Andre Cedeno
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP- Seminar in Composition
September 22, 2008

Enlightenment versus Conversion

In “An Answer to Enlightenment: What is Enlightenment” Immanuel Kant discusses how individuals should not be bound by “immature” ideas. These ideas range from religion to simply relying on others for guidance in life. Kant’s solution to this self inflicted problem is enlightenment. According to Kant, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”(Kant 1). Kant’s argument of people enlightening is similar to the argument that Lee Silver presents in “Challenging Nature” but, it is also different in many ways.

Kant’s main argument is that people should think for themselves. He believes that individuals should not rely on the past to control there beliefs when knowledge in the present disproves these notions. Kant also believes that no individual should be able to control the amount of knowledge that others in the present or future are able to attain. This idea of enlightenment is not just against religious beliefs but, these are the main beliefs that restrict knowledge in other areas. According to Kant some heads of states have allowed religious leaders to control the spiritual beliefs of their public (Kant 3). Handing over control of the spiritual minds of the public to the clergy does not profit the head of state as Kant calls this, “when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects”(Kant 3). Kant even provides evidence that spiritual freedom for the masses would benefit the leader of the country. He says, “allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulation of his laws.”(Kant 4) All of these ideas expressed by Kant are commonly accepted today.

The concepts of religious freedom and the freedom to believe what you want are excepted throughout the Western World. I am one of the many who excepts the beliefs that were put forth by Immanuel Kant. Every individual should be able to learn what they want so they can satiate their curiosity. This process of enlightenment has been beneficial to all of society since the time of Kant. It has worked to reform are government just as was predicted. I also agree with Kant’s theory that no one should be able to control the ideas of future generations. As he says, “A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man’s divine rights underfoot.”(Kant 3). The outdated ideas of the past should not be able to control those of the future.

The ideas of Kant are similar to those put forth by Silver. Both of these individuals believe the obsolete ideas of the past need to be forgotten. They also have compatible ideas of science tearing away parts of religion. However, this is where the similarities end. While Kant believes in self enlightenment Silver believes in a more aggressive approach. With quotes that undermine peoples beliefs such as, “In other words, natural is not a measurable physical attribute, which means that it resides in the supernatural realm”(Silver 231), Silver suggests that people accept modern science because their way is wrong. This idea of converting others into believing ideas is exactly what Kant is against. Conversion by others is the same as the “laziness” and “cowardice” that philosophers of the enlightenment were fighting. Silver and other scientists like him are the same as the religious leaders of the past. They try to control the beliefs of others with the knowledge they possess. Or as Kant puts it, “The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult.”(Kant 1) Whether following the ideas imposed on them by religion or modern science people are not enlightening themselves if they do not think for themselves. Silver is suggesting an idea in which people stop thinking for themselves and listen to someone else just because they have knowledge on the subject.

Kant’s ideas of enlightenment contrast with those of religious fundamentalists and those of extreme scientists. Whether in the present or in the past both of these groups wish to control the beliefs of others. The whole premise of enlightenment is for individuals to learn on their own and not rely on others. People like Silver are against religious fundamentalists but, they are similar in the fact that both groups want to convert people to there beliefs, many times using the government to facilitate this. They want the government to take their stance so that the public will be pressured to follow. This is something that Kant would not approve of since he was opposed to the government allowing others to control the beliefs of the people.

Lee Silver might consider himself similar to the philosophers of the enlightenment who challenged the ideas of the status quo. However, these philosophers challenged people to think for themselves while Silver only wants people to accept his ideas. Kant said, “‘Have courage to use your own understanding!’--that is the motto of enlightenment.”(Kant 1) If Silver only informed people of his beliefs and did not condemn the beliefs of others as wrong maybe his argument could be considered enlightening.