To start the blog honestly, much of Kant's writing did not fall on me in a way that allows for detailed writing. I found the purpose of his writing to be meaningful, but much of it hit me personally as quite redundant. I'm sure others have much better insights and questions to pose, but I only left the article with a few takeaways.
My favorite part by far is how Kant states that being intellectual does not directly correspond to being enlightened. He makes no argument that being more intelligent allows an individual to be an enlightened free thinker. Instead, he pushes the virtue of courage as being responsible for the enlightenment of individuals. He essentially says that enlightenment is not only achievable by the critical thinkers of the world, but is attainable to anyone willing to break the mold of their intellectual prison, or tutelage as Kant preferred to use. His writing poses the idea that everyone, given that they are willing to do so, can enlighten themselves.
Kant also makes clear, at least in my interpretation that enlightenment will never be a freedom that everyone will enjoy. He states that everyone willing may attain it, and continues further into why most will not. The main reasoning behind this part of the essay can be put simply into two words; fear and laziness. Change is scary, and many were content enough with the status quo to not seek enlightenment. And for those who wanted it and were not fearful of change, many among them still remained too lazy due to their conditions to seek change regardless.
My question for my peers is whether you agree with Kant's argument that anyone can be enlightened. Does intelligence have to do with enlightenment, or do you agree with Kant and give courage the credit?
P.S.
I commented on Jacob and Spencer's posts.
My favorite part by far is how Kant states that being intellectual does not directly correspond to being enlightened. He makes no argument that being more intelligent allows an individual to be an enlightened free thinker. Instead, he pushes the virtue of courage as being responsible for the enlightenment of individuals. He essentially says that enlightenment is not only achievable by the critical thinkers of the world, but is attainable to anyone willing to break the mold of their intellectual prison, or tutelage as Kant preferred to use. His writing poses the idea that everyone, given that they are willing to do so, can enlighten themselves.
Kant also makes clear, at least in my interpretation that enlightenment will never be a freedom that everyone will enjoy. He states that everyone willing may attain it, and continues further into why most will not. The main reasoning behind this part of the essay can be put simply into two words; fear and laziness. Change is scary, and many were content enough with the status quo to not seek enlightenment. And for those who wanted it and were not fearful of change, many among them still remained too lazy due to their conditions to seek change regardless.
My question for my peers is whether you agree with Kant's argument that anyone can be enlightened. Does intelligence have to do with enlightenment, or do you agree with Kant and give courage the credit?
P.S.
I commented on Jacob and Spencer's posts.
Comments