Stephen Clark
English Composition
Dr Adam Johns
24 September, 2008
"Enlightenment"
Humans undoubtedly have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. One of the basic instincts of human nature is to seek enlightenment. According to Immanuel Kant, enlightenment requires “emergence” from a “self-imposed immaturity,” and then goes on to explain immaturity as “the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another.” It literally means to “shed light upon”. Kant makes the assumption, in this statement, that in order to be enlightened, we must have some sort of inability. Knowledge is not only gained through processes, but also through gathering of information. What Kant fails to realize is that one can never truly be “enlightened” by his definition, because there will always be a need for guidance. One can never fully master an idea to the point of never being able to further one’s own knowledge. In fact, even if it were possible, their job is not over yet because it then becomes their responsibility to become the “guide” for others. Much like Silver’s failure to understand that religion has a foundation outside of science, Kant fails to understand that religious people, just like scientists, can reach a stage of enlightenment, and remove these “immaturities” from themselves.
The “immaturity” that Kant keeps referring to is a very interesting notion. Knowledge, or more importantly the lack of knowledge, is directly proportional to the maturity of a human being. A young child, who can’t do much on their own, is often very immature. Older, wiser men and women are often much more mature, and have the ability to see a situation under many different lights. It goes to show that even though his definition of immaturity is necessarily what you or I would use it for today, that it sort of works as a double threat. On one side, he is commenting on the presence of information and understanding; on the other, he is commenting on one’s ability to assess a situation either with or without the help of another. Emerging from this immaturity, as he puts it, is what allows humans to become enlightened. Although he is right, he is very far from the full meaning of the term enlightenment.
Kant’s notion of enlightenment is not necessarily incorrect, just incomplete. He clearly understands the complexity of an idea like enlightenment because he questions, himself, “Do we presently live in an enlightened age?” and his response is “No, but we live in an age of enlightenment.” The goal of enlightenment, as he mentioned, is to seek emergence from a self-imposed immaturity, but in order to truly be enlightened, you must be able to become the guide for another. It’s unfortunate that a large majority automatically connects enlightenment with factual information, but it is not as such. Enlightenment is finding comfort in a particular subject. For example, a person who is a master of information could be considered enlightened to a certain degree, but completely “immature” in another. That is why enlightenment is so complex; it is virtually impossible to become enlightened. Kant more or less sums up his notion of enlightenment very simply, but never does he mention the complexity of becoming truly “enlightened” even by his own definition. Kant, much like Silver, alludes to religion as a way of finding comfort in the world, and Kant even makes the argument that humans often pass on their own responsibility to create consciousness to religion.
Both Kant and Silver would more than likely agree on the idea that religion is more or less a crutch. It serves really no purpose, except to provide to find “comfort” for those who can’t find it in other ways. For example, the idea that there is a Heaven provides comfort to the thought that one day, all people will inevitably die. While there is a lot of truth in this statement, Kant is essentially arguing that religion is a shield that resists enlightenment. A “pastor” who “serves as [his] conscious” is what disallows him from ever being able to form his own beliefs. Religion always wants you to believe what religion believes, and leaves very little, if any, room for personal understanding. However, this does not necessarily mean that a religious person cannot become enlightened. As stated before, enlightenment is more or less gaining of knowledge, and religion, just like any of the physical sciences, can be understood more by everyone, even the highest ranking religious officials. People allow religion to build their conscious because they trust in it, and have for their entire lives. Is this an “immaturity” in Kant’s eyes?
Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment” is an extremely interesting read. He goes on, later in the article, to comment on enlightenment in politics and how it is not enough for a leader to be enlightened, but it his responsibility to ensure that his subjects are enlightened as well. Silver’s book, “Challenging Nature”, in Silver’s eyes, is an attempt to enlighten people; possibly he is trying to accelerate his predicted decline of religion, in order to expedite his own scientific understand. While his book does a good job of presenting examples and arguments, it can never really be considered “enlightened” in Kant’s sense of the term. Both authors agree that religion is essentially on the way out, but both fail to realize that even though religion is rapidly declining, it will never be officially out of the picture. People will continue to believe in religion, simply because science will never provide a falsifying argument for religion. Although science can attack certain weak areas of religion, it will never have a firm counterargument to religion’s underlying principles, and that fact alone is what will keep religion alive.
3 comments:
According to Silver, the point of enlightenment is not to reach a point where knowledge can no longer be furthered. In fact, Kant even says that “a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void” and that an era can’t make it so that it “would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge [. . .] to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment” (Kant 2). Kant, like Silver, believes that there is no end to the furthering of knowledge, but unlike Silver, Kant doesn’t think that knowledge is the most important thing when it comes to enlightenment. Kant is not concerned with a “lack of understanding” but rather a lack of courage to use one’s own understanding (Kant 1). Enlightenment is more about being able to think for yourself and standing firm in those beliefs, than it is about mere knowledge.
There are no excuses for not attaining this definition of enlightenment. A pastor has to preach the beliefs of the church that pays his salary, but he does not have to believe these ideas nor does he have to preach as if he himself agrees (Kant 2). Therefore, a pastor can form his own beliefs and can become enlightened.
The real division between Kant and Silver is in how they view religious people. Kant would argue that a believer who knows what he believes and isn’t afraid to stand up for those beliefs when he’s being challenged is in fact enlightened. If a firm believer would read “Challenging Nature” and take Silvers word that science disproves religion, he would be immature, a coward, and lazy (Kant 1). Silver, on the other hand, believes that knowledge is power. Religious people are not at all enlightened because his whole book is filled with scientific proof that God was created by people. It is immature to ignore all the scientific proof before you.
Humans undoubtedly have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. One of the basic instincts of human nature is to seek enlightenment, and thus improve the quality of life. According to Immanuel Kant, enlightenment requires “emergence” from a “self-imposed immaturity,” and then goes on to explain immaturity as “the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another.” However, the term, in its verb form, literally means to “shed light upon”. Kant makes the assumption, in this statement, that in order to be enlightened, we must have some sort of inability. Knowledge is not only gained through learning of new processes, but also through gathering of information, and also the presentation of these new processes and facts to other less enlightened persons. What Kant fails to realize is that one can never truly be “enlightened” by his definition, because there will always be a need for guidance. One can never fully master an idea to the point of never being able to further one’s own knowledge. In fact, even if it were possible, their job is not over yet because it then becomes their responsibility to become the “guide” for others. Kant’s analysis of enlightenment is completely correct, up to a certain point, but he misses out on some of the most important aspects surrounding enlightenment.
The “immaturity” that Kant keeps referring to is a very interesting notion. Knowledge, or more importantly the lack of knowledge, is directly proportional to the maturity of a human being. A young child, who can’t do much on their own, is often very immature. Older, wiser men and women are often much more mature, and have the ability to see a situation under many different lights. It goes to show that even though his definition of immaturity is necessarily what you or I would use it for today, that it sort of works as a double threat. On one side, he is commenting on the presence of information and understanding; on the other, he is commenting on one’s ability to assess a situation either with or without the help of another. Emerging from this immaturity, as he puts it, is what allows humans to become enlightened. Although he is right, he is very far from the full meaning of the term enlightenment.
Kant’s notion of enlightenment is not necessarily incorrect, just incomplete. He clearly understands the complexity of an idea like enlightenment because he questions, himself, “Do we presently live in an enlightened age?” and his response is “No, but we live in an age of enlightenment.” The goal of enlightenment, as he mentioned, is to seek emergence from a self-imposed immaturity, but in order to truly be enlightened, you must be able to become the guide for another. It’s unfortunate that a large majority automatically connects enlightenment with factual information, but it is not as such. Enlightenment is finding comfort in a particular subject. For example, a person who is a master of information could be considered enlightened to a certain degree, but completely “immature” in another. That is why enlightenment is so complex; it is virtually impossible to become enlightened. Kant more or less sums up his notion of enlightenment very simply, but never does he mention the complexity of becoming truly “enlightened” even by his own definition. Kant, much like Silver, alludes to religion as a way of finding comfort in the world, and Kant even makes the argument that humans often pass on their own responsibility to create consciousness, and allow religion to do it for them. Why think for yourself, when you have “a book to serve as [your] understanding, and a pastor to serve as [your] conscious?”
While Kant would see religion as a crutch, Kant is merely stating the fact that people, unfortunately, use religion the wrong ways. It is possible to be religious, and enlightened at the same time; it only requires that you have a certain level of faith in your beliefs, and can guide others who want to reach the same level. One of the main fundamental differences between Kant and Silver is this major difference right here. Kant explores enlightenment beyond the narrow-minded view point of Silver, and explains that enlightenment is not based on intelligence. Wisdom, for lack of a better term, is just as much a path to enlightenment as factual understanding. Kant’s failure to understand this, and generalizing that religious people will never be as intelligent as non-religious people is my biggest issue with “Challenging Nature”. He presents his beliefs in such a condescending way that even a non-religious person like myself couldn’t help but be somewhat disgusted with his high-brow attitude. If Kant were a contemporary of Silver, I’m sure he would see it the same way.
Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment” is an extremely interesting read because it presents a different view point for enlightenment than most would be used to hearing, and in doing so, presents a perfectly legitimate counter-argument to Silver, despite being 200 years his elder. He goes on, later in the article, to comment on enlightenment in politics and how it is not enough for a leader to be enlightened, but it his responsibility to ensure that his subjects are enlightened as well. Silver’s book, “Challenging Nature”, in Silver’s eyes, is an attempt to enlighten people; possibly he is trying to accelerate his predicted decline of religion, in order to expedite the inevitability of his field’s expansion. While his book does a good job of presenting examples and arguments, it can never really be considered “enlightened” in Kant’s sense of the term. People will continue to believe in religion, simply because science will never provide a falsifying argument for religion. Although science can attack certain weak areas of religion, it will never have a firm counterargument to religion’s underlying principles, and that fact alone is what will keep religion alive.
Lauren - impressive response, with a great deal of potential.
Steve - Your introduction is fascinating. You're obviously reading well and thinking hard, because you are bumping up against some of the fundamental issues in Kant's philosophy, which is concerned at its heart with a priori knowledge - knowledge attained not from outside data, but by reasoning from "first principles." One thing that you realize even from this short piece is that Kant isn't an empiricist, which is completely correct.
Your paper remains interesting throughout; what I like best about it is that your reading of Kant is strong enough that you seem to be responding to his philosophy in general.
Still, as the paper goes on you seem to be caught up in summarizing all sorts of interesting details of Kant (and doing it well), without necessarily always pursuing your argument. The best example - which I think Lauren's response was getting at - is that you leap into a number of claims about Silver at the end which seem unsubstantiated. Why, for instance, do you view religion as ultimately unfalsifiable? You might have a great reason, but someone who has read Silver well (as you have) should be able to say more about *why*.
Post a Comment