The Lack of Enlightenment by Kant - Essay Example

Introduction In his attempt to address lack of enlightenment during his time, I. Kant responded by posing a conventional question which required analytical definition. On pointing out certain human attributes, he specifically delineated immaturity being the initial status at which an unenlightened man is to be found then only by finding the courage with reason can one cut through to get to the other side. Foucault’s critique had essentially viewed the task as less prospective and the conditions set for the immature person as an ironic imperative of the weak unto himself. ''Have courage to use your own reason''-that is the motto of enlightenment. What according to Kant is the task for mankind in the process of Enlightenment? Kant argued that enlightenment in a man pertains to a state when the latter has overcome or emerged above his immature self whereby it is claimed that beyond man’s immaturity, there exists sufficient capacity to understand in the absence of external guiding principle. In this proposition, the immaturity of an individual is considered to be imposed upon oneself and an immature person ought to be relieved of anxiety in seeking the ability to discern. On this ground, humans are summoned to initiate with a certain level of responsibility by acknowledging the significance of courage in order to be willing to acquire pertinent means to understand. Otherwise, Kant further stressed that, people who think themselves capable find it rather of an advantage to their ends to obtain guardianship for those who become weakened either by cowardice or indolence. This, if well-managed apart from any trace of corruption or bribery, can serve to put the immature ones on a learning situation where they can start to gain insights which would in turn drive them to exertion. Guardianship or assuming a role with a sense of significant accountability for a portion of incapable multitude occurs to be a serious deed of necessary guidance toward enlightenment, at least the initial step in launching a mature realization. On exercising such potentials, obstacles and frustration are inevitable but a guardian must not cease from anticipating good and poor results alike since the majority of common public who are slaves to idleness have, by frequency of being, been accustomed to remain as they are. Bringing them to the level of maturity entails breaking away from a lifelong habit, hence, enlightenment would be gradual in teaching and learning process that extends to the willful duty to look after the manner by which a thinking is reformed from inaction to the stage filled with sensibility and dynamic rationalization. Enlightenment comes with the wisdom to ascertain which set of reasons is mature enough to be helped at improving one’s well-being upon which the government can act by exposing a dumb nation to several areas of knowledge and non-academic programs that naturally foster a mentally stimulating atmosphere. Once the unknowing citizens begin to recognize both their worth and unique abilities along the way, this marks the first stage of enlightenment that, little by little, proceeds in yielding the desired maturity to deal satisfactorily with personal growth and development. Considering the basic principle behind the motto of enlightenment, in taking courage to avail of one's unique rationalization, a will to freedom breaks off the leash of underdevelopment that makes man complacent with ordinary living without seeing the essence of risks to meet ends that are far more rewarding and sensible in human existence. Where one acknowledges this step as a way to be emancipated out of the old self accompanied with foolish habits, there comes the necessary initiative or assertion followed by a transforming act to acquire a firm stand over matters. Having courage to use one's own reason gradually progresses in abolishing slavery to the contentment of avoiding fear toward responsibility for one's unique position because then the person sees possibilities of remarkable outcomes at magnifying self-worth in the process of overcoming the anxiety. This leads to a new habit later on having exercised the liberty of independence with personal reasons where Kant signifies the distinction between the public and private uses of reason in which as much as reason ought to be free in its public execution, it must be submissive when availed with privacy. As the individual recognizes the right time of obedience from when it must be found necessary to raise an argument and promote the identity of his claim that is evident with the capacity to examine and take serious concerns into account beyond the comfort of mere submission, then one may be said to have fulfilled the task of having outright courage at developing with rationality toward enlightenment. In what way or ways would Foucault agree, and in what ways would Foucault disagree? To such an extent, Foucault expresses agreement to Kant in proposing to answer a question that has since radically challenged modern philosophical thoughts. By the perspective of designating to respond to a question which appears to make philosophy struggle from being spontaneously self-defied since each significant attempt has barely offered adequate resolution that applies in the most part of history, not to include the several times philosophers exhibit either unconscious neglect or prevention of intricacies entailed in what enlightenment means. Moreover, Foucault appreciates the fact that Kant gives description to enlightenment by way of stressing the essence of reason in application or learning the use of reason without constant aid by the higher authority in the long run. He agrees to how Kant necessitates both the benefit of guardianship while in the course of achieving enlightenment and the desired end when this privilege lets go of the yoke so that those who are led may determine their path or manage the yoke to the consequence which distinct personal reasoning has directed them. According to Foucault, such constitutes a requisite premise to which flexible critiques may be substantiated from every respect in establishing foundation to enlightenment by putting remedy to the free choice of reason. Similarly, he accepts the limited scope of Kant's proposition through an emphasis with the role of critique in distinguishing which reasons are legitimate or otherwise so that it primarily filters out confusion and allows the legitimacy of reason to facilitate sound judgment. For Foucault, this serves as a moment in a period of mankind when men can be perceived to take individual responsibility with authentic thoughts in which deeds are aligned with personal favor and courage (Foucault, 1984). On the contrary, he criticizes the way Kant seems to have overlooked projecting current applicability with respect to the completeness of effects of the present view of enlightenment in the future. He states that Kant is confined to the quest for difference between the past and the present or equivalently, that is to focus on the good enlightenment is as of the time being after surpassing the state of immaturity. Likewise, Foucault is dissatisfied with the ambiguity of Kant's way of presenting assumptions and working conditions that must be met in acquiring enlightenment. To him it is seemingly divergent from logic to argue the possibility of becoming enlightened by giving oneself the command to have the courage when such trait is rather expected to be absent originally. How can an immature person put himself in an obligation which only an enlightened individual is capable of realizing in the first place since this value is undoubtedly present with the latter? In reality it is typically unlikely for an unrefined person to initiate on a task leading to change unless Kant misses pointing out certain elements that may have brought or driven the reluctant subject to find a way out of immaturity. Conclusion Because Kant, like Foucault mentioned, was particularly inclined to dwell in the context of the present dimension in achieving enlightenment for a character transformed from the immaturity in the past, the latter might have missed the point that in Kant’s assumption, he stated that immaturity is self-imposed. Thus, this is to say that an individual is capable of imposing upon oneself so that even while immature, he can find a way to enlightenment by taking courage as a new form of imposition to bring out the ability or the realized worth in applied reasoning. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784).” 2011 http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html accessed 14 Mar 2011. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, pp. 32-50. Foucault, Michel. “What Is Enlightenment?” 2011. http://foucault.info/documents/whatIsEnlightenment/foucault.whatIsEnlightenment.en.html. 16 Mar 2011. Read More