In Kant’s, “What is Enlightenment,” it is very obvious that there is a reference to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.” Of course it is proving that people will believe whatever they are taught to believe, thus, the lack of enlightenment.
My main concern with the passage is if authority refutes enlightenment, could it ever be justifiable? It is quoted that, “Tutelage is mans inability to make use of his understanding without the direction of another.” For example, if you have to not have an authoritative figure in order to think, is the parent-child relationship a bad thing? If a parent has authority over their child’s actions will that result in lack of enlightenment? Or if we abandon the parent-child relationship to bring enlightenment will it actually bring it? Because Kant says, laziness and cowardice are the main reasons for no enlightenment. Therefore if a parents responds as a non-authoritative figure, will the child choose laziness and cowardice as a result of enablement due to the lack of authority? Or is laziness and cowardice by simple choice of not obeying authority at all?
Although Kant quotes Frederick the Great staying, “Argue as much as you will, and about what you will but obey,” it still makes me question if authority is justifiable. People are going to do what they will do with authority or not. I think I have come to the conclusion that it is justifiable because, with lack of authority, I believe that more people will become susceptible to laziness and enablement than actual enlightenment.
Comments