Welcome to the course blog for Engl 206/CWL 257: Enlightenment Literature and Culture!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
For Credit: Reason Publicly (sort of) Here!
Feel free to respond to this post if you have any reflections about Kant's "What Is Enlightenment?" that you didn't have a chance to say in class today.
Deadline: Friday (2/25), start of class.
13 comments:
Celeste
said...
In Immanuel Kant’s “What Is Enlightenment?”, I think one of his most important statements is “Argue as much as you will and about what you will; only obey!” (page 604). His essay was written with the knowledge that readers would argue against his statements. By listening to arguments, one can reach new understandings. By participating in arguments, one can share his or her opinions and hence spread his or her knowledge with others. Therefore, through arguments, we can utilize reason which was a huge aspect of the Enlightenment.
Kant may seem to be encouraging everyone to reason and develop their thoughts, but at the same time he's arguing that we shouldn't do anything rash and shouldn't revolt. Now, is this him being cautious and warning people to avoid a system in disarray by having a complete plan, or could it be Kant chafing under the thumb of Frederick of Prussia? Another way to look at it is Kant merely telling you to get these rebellious thoughts out of your system, or maybe he's encouraging us to "revolt" privately so that we won't have as much motivation to actually revolt. These were just a few thoughts that came to mind while we were discussing this in class.
Kant is arguing that all should think for themselves but that a true leader, the rarest of leaders will look to his subjects and say, think all that you wish, but obey. He is also saying that, at the end of the day, that same leader will be able to enforce their mandates on their subjects because they have the force necessary to make their subjects obey whatever they think. In this way, Kant's is a conservative document. He encourages people to think for themselves but encourages leaders to use the forces that are theirs to cause obedience in their subjects, this idea had been around for some time when Kant wrote and is very conservative. The idea that leaders have the right to force their subjects to obey and the idea that the leader is right whatever the subjects may think is what makes Kant’s “What is the Enlightenment?” conservative. To Kant liberation of thought was the enlightenment, not liberation of action.
As I was reading, I thought Kant had a lot of good things to say about the way people should think. That is to say, the way in which they go about thinking rather than what they think about. The fact that he made a distinction between being a member of the "majority" and of the "minority", and how that physical status plays into the mental process of people from the respective groups, was very interesting to me. It seems very accurate and apropos.
However, I take issue with his conception that enlightenment in action doesn't count as a part of the enlightenment process. I think that whole idea is nonsense. If all we did was cleanse our minds of unenlightened thought, how would anything change? I disagree with the whole "evolution not revolution" idea; I see that as creating a pressure-cooker for an eventual upheaval and reconstruction. If people's minds think in terms of a world that doesn't exist, I think it's folly to believe people won't seek to change the social construct to make the dream real. I have a feeling Kant was pandering to the Prussian political climate of the time rather than expressing what he truly believed. You might call it irony that he couldn't truly reason publicly even though he advocates being free to do so.
After reflecting on the discussion in class focusing on what exactly Kant meant by "public" as opposed to "private" thought, intriguing, but I thought it diverged from exploring Kant's main points, missing the essence of his argument to focus on the preciseness of a dichotomy I think Kant would want left open for debate. Dissecting what exactly he means by public versus private results in following a tangent of his thesis, analyzing a part thoroughly while failing to see the entire mechanism of his essay.
In my view, this approach echoes contrary to the essence of Kant’s appeal to us. He stresses questioning what one reads, to use others’ viewpoints only as frameworks to construct one’s own sovereign understanding. And we left ourselves constrained by two words, two little blocks in the foundation of his argument. If he wanted to define the terms absolutely, he would have. But he does not, leaving their underlying meaning open for interpretation, a characterization consistent with his message. The terms are not immovable rocks of thought to be, but rather placeholders for abstract ideas he creates to be utilized in wider analysis and discussion, not as the objects of interpretation themselves.
Cutting through such tangents that circumvent the main force of his argument could free us to illuminate more obscure but weighted shadows in his thought. Whatever he means us to understand, it is doubtful contained in achieving clarity in seeing those two words. The undercurrent he drives toward is much broader, much more convoluted than separating a simple dichotomy into its proper halves. To ask of a thought if it is public or private is really just a means to ask if it matters, the end in striving for enlightenment. Confining ourselves to the abstractness of the terms confines us to obscuring concepts that could otherwise be clear, when freed from the fog of jargon.
We asked in class what the threshold of public thought was, how many people have to hear it. And we argued about it. Everyone? A TV viewership? A classroom? I would claim none of those. I think it takes two people to create the minimum threshold of public thought, as long as the thought matters. A lot of thinking has changed, a lot of new ideas fostered into growth between two people looking each other in the eye. It doesn’t matter if you define it as public or private as long as the thought matters, and its shared. So I think we need to stop getting hung up on the specifics and free ourselves to cut into the underlying ideas.
Of course, I failed to bring this up in class, so the idea didn’t really matter since it wasn’t shared. But now it is, and it was formulated as a result of the discussion I am now questioning. And that’s the power of public thought; that’s why it will always be more powerful than private: the act of exchanging ideas in itself sparks new thinking, the concepts flowing through each participant, shattering their mold of perception into a new lattice, however so slightly. And most of the time people don’t even realize its happening. But as long as it happens, however imperfectly, the process will foster an inevitable progress toward enlightenment among those willing to partake. And I think that’s the tactile takeaway from Kant’s message.
So work toward finding you own "public", the personal outlets that best facilitate the process for you and those around you to exchange meaningful ideas, and I doubt Kant would care if your version exactly matches his.
I think Kant likes to make up words or to give them very idiosyncratic definitions. A few years ago I did a semester on his Critique of Pure Reason and it was an experience. I don't agree that a conversation between two people is a public conversation and I would be more inclined to suggest a continuum, but Kant is much more enjoyable when focussing on the overall argument rather than the technicalities that he conjures up.
However, I think that Max has a point when he argues that the distinction between public and private thought is not really the main focus of "What is Enlightenment?" The title of the essay is not, "Public and Private Reason in 18th Century Prussia", but a question of "What is Enlightenment?" That answer is given in the first line - the "human being's emergence from his self-incurred minority."
It does spend a lot of time talking about how to exercise reason in a public way without interfering with private interests or duties, but x.
I agree with Celeste when she says His essay was written with the knowledge that readers would argue against his statements. To expand on that, Kant was not only aware thatpeople would argue against his thoughts and beliefs, but it seems he almost encourages it. Kant knew that it was healthy for the mind when people argued about ideas. In order for people to grow mentally they need to hear opposite views, be challanged, and defend their own beliefs. Being challanged makes people realize what they believe in. Kant knew that people would not always agree with what he had to say, but he was ready to fight for his beliefs.
Kim said it very well when she said that being challenged makes people realize what they believe in. During our discussion on Wednesday, with everyone going back and forth about whether or not the essay was arguing for public or private, I found the more people voiced their opinions, the more clear I could see my own. Whether or I believe Kant's arguing for public or private communication is irrelevant in what I'm trying to get across. The deeper we get into arguments the more I feel we understand the things we are trying to argue.
I came into class thinking I had a decent understanding of what Kant was talking about, but then class got heated as we argued over what distinguished private and public reasoning, and I pretty much had no idea what to contribute to the conversation.
I suppose though, that this is exactly what Kant wanted- as other posts have implied- for readers to try and interpret what his words mean to themselves and to argue over their meaning with others. I suppose that Kant knew arguments would be drawn based on what he said, and he gave just enough information that no matter what you believe you have supporting statements. But by listening to what others have to say, you learn and appreciate new viewpoints and statements, therefore contributing to the enlightenment period. Just listening during our class period taught me a lot and challenged my thought process on reasoning- probably exactly the reaction Kant was going for.
I think that we should have talked more about what Kant defined Enlightenment as. He says that it is "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." By immaturity, Kant means the lack of courage that one has to present his/her ideas to understand them. He says, "Have courage to use your own understanding!" and "Sapere Aude!" or "dare to know." He emphasizes a lot on human emotions of courage to point out the restraints that humans put on their thoughts. Enlightenment is the period when people take off the restraints, but not completely. Because with Enlightenment also comes order. It is because that boundaries exist that we are able to have this idea of Enlightenment. Without limitation, without rules to obey, without tradition, there would be no such thing as Enlightenment.
With the whole public vs. private argument, I feel that Kant is saying that public use of reasoning is for trying to improve those traditions that we obey aka the "private" aspect of society. It's not like one is better than the other. They're both necessary for "evolution" to happen. And it's not so much that evolution should occur over revolution, but that evolution seems like a more intelligent way to improve matters. It's more well-mannered, in my opinion. When I think of revolution, I think of extremity, intensity of emotions, spur of the moment, etc. It induces radical changes within a short amount of time. Evolution involves change, but over a time period. This allows order, for things to be organized.
I think Kant is using his ideas of Enlightenment to spark "Enlightenment" within his readers. Are we going to agree about everything he says and begin to accept his reasonings as traditionally what Enlightenment is supposed to be about? Or are we going to challenge his ideas with our own new insights?
It's just difficult to argue about who's right or wrong about such an intellectual topic as Enlightenment because Enlightenment is not about what's set in stone. It's about what's constantly changing, what's new. But I guess it's that aspect of Enlightenment that drives us into interesting debates.
I hope that anything I said many any sense at all...
Kant uses reasoning in this piece to spark a thought or mental thinking for those individual who follow the states rule of "Don't Argue". People in the Enlightenment period were not exercising their ability to increase the knowledge of their area. Kant simply wanted people to expand their minds and set outside of their comfort zone. Technically, Kant could be seen responsible for people allowing people to express their own opinions on things that they were not use to do. Imagine, people reading this essay in different little shops, and expressing to the person next to them who may be reading the same thing, their feelings about what Kant is discussing. Public is anything that occurs where someone can comment or even change your way of thinking on a subject. Our discussion in class, public for the simple fact a person may here something beneficial to their argument,and use it to improve their point. Comparing the class discussion to the Enlightenment period, our conversation would be seen more on a scholarly level or done in a closed area I believe because we were examining a scholarly essay.
Agreeing with Jay, it seems one has to look past the argument of private vs. public reasoning to take away from Kant's piece. Coming to class on Wednesday, while I had read the piece I hadn't formed much of an opinion beforehand. However, once sides were formed in the class and the discussion became heated, I found myself taking a step back to package my own thoughts so that I could contribute. In forming one's values, thoughts, etc., it's almost necessary that similar or differing views are introduced so that one can place themselves in relation, or opposition, to it. This, along with other motives, is what Kant was trying to spark among individuals with "What is Enlightenment?"
I agree that Kant is a brilliant thinker, but I think that the argument that happened in class was mostly one regarding semantics. In our pursuit of determining what "private" and "public" speaking were, we didn't quite delve into the significance of either or why Kant had bothered to distinguish between these two kinds of speaking. Regardless, being a progressive thinker, I believe that he spoke strongly for our freedoms and liberation of speech as the ability to speak freely will lead to enlightenment and further progress.
13 comments:
In Immanuel Kant’s “What Is Enlightenment?”, I think one of his most important statements is “Argue as much as you will and about what you will; only obey!” (page 604). His essay was written with the knowledge that readers would argue against his statements. By listening to arguments, one can reach new understandings. By participating in arguments, one can share his or her opinions and hence spread his or her knowledge with others. Therefore, through arguments, we can utilize reason which was a huge aspect of the Enlightenment.
Kant may seem to be encouraging everyone to reason and develop their thoughts, but at the same time he's arguing that we shouldn't do anything rash and shouldn't revolt. Now, is this him being cautious and warning people to avoid a system in disarray by having a complete plan, or could it be Kant chafing under the thumb of Frederick of Prussia? Another way to look at it is Kant merely telling you to get these rebellious thoughts out of your system, or maybe he's encouraging us to "revolt" privately so that we won't have as much motivation to actually revolt. These were just a few thoughts that came to mind while we were discussing this in class.
Kant is arguing that all should think for themselves but that a true leader, the rarest of leaders will look to his subjects and say, think all that you wish, but obey. He is also saying that, at the end of the day, that same leader will be able to enforce their mandates on their subjects because they have the force necessary to make their subjects obey whatever they think. In this way, Kant's is a conservative document. He encourages people to think for themselves but encourages leaders to use the forces that are theirs to cause obedience in their subjects, this idea had been around for some time when Kant wrote and is very conservative. The idea that leaders have the right to force their subjects to obey and the idea that the leader is right whatever the subjects may think is what makes Kant’s “What is the Enlightenment?” conservative. To Kant liberation of thought was the enlightenment, not liberation of action.
As I was reading, I thought Kant had a lot of good things to say about the way people should think. That is to say, the way in which they go about thinking rather than what they think about. The fact that he made a distinction between being a member of the "majority" and of the "minority", and how that physical status plays into the mental process of people from the respective groups, was very interesting to me. It seems very accurate and apropos.
However, I take issue with his conception that enlightenment in action doesn't count as a part of the enlightenment process. I think that whole idea is nonsense. If all we did was cleanse our minds of unenlightened thought, how would anything change? I disagree with the whole "evolution not revolution" idea; I see that as creating a pressure-cooker for an eventual upheaval and reconstruction. If people's minds think in terms of a world that doesn't exist, I think it's folly to believe people won't seek to change the social construct to make the dream real. I have a feeling Kant was pandering to the Prussian political climate of the time rather than expressing what he truly believed. You might call it irony that he couldn't truly reason publicly even though he advocates being free to do so.
After reflecting on the discussion in class focusing on what exactly Kant meant by "public" as opposed to "private" thought, intriguing, but I thought it diverged from exploring Kant's main points, missing the essence of his argument to focus on the preciseness of a dichotomy I think Kant would want left open for debate. Dissecting what exactly he means by public versus private results in following a tangent of his thesis, analyzing a part thoroughly while failing to see the entire mechanism of his essay.
In my view, this approach echoes contrary to the essence of Kant’s appeal to us. He stresses questioning what one reads, to use others’ viewpoints only as frameworks to construct one’s own sovereign understanding. And we left ourselves constrained by two words, two little blocks in the foundation of his argument. If he wanted to define the terms absolutely, he would have. But he does not, leaving their underlying meaning open for interpretation, a characterization consistent with his message. The terms are not immovable rocks of thought to be, but rather placeholders for abstract ideas he creates to be utilized in wider analysis and discussion, not as the objects of interpretation themselves.
Cutting through such tangents that circumvent the main force of his argument could free us to illuminate more obscure but weighted shadows in his thought. Whatever he means us to understand, it is doubtful contained in achieving clarity in seeing those two words. The undercurrent he drives toward is much broader, much more convoluted than separating a simple dichotomy into its proper halves. To ask of a thought if it is public or private is really just a means to ask if it matters, the end in striving for enlightenment. Confining ourselves to the abstractness of the terms confines us to obscuring concepts that could otherwise be clear, when freed from the fog of jargon.
We asked in class what the threshold of public thought was, how many people have to hear it. And we argued about it. Everyone? A TV viewership? A classroom? I would claim none of those. I think it takes two people to create the minimum threshold of public thought, as long as the thought matters. A lot of thinking has changed, a lot of new ideas fostered into growth between two people looking each other in the eye. It doesn’t matter if you define it as public or private as long as the thought matters, and its shared. So I think we need to stop getting hung up on the specifics and free ourselves to cut into the underlying ideas.
Of course, I failed to bring this up in class, so the idea didn’t really matter since it wasn’t shared. But now it is, and it was formulated as a result of the discussion I am now questioning. And that’s the power of public thought; that’s why it will always be more powerful than private: the act of exchanging ideas in itself sparks new thinking, the concepts flowing through each participant, shattering their mold of perception into a new lattice, however so slightly. And most of the time people don’t even realize its happening. But as long as it happens, however imperfectly, the process will foster an inevitable progress toward enlightenment among those willing to partake. And I think that’s the tactile takeaway from Kant’s message.
So work toward finding you own "public", the personal outlets that best facilitate the process for you and those around you to exchange meaningful ideas, and I doubt Kant would care if your version exactly matches his.
I think Kant likes to make up words or to give them very idiosyncratic definitions. A few years ago I did a semester on his Critique of Pure Reason and it was an experience. I don't agree that a conversation between two people is a public conversation and I would be more inclined to suggest a continuum, but Kant is much more enjoyable when focussing on the overall argument rather than the technicalities that he conjures up.
However, I think that Max has a point when he argues that the distinction between public and private thought is not really the main focus of "What is Enlightenment?" The title of the essay is not, "Public and Private Reason in 18th Century Prussia", but a question of "What is Enlightenment?" That answer is given in the first line - the "human being's emergence from his self-incurred minority."
It does spend a lot of time talking about how to exercise reason in a public way without interfering with private interests or duties, but x.
I agree with Celeste when she says His essay was written with the knowledge that readers would argue against his statements. To expand on that, Kant was not only aware thatpeople would argue against his thoughts and beliefs, but it seems he almost encourages it. Kant knew that it was healthy for the mind when people argued about ideas. In order for people to grow mentally they need to hear opposite views, be challanged, and defend their own beliefs. Being challanged makes people realize what they believe in. Kant knew that people would not always agree with what he had to say, but he was ready to fight for his beliefs.
Kim said it very well when she said that being challenged makes people realize what they believe in. During our discussion on Wednesday, with everyone going back and forth about whether or not the essay was arguing for public or private, I found the more people voiced their opinions, the more clear I could see my own. Whether or I believe Kant's arguing for public or private communication is irrelevant in what I'm trying to get across. The deeper we get into arguments the more I feel we understand the things we are trying to argue.
I came into class thinking I had a decent understanding of what Kant was talking about, but then class got heated as we argued over what distinguished private and public reasoning, and I pretty much had no idea what to contribute to the conversation.
I suppose though, that this is exactly what Kant wanted- as other posts have implied- for readers to try and interpret what his words mean to themselves and to argue over their meaning with others. I suppose that Kant knew arguments would be drawn based on what he said, and he gave just enough information that no matter what you believe you have supporting statements. But by listening to what others have to say, you learn and appreciate new viewpoints and statements, therefore contributing to the enlightenment period. Just listening during our class period taught me a lot and challenged my thought process on reasoning- probably exactly the reaction Kant was going for.
I think that we should have talked more about what Kant defined Enlightenment as. He says that it is "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." By immaturity, Kant means the lack of courage that one has to present his/her ideas to understand them. He says, "Have courage to use your own understanding!" and "Sapere Aude!" or "dare to know." He emphasizes a lot on human emotions of courage to point out the restraints that humans put on their thoughts. Enlightenment is the period when people take off the restraints, but not completely. Because with Enlightenment also comes order. It is because that boundaries exist that we are able to have this idea of Enlightenment. Without limitation, without rules to obey, without tradition, there would be no such thing as Enlightenment.
With the whole public vs. private argument, I feel that Kant is saying that public use of reasoning is for trying to improve those traditions that we obey aka the "private" aspect of society. It's not like one is better than the other. They're both necessary for "evolution" to happen. And it's not so much that evolution should occur over revolution, but that evolution seems like a more intelligent way to improve matters. It's more well-mannered, in my opinion. When I think of revolution, I think of extremity, intensity of emotions, spur of the moment, etc. It induces radical changes within a short amount of time. Evolution involves change, but over a time period. This allows order, for things to be organized.
I think Kant is using his ideas of Enlightenment to spark "Enlightenment" within his readers. Are we going to agree about everything he says and begin to accept his reasonings as traditionally what Enlightenment is supposed to be about? Or are we going to challenge his ideas with our own new insights?
It's just difficult to argue about who's right or wrong about such an intellectual topic as Enlightenment because Enlightenment is not about what's set in stone. It's about what's constantly changing, what's new. But I guess it's that aspect of Enlightenment that drives us into interesting debates.
I hope that anything I said many any sense at all...
Kant uses reasoning in this piece to spark a thought or mental thinking for those individual who follow the states rule of "Don't Argue". People in the Enlightenment period were not exercising their ability to increase the knowledge of their area. Kant simply wanted people to expand their minds and set outside of their comfort zone. Technically, Kant could be seen responsible for people allowing people to express their own opinions on things that they were not use to do. Imagine, people reading this essay in different little shops, and expressing to the person next to them who may be reading the same thing, their feelings about what Kant is discussing. Public is anything that occurs where someone can comment or even change your way of thinking on a subject. Our discussion in class, public for the simple fact a person may here something beneficial to their argument,and use it to improve their point. Comparing the class discussion to the Enlightenment period, our conversation would be seen more on a scholarly level or done in a closed area I believe because we were examining a scholarly essay.
Agreeing with Jay, it seems one has to look past the argument of private vs. public reasoning to take away from Kant's piece. Coming to class on Wednesday, while I had read the piece I hadn't formed much of an opinion beforehand. However, once sides were formed in the class and the discussion became heated, I found myself taking a step back to package my own thoughts so that I could contribute. In forming one's values, thoughts, etc., it's almost necessary that similar or differing views are introduced so that one can place themselves in relation, or opposition, to it. This, along with other motives, is what Kant was trying to spark among individuals with "What is Enlightenment?"
I agree that Kant is a brilliant thinker, but I think that the argument that happened in class was mostly one regarding semantics. In our pursuit of determining what "private" and "public" speaking were, we didn't quite delve into the significance of either or why Kant had bothered to distinguish between these two kinds of speaking. Regardless, being a progressive thinker, I believe that he spoke strongly for our freedoms and liberation of speech as the ability to speak freely will lead to enlightenment and further progress.
Post a Comment