The power of the intellectual to influence society is both positive and negative.
An enlightened individual is an intellectual, somebody who has freed himself from immaturity. “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another,” (Enlightenment, 54).
One would think that the intellectual’s influence on society could only be positive, especially with Kant’s disgust with immaturity, because an enlightened individual is one who thinks for himself, but Kant sets up two sides to this idea.
On the one hand with the existence of intellectuals new ideas are formed, and old ideas debated on their usefulness. On the other hand some people suffer from “self-incurred immaturity” and use the existence of intellectuals as an excuse not to think.
“If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me,” (Enlightenment, 54).
The existence of intellectuals is a double-edged sword. For without the existence of intellectuals’ society could not move forward (as is necessary, and is the right of the people). But also with this existence of intellectuals people become lazy and simply utilize the many services available to them instead of thinking for themselves.
But it is not so simple as saying that it is the fault of the intellectuals for sharing their knowledge, but the government’s for creating an idea that without the influence of others that men could do nothing, this is once again the idea of immaturity.
Kant believes that men are convinced, through the example and explanation of the leaders of their states that not only would the attempt to move from simply accepting what others tell them to thinking for themselves would be dangerous. And so, if for some reason they were freed of the rule of others, they would not know what to do with themselves simply because they had never had the chance to walk unaided. “And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind,” (Enlightenment, 55).
To reach enlightenment, for those unable to simply throw off their immaturity, for an individual, is through a free society where a monarch “can otherwise leave his subjects to do whatever they find necessary for their salvation, which is none of his business,” (Enlightenment, 58). In a free society there would still be a higher authority, and if instructed an individual would have to comply with preaching what was required of him. But to further advance the society, should that individual disagree, he could offer his own opinions on how to run the church better, or the government as a whole better. A true society that wished to become enlightened would accept these ideas, and perhaps even work with some of them. An enlightened society would find logic and thought in the individual legitimate, and useful, and the influence of the intellectuals would be wholly positive in moving the society forward.
I agree with you about some people “suffering from ‘self-incurred immaturity’” and becoming insolent and letting intellectuals do their thinking for them. Nice use of the quote about letting doctors or books take the place of thinking for yourself or enlightenment. Thanks for posting!!
ReplyDeleteKant believes that the best or most competent society would be a free society: public use of reason is equal to freedom, and freedom leads to enlightenment. Without a few intellectual beings to be doctors or authors to tell everyone else what to think, a free society would be compelled into “public enlightening.” Do you think it’s more important to have a few intellectuals to run a society, or do you agree with Kant, that everyone should be personally enlightened? And then should everyone in that society attend to their “should,” and do what they do best in order to further the society (for example, if you were good at writing, you would write, if Kathryn were good at building, she would build, if Sarah were good at teaching, she would teach)? Or, when everyone is enlightened, and thus intellectual, would the foundation of the society change to one that is based on everyone looking to everyone else for help, as is the society of a handful of intellectuals that Kant describes?
Iiiiinteresting. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
First, thank you so much for posting Julia! This was a really clear post that helped me to process a lot of what Kant was saying.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I love your question, and I'm a little stumped. The question of the "should" is so complicated. I'm starting to think that it's possible that people could be "intellectuals" in different ways. I think that if we were all enlightened, we would all "have the courage to use [our] own understanding" (54), but I think that might be the only similarity. Julia would use that understanding to write. I would use it to build (since when did I have to build, anyway? I'd rather write or teach...). Sarah would use her understanding to teach. I don't think that "intellectual" means the one type of person that we often think of today (you know, the one who reads a lot of books and teaches at a college and seems really, really smart). So I think that both sides of your question are true. Yes, everyone would be different, doing different things, and helping each other. And yes, they would also all be the intellectuals that Kant describes, trying to use their own thoughts and their own understanding.
Julia, my question for you is a little bit different. Kant seems to be saying that the society of freedom that he envisions is lead by an enlightened person. He says that "only a ruler who is enlightened and has no fear of phantoms... would dare say: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey" (59). What do you think of this? Would this ruler run into the same problems that other intellectuals had- would people be lazy and use him as an excuse not to think? How could an enlightened ruler convince his people to think? How could he even gain power in the first place? I have my own ideas, but I'd love to hear what you guys have to say.
thanks again for posting!
-K
Thanks for posting Julia you did a great job! I completely agree with you in that there is a "self-incurred immaturity" in people that for some, means that they will happily let the intellectuals in society do all of the hard work for them. Kant believes that the best societies are the ones that are free, and allow for people to become enlightened. I think that people should go for the personal enlightenment, which would hopefully encourage the younger generations to become involved. It's more important for an entire society to become enlightened, than for just a few elite people to become the enlightened, ruling class. That would be a bad situation because it wouldn't really allow people to have their freedom if a society restricts who can become an intellectual. Anyway, thanks again for posting Nice job!
ReplyDeleteEmma- I think that everybody should be personally enlightened, but I think that enlightenment would be different for every person. But it is hard to imagine a society in that each person would be enlightened. I don't know if it is possible at all, because where would leaders be if nobody followed them?
ReplyDeleteI think that the "should" and enlightenment are very closely linked. Because if I feel as though I can write, I would be more likely to do it on my own, than to look at others who write instead. Does that make sense? Perhaps enlightenment is not a person being wholly self dependent, but merely self depended in certain areas of their lives, because even if I'm enlightened I'd rather go to a doctor than figure it out myself.
Kathryn- I think that it makes more sense to have an enlightened person lead. But Kant also seems to be saying, especially in the quote you used ["only a ruler who is enlightened and has no fear of phantoms.. would dare say: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey," (59)] just within that context that the ruler is not how Machiavelli envisioned a ruler, but somebody who is more open to the ideas of others.
It would be too easy to answer yes or no to your question "would people be lazy and use him as an excuse not to think?" because I'm not sure. I think that often people would rather look to other's knowledge than venture off into the intellectual world alone... But as a whole I think that I would say yes, this enlightened ruler would run into the same problems as other rulers. I don't think stepping outside of personal "immaturity" would completely set a person aside from the issues of ruling a large number of people.
Sarah- I agree. But it does get complicated, don't you think?