Of X vs. X-ed
by Breanna Poole
This reading was one that without a doubt took me on a very wild ride. Some parts I found fascinating, especially Kant's ideas on what tutelage actually is, which I found myself agreeing with full stop. Other parts I find myself grasping at straws as I try to uncover what exactly it is he means to say, such as when he talks about thinking freely but also says a duty exists to teach and guide certain things. Perhaps I misread this part or I'm not quite ready to understand what it means yet, I'm not quite sure. Regardless, that's not what I wish to discuss in this blog post.
The one thing I found quite interesting above all others was when he was theoretically asked if they were living in an 'enlightened' age and he answered with a stark 'no', with the explanation that they were living in an age 'of' enlightenment. I find the idea he presented to be quite fascinating, as more often than not people will use Age of Enlightenment and the Enlightened Age interchangeably when discussing this period of history. That's not to say there is something wrong with that, just that it's interesting to hear that someone who lived during this age believe there is a difference between the two. Kant argues that they have not reached an enlightened age because man has not quite become able to fully think free of outside direction, but that they are in an age of enlightenment because these directions and boundaries men are forced to think in are being knocked aside. Or at least, they are starting to be. That difference is one that I feel like is very distinct but important to make, as I find it to be an observation that deserves to be made.
But following Kant's line of thought, are we sure there is ever to be an 'enlightened' age, at least the one Kant defines? No man or woman will ever truly be free of complete outside direction, and I would argue that now more than ever outside direction is having a bigger impact on how we view the world and even how we think of religion. We have more ways to communicate with each other, which allows us to process thoughts openly and come to better conclusions on how we interpret both religious and secular ideas, but we also have a larger outside world we now must combat that dictates certain thoughts to be repugnant or unacceptable without providing reason for why and expecting us to follow. That's before you get into the indirect influence pop culture has on our thought processes.
So, now, is it possible that this 'age of enlightenment' that which Kant speaks of, where men are allowed to shake off some of the boundaries limiting them to think, is still ongoing? Perhaps it will always be ongoing, as we are human after all, and can never truly be enlightened to know everything or understand everything God has put into motion. Maybe this 'age of enlightenment' is but a repeated rhyme of history, as more and more outside forces are created and humanity must learn to shake them off to think again before more are created again?
{I commented on Sydney and Cade's posts.}
by Breanna Poole
This reading was one that without a doubt took me on a very wild ride. Some parts I found fascinating, especially Kant's ideas on what tutelage actually is, which I found myself agreeing with full stop. Other parts I find myself grasping at straws as I try to uncover what exactly it is he means to say, such as when he talks about thinking freely but also says a duty exists to teach and guide certain things. Perhaps I misread this part or I'm not quite ready to understand what it means yet, I'm not quite sure. Regardless, that's not what I wish to discuss in this blog post.
The one thing I found quite interesting above all others was when he was theoretically asked if they were living in an 'enlightened' age and he answered with a stark 'no', with the explanation that they were living in an age 'of' enlightenment. I find the idea he presented to be quite fascinating, as more often than not people will use Age of Enlightenment and the Enlightened Age interchangeably when discussing this period of history. That's not to say there is something wrong with that, just that it's interesting to hear that someone who lived during this age believe there is a difference between the two. Kant argues that they have not reached an enlightened age because man has not quite become able to fully think free of outside direction, but that they are in an age of enlightenment because these directions and boundaries men are forced to think in are being knocked aside. Or at least, they are starting to be. That difference is one that I feel like is very distinct but important to make, as I find it to be an observation that deserves to be made.
But following Kant's line of thought, are we sure there is ever to be an 'enlightened' age, at least the one Kant defines? No man or woman will ever truly be free of complete outside direction, and I would argue that now more than ever outside direction is having a bigger impact on how we view the world and even how we think of religion. We have more ways to communicate with each other, which allows us to process thoughts openly and come to better conclusions on how we interpret both religious and secular ideas, but we also have a larger outside world we now must combat that dictates certain thoughts to be repugnant or unacceptable without providing reason for why and expecting us to follow. That's before you get into the indirect influence pop culture has on our thought processes.
So, now, is it possible that this 'age of enlightenment' that which Kant speaks of, where men are allowed to shake off some of the boundaries limiting them to think, is still ongoing? Perhaps it will always be ongoing, as we are human after all, and can never truly be enlightened to know everything or understand everything God has put into motion. Maybe this 'age of enlightenment' is but a repeated rhyme of history, as more and more outside forces are created and humanity must learn to shake them off to think again before more are created again?
{I commented on Sydney and Cade's posts.}
Comments