Enlightenment and Modern Education - Essay Example

Enlightenment and modern education Name: Course: Institution: Instructor: Date The question on what constitutes enlightenment has been the subject of numerous philosophical debates without a universally agreeable answer. Immanuel Kant and R. Dearden are some of the many scholars who have attempted to answer the question in depth. In this paper, I present a discussion on what I comprehend about enlightenment and modern education as per the arguments presented by Kant and Dearden in their two different essays. In my own thinking, education should not be treated just a means to an end but rather be treated as end itself. How is this? This means that education is not just a pathway to a career of profession but rather an end in itself. Education holds its value in creating the thinking individual. While education simply pertains to the transfer of knowledge from the instructor to the learner, I recognize that education is just a means of arousing the thinking human being. It opens up doors to show the extent to which the human brain can go. Learning of formulas, theories, and history only indicates to the learner the potential they hold within themselves. In essence, education should inspire a learner to discover for himself what is relevant, what is right, and what is wrong in his own interpretation within an acceptable framework. Kant seems to imply that education should be about teaching learners to think along principles as opposed to mere random behavior. He acknowledges the role of teachers in enabling learners gain autonomy but at the same time recognizes that the same teachers could be the same people that stifle autonomy. I gather this from his statement that “If I [Kant] have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all” (Kant, 1784). By constantly referring to the clergyman and congregation in his works, Kant is keen on drawing parallels between the teacher and his students. This portrays the pivotal role that the teacher plays in education. I think the comparison of clergy-congregation relationship to teacher-student relationship is intended to show that learners are more willing to listen to their teacher and follow the teacher’s interpretation of knowledge without questioning it. Kant portrays contemporary education without enlightenment as the transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the student without critical analysis of the same. A teacher’s perspective on nature and facts is thus embedded in students. From the article, this is what Kant is against. He appears to indicate that knowledge must be criticized. Education should thus enable students to gain freedom of mind to think beyond the known parameters. Autonomy of mind is not attained without effort. Man must be able to leave his immediate comfort of knowledge to explore other realms. The journey is not short and is characterized by challenges and discouragement. This is what I gather from Kant’s statement that “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life.” This I think closely relates to contemporary education where dissemination of knowledge is categorized into grades starting with the simplest tasks progressing to the more complex ones. This categorization is in the same manner to be expected in pursuit of enlightenment and freedom of the mind. The freedom of the mind is to be pursued by questioning the status quo using rationality and interpreting knowledge in their own way independent of their teachers or those providing guidance. However, the process is not easy. In some cases as Deardan puts it that “sometimes the teacher must ‘force independence’ on children” (p. 334). The fear of independence and freedom of mind emanates from exploration of new realms of knowledge that may result in fear, insecurity, and unhappiness. This is where guidance and the role of a teacher become manifested. In the same manner, the teachers who offer guidance can be the limiting factor in students getting enlightened. They do this by setting the rules that govern the school environment. I think what Dearden is trying to say that in a school setting, freedom of mind, which is a perquisite for enlightenment is an oxymoron. How is this so? In one of the paragraphs of his article, Dearden gives an example of how rules in school stetting or prison create a mental bondage for the student or prisoner such that he becomes incapacitated to exploit his freedom when set free. Therefore, to Dearden the modern society has been so used to routines and protocol that no one is eager to explore what it is like to live without protocol; to think beyond the known parameters. I agree with Deardan on the issue of modern society not exploring life beyond protocol which is a kind of mental bondage that is more disastrous than the physical denial of freedom. Nonetheless, it is important that students, from a very early age, are allowed some degree of autonomy. The teachers’ work should be to guide these students utilize their independence to gain autonomy. Nonetheless, this is not easy as aforementioned in this paper. Thus I agree with Dearden that sometimes force is necessary to enable individuals conquer the fear and anxiety of exploring beyond the routine without control from other externalities. Where teachers are not the liming factors to students attaining autonomy, the education system is. The Kant’s assertion about the religious system limiting how a clergyman interprets the bible is applicable in the teaching process. In the educational context, a country’s education system and syllabus limits how a teacher expounds knowledge in public. While the teacher may have his own private interpretation such as opposition to certain doctrines or a different account in history, this is limited by the syllabus. Therefore, teachers themselves are denied the freedom that they can use to attain their autonomy. By restricting the independence of mind of teachers, it is near impossible to guide students in attaining that which the teachers themselves have not grasped. For instance, a teacher who directly suffered from Holocaust is bound by the syllabus to keep within the recorded facts in the books of history without necessarily questioning their authenticity in such a manner it disregards the syllabus. Nonetheless, the situation is different when he interprets such academic material in private. As such, heteronymous forces in the educational system are critical in stifling freedom of mind for teachers, a problem which is inherited by students. Systems and laws created to stifle freedom such as syllabuses and educational systems are not immune to change over time. I believe this is what Kant implies when he indicates that a society of clergymen should not be entitled to commit itself by oath to a certain set of doctrines to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members. I understand that that while there is need to keep order in the dissemination of knowledge. Educational systems and syllabuses developed for each grade or level retain some sense of order. They provide a direction to the teachers and students. For students, it provides a framework and a set of principles within which they can explore their freedoms. For teachers on the other hand, a syllabus creates a sense of stability and continuity. However, it must be reviewed through public questioning and allowed enough freedom to accommodate new knowledge. It is for this reason that Kant says that it is impossible and improper for one generation to bar the next generation from questioning its knowledge as it stifles enlightenment. For enlightenment to be achieved there must be education systems headed by the government and a syllabus to aid teachers which should be reviewed as frequently as necessary to accommodate new knowledge. The quest for enlightenment will only be achieved if the makers of rules have no fear for an enlightened society. The self imposed immaturity on which education systems and teaching styles thrive in should be challenged. The people to do this are both the students and teachers. Teachers should enable to allow their students enough freedom to question knowledge in public. They should provide guidance on how to question knowledge with rationality. Educational systems, disciplines, and learning institutions continue to provide a set of principles that those who seek freedom must abide by. This is the paradox of freedom which has limits within acceptable parameters. Questioning knowledge should remain rational for both teachers and students. For instance, teachers should allow learners to make critical analysis of academic content taught in class in private. This will enable students understand the knowledge contained therein on their own term. However, this should be done with the acceptable parameters. Kant’s take on ‘immaturity’ have made me question my knowledge and the education that I gained thus far. While I have been keen to regurgitate some theories without questioning them, it has challenged me to question some of these theories. While of the theories have stood time and held, the context has changed with time. Dearden talks of contextual freedom which makes me wonder whether the current system allows students like me to question some of the knowledge gained and learned in class. While the earlier generation of scholars has not protected such knowledge from questioning, the current generation’s fear of the unknown has prevented it from questioning knowledge. All in all through the study of Dearden and Kant’s works, I have come to agree with their views on the essence of education and thinking autonomously. Both philosophers agree that autonomous thinking should be encouraged in order to generate new knowledge but it should remain rational and within reason. Students or society must have valid reasons to free their mind and challenge old knowledge. Courtesy of Kant’s and Dearden’s readings, I have been able question the impact of education on my thinking capabilities beyond career and education. I am thus critical in a positive manner towards knowledge and thus I am better prepared to interpret knowledge in my own ways within the acceptable parameters rationally. As such, I feel much challenged on how I undertake my learning and how much I explore knowledge. I am very eager to live and think autonomously as I seek to digest knowledge and phenomena in my own terms. In doing so, I anticipate that my understanding of some issues might be contrary to what is safely accepted. This is what I call conquering the fear and being in the process of enlightenment. As such, education and knowledge not become a means to an end but an end in itself. By encouraging students and society to mature up and think autonomously, the human race shall be eventually enlightened. Knowledge will no longer be recycled but understood and applied in relevant manner. This will be critical in making discoveries and also in powering innovation. References Dearden, R. F. Autonomy and education Kant, I. 1984, An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784. Tate, B. 2011, An Analysis of Immanuel Kant's "What Is Enlightenment?" (1784). Retrieved online form, http://bwstar2.hubpages.com/hub/An-Analysis-of-Immanuel-Kants-What-Is-Enlightenment-1784 Read More