Sara Sebastian
Essay #1
Dr. S. Leonard
23 September 2009
A Lawyer when the Judge Leaves
It seems that an element of fear is always a barrier to people’s dreams, but more importantly, to an independent livelihood. Independent people do not limit themselves to just earning a living, or having a house, but by being curious or active enough to try to understand on one’s own, to figure out life’s challenges. More importantly, by digging deeper into one’s individual optimistic thoughts about independence, the individuals can ultimately create a domino-effect for the whole public. Please, for everybody’s sake, do not be immature, as Immanuel Kant would say in his “An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’” written in Konigsberg, Prussia on the 30th of September in 1784. Instead, attempt to be removed from an authority figure and choose to be that figure.
The inspirational aspect of Kant’s writing is that he explains to his readers in some sort of a “self-help” way why people act the way they act, and how to put an end to it. “Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another...Have courage to use your own understanding!...It is so convenient to be immature!” (Kant, An Answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment?”) He describes enlightenment as the slow removal process from being immature, and considering dilemmas oneself, not by asking others. By encouraging the public to do this, he is therefore promoting a libertarian aspect to this slightly new way of life. He also connects the reader to this idea by using a metaphor related to animals. “Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided.” (Kant). It is clearly a brutal take on this aspect of thinking for oneself. He implies that most people are tied to a guardian who makes the decisions for them, and because they are so used to this treatment, it is hard, or even dangerous to stray away from it. It is not necessarily the point of knowledge and wisdom that Kant tries to shove down people’s throats, but rather the bravery of attempting to understand the knowledge.
The notion of leaders versus non-leaders deserves some attention, because Kant shows that it is up to a political leader to give the right amount of civil freedom and intellectual freedom. It is almost as if it were an equation, twenty percent civil freedom and eighty percent intellectual freedom. “Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent.” (Kant). This means that if people think freely in a structured, non-chaotic environment, then it can motivate them to gather their thoughts collectively and voice their opinions about, but not limited to, freedom. For example, in modern society, the United States has more civil freedom than most other countries, and it appears as United States citizens take it for granted, and do not consider to think about it. Whereas, other countries whose government restricts some civil freedoms, their citizens are more active in their independent thoughts about freedom. Do not assume that this means a society with less civil freedom is better or more well-off, but rather their citizens may be more engaged with the current events. If a leader is not suitable of enlightenment, then ultimately the public will realize this, put an end to their power, and take up the power themselves. However, can the public as a mass eventually reach enlightenment? Kant states:
A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass. (Kant).
Can society ever stray from prejudices? Will people begin to think differently? Not according to Kant, who also references human nature in his writing. Nobody can write down oaths of thought (particularly those of religious matters) for the next generation, for it is against human nature to do so. Every law coexists within the age in which it was made. Does this mean that the Ten Commandments is false?
God always tells the people to obey authority, and although Kant may not indulge himself in religion very much, Kant may agree with God. The whole notion of arguing “...as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!...” (Kant), comes to life when authority comes to play. Kant is giving fatherly advice to the public, by saying that everyone has to be smart about when and where they voice their opinions. Public affairs versus private affairs can make a big difference in terms of reputation and productivity. “But by the public use of one’s own reason I mean that use which anyone may make of it as a man of learning addressing the entire reading public. ...private use of reason...in a particular civil post or office with which he is entrusted.” (Kant). In other words, unless one’s words will help another person, then they are almost worthless. Also, by working alongside the government, by making friends with it, then one is able to effectively argue outside of it. Obviously, no one can argue alone against a powerful government face to face, they must hold a discussion publicly outside of their governmental employment, then as a mass the people can stand together. “...he may indeed argue without harming the affairs in which he is employed for some of the time in a passive capacity...The tax-official: Don’t argue, pay! The clergyman: Don’t argue, believe!” (Kant). Most of the time, it is better to work with the system than against the system, for if one works against and disobeys, things may run amok and it would require more work to put everything back together from square one. This quote, “Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!” (Kant), apparently can only easily be said by a unique ruler, rather than a republic, according to Kant. A ruler can say this, but not a republic because the ruler is one person, and the republic is many, and enlightenment begins with the individual. If a republic said this, they may argue with each other about the just sense of the term, thinking people would go mad and start riots, thus their coward parts of themselves would combine together and fear the worst from this statement. Basically, question everything, disobey nothing.
The first time I read Kant, I was sitting in a comfortable chair drinking chai tea. I realized I needed a chair with spikes and a cold room to be on my A game in order to read his writing. His sometimes brutal ideals and detailed writing made me re-read every sentence at least once, making sure I got every complex idea he was attempting to write. Occasionally, I felt as though some of his arguments were contradicting to each other. On the last page of his writing, he discusses “...the attitude of mind of a head of state who favors freedom in the arts and sciences extends even further, for he realizes that there is no danger...allows his subjects...their thoughts on better ways of drawing up laws...” (Kant). A few sentences later, Kant talks about limiting civil freedom, (see quotation on page 2) in order for the citizens to heighten their intellectual freedom. After taking a good amount of time to analyze this, I realized that there is a slight difference to the arguments. As a citizen, you can consider ideas to better the existing laws, but you do not have the power to break the existing laws, or to immediately change them alone, but maybe as a mass.
Everyone has an authoritative figure, and plenty of figures who do some of the work for them. For instance, nobody has to become a doctor if they have a doctor, and nobody has to make “important” decisions if they have a President doing it for them. The latter had a sarcastic tone, implying that everyone obviously needs to not take for granted higher authority. Of course not everyone can go to school for the rest of their lives becoming a doctor, however, before becoming an overly cautious hypochondriac, it is essential to diagnose some of those minor pains solo. Kant suggests that we cannot rely on those who automatically have power to do our authoritative thinking for us, rather, to confuse the original system and change the power triangle to a square. Kant is in support of the revolution, the enlightenment, of liberation, of free speech. He recognizes the importance of confident, open-minded thinkers that add to the variety in a society, which ultimately improves it. Now only if everyone could prove Kant wrong by ridding themselves of prejudices eternally existing, and by evolving their brains to change their thoughts. It is a good thing that Kant kept his document to only seven pages, otherwise his readers may have injected Kant’s thoughts and opinions as their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment