). Kant feels the clergy attempts to control enlightenment by the creation of an “unceasing” and “unalterable creed” (602). (The creed Kant describes sounds a lot like the Nicene Creed to me.) Here Kant seemingly has no restraint as he uses strong, unequivocal language condemning the clergies “unauthorized” contract “absolutely null and void …” (602). I think Kant reserves a special distain for the abuses of the religious community because formal religion can be a triumph of manipulation and oppression. What better way to control others than to claim horrible consequences--neither provable nor disprovable--unless the rules you specify are obeyed?
me-thinks did a great job of focusing about how freedom helps the citizen and hurts them, but I don't think that they fully adressed the question of how a ruler can give freedom to the citizens and still have them obey. Freedom in the terms in which Kant refers to it is in terms of reasoning. Kant believes in two types, public and private. Private is the "use of one's reason often narrowly restricted"(601). Public is more free, with more opinions and thoughts that are allowed. I think that when Kant is talking about obeying, many of us are assuming that this is a bad thing. That the act of the ruler asking his citizens to obey his laws are a hindrance to the citizens' enlightenment. Though Kant offers a reason to obey, "it would ruinous if an officer, receiving an order from his superiors, wanted while on duty to engage openly in subtle reasoning about its appropriateness or utility"(601). A king may allow his followers to discuss their thoughts openly and freely, but only when the moment is correct. In this manner his citizens may learn and better themselves by discussing philosophy and so on in order to gain a higher understanding of life and so on. The freedom that the rulers give allow their people to choose in which way they wish to communicate, either publicly or privately and still obey the fact that there are certain times when things are needed to be said.
I feel that it is rather difficult for a king to play both sides of the field. They have to attempt to balance out the likes of their people, which in most cases is going to result in dislikes by other. True they have the ability to do what they please but everyone is not going to be happy. I would say that an effective way to give freedom but still make them obey is by listening to the majority and trying to make the decisions accordingly. The majority would appreciate it, while the small amount of dislikes would not matter as much.
Post a Comment