Giovanni Serrapere
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
September 23, 2008
People in the eighteenth century weren’t as ignorant as I thought they were. I realized this after reading Immanuel Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” To Kant freedom of thought is the fundamental means in which “….men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.”(Kant, Paragraph 8) He believes that governments allowing the people to speak and think freely will result in mankind coming out of their comfortable immaturity (of thought). Kant argues that things like religion keep humans from reaching their full potential, but because of freedom he also supports any rational decision, whether that is to still remain in the church or not. Which I believe is the greatest kind of freedom, freedom that is not conditional. The idea of freedom that I hold today owes its existence to Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers. Enlightenment and the procurement of wisdom are a very noble and one of the highest undertakings in my opinion. Silver’s views presented in his book coincide with the views presented in Kant’s essay because they both believe in letting knowledge take its full course, they both believe religion is holding back progress, and they both believe that it is the responsibility of the government to allow the freedom.
In his book, Silver stresses that we as a human race need to use technology to the fullest extent, in order to better the world around us. He expresses envy over Eastern culture,”Asian countries have few qualms about reaping the benefits of the most powerful technology ever invented.”(Silver 337) Silver sees this as a no brainer response to more knowledge and technology, to reap the benefits. But instead mankind is bogged down by the immaturity expressed by Kant, “Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone.”(Kant Paragraph 2) They both see freedom as essential in progressing our societies. Kant wants this because he believes Enlightenment is impossible without it, “But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable.”(Kant Paragraph 3) Silver wants freedom in the realm of technology and research, but for the same outcome, to expand the realm of human possibility. But many things are standing in their way. The pieces were written more than two hundred years apart, and yet they both have a common enemy, religion.
Kant sees religion as an organization that indoctrinates beliefs that are contrary to rational thought, and therefore counterproductive. He would have no qualms with religion if it allowed people think openly and for themselves, but alas, it warns against this. Or another compromise would be “….venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol.”(Kant Paragraph 8) Silver’s book is strongly infused with anti-religious arguments, and for good reason. Fundamentalists have long stood in the way of progress in Biotechnology, and genetic engineering. Silver is irked that these people when presented with rational arguments and solid facts why the research would be beneficial, still hamper development. “It makes no sense to sustain blind faith in the integrity of what occurs naturally…”(Silver xiii) Silver is also disgusted at how they try to use the same science that he tries to talk some sense into them with, to argue against him. He doesn’t have a problem with people practicing religion; just like Kant doesn’t but when it gets in the way then they both have an objection to it. Just like Silver has an objection to the current government who has stood in the way of progress.
One of the most appalling examples of a clear breach on the right to research and of civil rights was in the Weldon Bill. “The proposed law would not only ban all cloning activities in the United States but also make it a criminal offense for Americans to travel to a a foreign country to receive therapeutic treatment with cells prepared entirely from their own bodies, and then return to the United States.”(Silver 132) So if you had a life threatening disease and you wanted to try to save your life by getting the cell treatment you would be put in prison and on top of that be charged a million dollars. In my opinion the government went too far in passing this bill. Kent like Silver believes the government should allow human creativity and freedom. Kent goes as far as to praise a government who lets their people think freely. “But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. “(Kant Paragraph 9) This freedom of thought is currently still being beaten down from the same forces that Kant had to deal with. We are still in a quagmire of thought because of religion and its effect on the voters of this country and the government.
Silver’s ideas go along with Kant’s because they agree on religion, the role of the government, and in furthering of rational thought. When will we free ourselves from the grip exemplified in Kant’s essay? When will this stage of immaturity end? Silver tries to achieve his ends through enlightenment, while Kant’s ends were enlightenment. In this way Silver is writing in the tradition of Enlightenment thinking. We have obviously not reached full enlightenment because if we had then Silver wouldn’t have had to write the book. After reading these two pieces I have realized that the tools to free yourself from the yoke, are readily available in this modern age, and all it takes is a brief encounter with real rational thought to change your perspective on life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There is clearly a strong connection between the ideas of Kant and the ideas of Silver in there writing. More specifically, Silver seems to take the ideas that Kant presents and puts them under more extreme stress. The idea of enlightenment can be seen in two different ways however, and in a lot of ways, Silver and Kant are not as similar. You express this connection through there similarities in "they both beleive religion is holding back progress. Kant is suggesting not to completely rid the world of all religion, but to revise religion so progess through the ages can be made. This, Kant feels, will lead to enlightenment of the church and of its people. Silver does not think religion has any real positive affect on progress and overall enlightenment. He feels that it should be demolished for the society to flurish and break away.
Freedom is also a topic brought up often. In many ways, Silver cannot be connected with freedom because he lives in a time when you are free to do and think however you want. People can be freed from their mental state of ignorance and begin to look at things like progress in a different way.
Enlightenment is not something that can be taught to a generation but learned throughout the existance of man. Kant has a more optomistic view on human progress while Silver wants changes in thought to be made now
Being a follower of Catholicism for my entire life it pains me to say both Silver and Kant make very solid points that attack religion. Both authors have eerily similar points stating that religion is essentially impeding human progress. Giovanni linked this correlation between the two authors so it is very important that this is just an extension of his essay.
As Giovanni stated “Kant argues that things like religion keep humans from reaching their full potential.” I believe Giovanni chose this quote because it accurately depicts Kant’s views. Kant’s mentality was that religion will prohibit society and should be seen as a danger to the well being of society. Another reason why this quote was perfect for this essay is because it is almost inter-changeable with Silver’s viewpoints. Even though Silver did not say word for word what Kant said, Silver did feel that religion is impeding the progress of science, which in turn prohibits the growth of society.
Giovanni then goes on to say “Silver stresses that we as a human race need to use technology to the fullest extent.” Being an accurate description of Silver’s viewpoints, it is able to link Silver with Kant even more. As previously stated, Kant and Silver’s viewpoints are near inter-changeable. The most significant difference between the two men is that Silver is more towards science while Kant is not as scientifically aware.
Nick - Good response, characterized by a strong and personal take on Kant.
Jason - this seems more like an analysis of Giovanni's work than an extension of or challenge to it. It's a good analysis, but it wasn't quite what you should have been doing.
Giovanni - One thing I like in the beginning - but I think could have been more explicit - is that you, like both Kant & Silver, are making an association between freedom and progress. I would have liked to see you pin it down a little more clearly, though.
In the second paragraph you come closer to articulating what I take to be your main idea: that freedom serves progress, and that religion is opposed to both freedom and progress. Again, I think you're doing well, but this material isn't as explicit as it might be.
The rest of your essay seems to follow naturally from the earlier parts. One thing that you're missing out on - badly - is that Nick has provided you with a strong counterargument re: Kant's views, showing you rather convincingly that Kant can be understood as wanting to see the church progress, rather than as arguing that progress should end the church. Dealing with this other side of Kant would have greatly strengthened your paper.
Your ending is fascinating, and I wish you'd tried to answer your question about when the age of immaturity will end. Maybe what you could have done here, following Nick, would be to side with Silver more than Kant, by arguing that Kant didn't fully understand the threat posed to maturity by religion, but that Silver does.
Your essay is pretty good as it stands, but answering your own question, or dealing with Nick's counterargument, would have greatly strengthened it.
Post a Comment