is a distinctly conservative document. Think for yourself, Kant seems to be saying, but cause no trouble. Leave the state and its institutions alone; conform; think original thoughts after hours, in the privacy of your own home.(The Enlightenment: A Brief History with Documents, 2002).
Based on your reading of Kant's essay, do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not? Cite some text to support your claim.
Deadline: Friday (10/23), start of class.
Posts
7 comments:
I would agree that Kant's essay would be labeled today as 'conservative,' but in the context he was writing in, it's the best route a person can take. One has to fit into society as the role he has chosen, but he doesn't have to stop learning and reasoning after he has been educated by others. Kant says that although people live in a governed environment with rules and duties subscribed to them, they can question those. He is not saying "leave the tax laws alone, pay them," but "fulfill your tax duties as they are now and then question if they can be changed to become more beneficial." Kant fully makes the distinction between the clergyman getting in trouble for questioning the church, but not the scholar. A man can be both; do well in his job then contemplate whether or not the ideas in religion can be improved. Then, those ideas can be incorporated in his next day at work (speaking of the clergyman). Then, the "nature of these things [becomes] so general and widely approved that through uniting their voices...they could bring a proposal to the throne to take those congregations under protection which had united into a changed religious organization according to their better ideas...(p 5)." Kant also mentions the previous religious organization shouldn't be eliminated; that would be one step back in enlightening people. But people must also obey societal norms (go to work, pay taxes, refrain from murder) while thinking and reasoning on their own. To do these things in the privacy of your own home just means that there shouldn't be any interference from others when you think for yourself. "Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another" (p 1).
I agree that Jacob's statement about Kant's text being conservative, for more than once he quotes a prince who apparently said "'Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey (PER 2)!'" This shows that Kant believes that it is best for one to have certain thoughts and arguments, but it is desirable for that person to remain respectable to the rules of the society. Jacobs also refers to seeing in Kant's essay the "privacy" of one's thought's being kept at home. In relation to Julia's point about it being the best route to an enlightened lifestyle, I believe that Kant believed it to be important for a person to understand individually what he is to be enlightened by but not voice it loudly as that would take away from the overall movement within society. As someone voices their opinions and outwardly acts on such opinions, the original task of swaying an audience has failed. Kant uses an example of a clergyman, saying that he is "obligated to make his sermon to his pupils in catechism and his congregation conform to the symbol of the church which he serves (PER 3)." To Kant, it would best for a person to publicly "conform" to that which is called to him, but "as a scholar he has complete freedom (PER 3)" meaning he would not be able to present the same ideas, enlightened or not as a clergyman as he would be able to as a "scholar," for it would lessen his leadership in the church. Kant's essay is definitely conservative for, as Jacobs states, he pushes for intellect without the causation of "trouble."
I don't agree with Jacob's assessment of Kant's "What is Enlightenment" because I would consider a conservative message within the context of when this was written to be something like, "let's go back to how things used to be when we didn't question everything so much and we just prayed and kept our heads down". Based on the conservative essays we have read like Margaret Cavendish's attack on micrography, I don't interpret, "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey" to be a conservative message. I agree with Julia that by today's standards this would be an extremely conservative message, but not back then. I think if it were truly conservative we wouldn't read anything about a clergyman who departs from the Christian doctrines to "use his own reason and to speak in his own person" (p 2). It seems conservative because I believe Kant feels that too much progress too fast would be just as bad as no progress at all and as a result he is very careful not to encourage a revolution. He says, Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass." (p 2). Should people at the time have been shouting their thoughts on rooftops? What would have happened if people did not obey? I think it would have been civil war and that would've been a huge step back for the enlightenment.
I very much agree with this statement. Kant is very "conservative". He is basically saying that people have been told what to think. They are not free, and this needs to change. Kant then goes on to say that even though we need to think for ourselves, we shouldn't cause any trouble, we should question things, but keep it private. "'Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey'" (p. 6).
I think everything that has been said brings up good points. But I keep thinking about his public versus private reasoning when considering if it is a conservative document. People can think for themselves but discussion and bringing "enlightenment among men" (3) is not just thinking for oneself as Jacobs mentions. I think there is some conservative ideas here but with the public and private reasoning, some breaks the conservative ideas as enlightenment ideas and more ideas, innovations can be generated from this reasonings.
Whether or not Kant wants the possibility of greater freedom and bringing together of ideas seems to be the main issue. He has ideas that gravitate away from conservatism but ultimately his larger ideas, which have been touched on focus on a largely conservative theme.
I agree with most of the statements above and Jacob's assessment that Kant's essay proposes a conservative manner in which to foster the growth of reason. By saying that some members of the "community must passively conduct themselves with an artificial unanimity" in order to allow the government to function best for the masses, Kant is asking the individual to sacrifice his or her reason in the public eye when he or she is the minority. This conservative plan for the use of reason is not overly controlling though. It is asking the individual to practice restraint, to not wildly propose ideas that might seem reasonable to the individual at the moment but are in fact detrimental. This warning stems from Kant's belief that his contemporaries are not yet enlightened but living "in an age of enlightenment". He asks people to begin to educate themselves and practice the use of reason in a personal setting, not attempt a novice use of reason in the public arena.
In viewing Kant's message in a different light, his message seems to be more characteristic of the reformer than of the revolutionary. I think the distinction lies on being willing to buck the system to bring about change (the revolutionary) or to work with the current system to bring about change. Most of the posts holding Kant as a conservative, seem to me to, neglect excerpts like "An age cannot bind itself and ordain to put the succeeding one into a condition that it cannot extend its ... knowledge ... and progress in general enlightenment" (4) – I think a conservative doesn’t want there to be progress because s/he finds something more valuable in tradition. Kant appears to be supporting conditions that would allow change to occur, and it’s his wanting this change (or progress) to occur that makes him a progressive Reformist as opposed to a conservative - who I think value and supports there being no change (or progress), as I think Beau points out.
Post a Comment