Now that we've been introduced to the Enlightenment and its huge impact on American thought, culture and politics, it's time to step back and consider it from a more critical angle. "Criticism" is actually the term Kant used for the new Enlightenment approach to philosophy: instead of just accepting ideas, critical philosophy be skeptical and question everything it was told. Only ideas that could withstand criticism deserved to be treated as true. So, we need to give the Enlightenment idea the same treatment. Remember that Kant declared Aude Sapere, "Dare to Know," the motto of the Enlightenment, asking us to "have the courage to use (our) own reason" instead of remaining in the self-incurred state of tutelage. (In "Redemption Song," Bob Marley famously expresses this same sentiment in modern terms: "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds!) It should be obvious that we have not reached the state of "full enlightenment of all humankind" that Kant dreamed of - the question is, why not? Was there something wrong with the Enlightenment idea, or could people just not live up to it? (Or, if people can't live up to it, does that mean it's a bad idea because it's impractical and impossible?) To begin approaching this question, first read "The Legacy of the Enlightenment" for some context: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/section7.rhtml Now that you have some facts, I'm also going to ask you to read an opinion on this question, from French philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault was famous for his criticisms of the Enlightenment's social effects. A lot of his work focused on the relationship between what we say and what we do, and in the case of the Enlightenment, he felt there was a lot of talk of freedom, but little real respect for it. Because of their obsession with rationality, Enlightenment thinkers were more concerned with keeping things orderly than making people free. After all, this was the period that produced asylums and prisons, as well as the forced schooling that you're a part of today, all devoted to molding people into the Enlightenment idea of "normality". (His most famous example is one we discussed during V for Vendetta, the idea of the Panopticon, which was seen as the "most rational" way to deal with lawbreakers.) Foucault felt that the big failure of the Enlightenment was that it still relied on the notion of the Other to define itself: creative artists were deemed "insane" and put in mental homes, radical political thinkers were excluded from "democracy," slavery was still tolerated, and people from "less Enlightened" cultures were seen as subhuman. (Foucault's most famous example of Enlightenment unfreedom) But Foucault didn't hate the Enlightenment, even if it had these negative effects. He still felt the ideas were good ones and needed to be interpreted anew. Writing in the 1980s, he reviewed Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?" and declared the Enlightenment a kind of unfinished project which still had potential if it could be renewed. Check out some excerpts from his review here before you answer the question:
This is deep stuff, so take your time with reading and thinking before you start writing. You should post a 1-paragraph response in the comments section including a quote from the SparkNotes or Foucault articles. Reply to others for extra credit.
68 Comments
Victoria Sullivan
11/30/2014 03:00:48 am
Kant says that reaching enlightenment is someone escaping "the state of immaturity" which he also refers to as tutelage (Foucault 1). I agree with him in the sense that no one has reached enlightenment if they still need other people's guidance in things that they do. With this being said, I am not sure that anyone in the world has truly reached enlightenment. Everyone uses guidance once in a while. Some use more than other's however, everyone needs help sometimes. Saying this, doesn't mean that I am a nonbeliever in the enlightenment, or that I am against it, I just simply think that it is hard to reach, and no one has done it. Next, Kant talks about freedom and the enlightenment. People are concerned with their minds, and what they think of others. Society judges people by their sex, nationality, and the way people think. This is a reason why people reach out for other people's help with their emotions. Michel Foucault also agrees with the fact that no one has reached enlightenment. No one ever has full mature thoughts and actions- therefore, using Kant's definition of the enlightenment, no one has fully attained Enlightenment.
Reply
Emily Bynoe
11/30/2014 03:29:35 am
I agree with you. People cannot function without a little guidance from people and that is why enlightenment had never worked. I don't think that people will ever break away from the crutch that they on others for the soul purpose that they are insecure and to scared to make a decision by themselves.
Reply
Bobby Villaluz
11/30/2014 05:37:24 am
I think it is interesting how you applied Kant's definition of enlightenment to what actually happens in today's world. I totally agree that one way or another, everyone relies on someone else's reason or guidance. Therefore, I believe that you are correct in saying no one has become enlightened. However as hard as it may be to attain this state, people are capable of it if they have the genuine courage to make it happen both within themselves and as a collaboration with others.
Reply
Madison Ciccone
11/30/2014 11:53:01 am
I agree with you Victoria, people need guidance in order to function. Our ideas are based off of others opinions and views. We can never be individuals within the society because we need others. We look to them for help and assurance and because of this we are not enlightened.
Reply
Emily Bynoe
11/30/2014 03:05:47 am
The idea of enlightenment was very weird to everyone. It wants people to break tradition and promote individualism. I believe that the people were too set in stone with their ways and changing them seemed bizarre. The idea of enlightenment does not seem impossible, it just seems like a hard topic to bestow on people. I think people do like the idea of it, but they are too insecure to pursue it because they do not want to be the odd ones out.
Reply
Emily Bynoe
11/30/2014 03:20:42 am
(I forgot to add my quote)
Reply
Mr. Biggs
11/30/2014 08:05:41 am
So, does the French Revolution mean that the whole idea was a bad one? I agree, many people found the idea of breaking with tradition and becoming free-thinking individuals to be a bizarre or even dangerous one. It may be that there's even such a thing as too much individualism. But France ended up not with individualism, but with new dictators - first Robespierre and then Napoleon, who drafted everyone to form an imperial army and tried to conquer everything!
Emily Fitzgerald
11/30/2014 04:06:44 am
I agree with you completely. We're so used to doing the same routines every day that it is so strange for us all to be "enlightened" all of the sudden. In order for it to really work, we need to break the barriers we have established for ourselves. With more confidence and less reassurance the Enlightenment may work one day.
Reply
Juliet Slattery
12/2/2014 05:56:34 am
The thing that I agree with most in this post is how you say that people like the idea of enlightenment, but are too insecure to pursue it. This idea is much like the idea I wrote about. I think that in any case, humans want change in their societies. The main reason that they never get those changes in government, or even something as small as a school is because of fear and consequences. Students, as well as teachers, or any minority in a society, do not stand up to the 'leaders' enough. If one person would start any sort of rebellion or protest, many many people with similar beliefs would follow. Due to the fear of consequences, not as many people will express their opinions enough to see the change they want.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
11/30/2014 03:55:25 am
It is awesome that early Enlightenment thinkers were able to come to their senses and realize that there was something incredibly wrong with certain government laws and restrictions. One of these thinkers was Kant, who believed that being "enlightened" was just freeing oneself of self imposed tutelage, which is basically just saying that people need to grow up and stop depending on others for approval. I agree with Kant, and I have an idea of why everyone cannot "free" themselves. Every day, many of us live the same lives and do the same things over and over again. Ever since we were young children, we were used to listening to people of authority before acting upon ourselves. As a result, we developed this habit of looking to others for guidance in almost anything; similar to how animals are trained to listen to their owners. Often times we forget that we are all people living in this country and deserve more than what we get. "I also think that as an enterprise for linking the progress of truth and the history of liberty in a bond of direct relation, it formulated a philosophical question that remains for us to
Reply
Mr. Biggs
11/30/2014 07:59:23 am
Good points! Foucault is also saying the idea of Enlightenment seems to say that if people just learn the truth, liberty and justice will prevail. But sometimes, people can be exposed to truth and ignore it. And other times, it isn't clear what's "true" - in some situations all you have are different perspectives. Did the Enlightenment focus too much on reasoning and truth at the expense of other things like community spirit and imagination?
Reply
Claire McEvoy
11/30/2014 08:45:00 am
Emily, you make some really good points here that I agree with you on. I think a big part of the problem with Enlightenment is that its difficult for people to want to follow this way of thinking. As you pointed out, a domino effect will follow once a large majority of our society think in this regard. This is true, but wouldn't this domino effect be the opposite of what Kant wanted? A domino effect would assume people stopped thinking for themselves, and just started following the crowd in order to be alike. Maybe a domino effect will occur, but it wouldn't be beneficial to Enlightenment.
Reply
Debra Tuberion
11/30/2014 10:02:43 am
I completely agree with what you said, Emily. I agree that people need to be more educated about enlightenment in order for it to take place. As I said in my post, it takes society as a whole to act together in order for an enlightenment to take place. I like what you said about the domino effect because I agree that once people start realizing the outcomes of enlightenment, everyone will work together in order for it to happen and everything will fall into place.
Reply
Victoria Sullivan
12/1/2014 05:04:10 am
Good Golly Emily!!! I agree with your points 100%. I also think that people aren't enlightened because they don't want to be, or they are just too lazy. The big question with the Enlightenment is whether or not people are ready for it. I loved your point on the domino effect. Because everyone will be thinking independently for themselves, then more people will follow in their footsteps.
Reply
Bobby Villaluz
11/30/2014 05:25:07 am
After reading Foucault’s response to Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?”, I concur with his belief that people’s interpretation of it was impractical. This caused Kant’s goal of “full enlightenment of all humankind” to fall short of becoming a reality. However, this should not be misunderstood as a statement saying Kant’s idea was impractical, but rather that the actions people took during the Age of Enlightenment based on his idea were impractical. The aspect of people’s interpretation that made it impractical was that society was not able to undergo these changes without “…the return of the most dangerous traditions” (Foucault 1). For example, if people constantly use their reason to question and change components like thinking or culture, society would become inefficient. Referring back to what we learned about Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, they all theorized that society was, “…a kind of agreement that occurred when individuals decided to band together into groups for various benefits” (Social Contract 1). If the purpose of society was to distribute these “benefits” among the participating individuals, how could it achieve its purpose if it was constantly revolutionizing people’s ways of thinking and life? The answer is that it cannot without some form of instability or inefficiency. This is evident in the French Revolution, in which “…most historians agree…effectively marked the end of the Enlightenment” since it sparked a time of extreme violence (The Enlightenment 3). As a result, I feel that people can free themselves from Kant’s idea of immaturity by using our reason and understanding to make small changes, which society is indeed capable of handling. Two examples of these changes are gender equality and slavery, which is still a worldwide issue. Therefore, I feel that the world is capable of becoming enlightened, but not through the same process as the first Enlightenment. Instead, it involves minor transformations that eventually transform society as a whole, without causing it to run back to its old ways in fear. An enlightenment of this nature, I believe, can make positive changes and eventually fulfill Kant’s dream, while also being practical and keeping the world spinning.
Reply
Mr. Biggs
11/30/2014 06:04:56 am
Kudos, Bobby - this is an extremely well-thought out post. As you explain, one thing Foucault is getting at is that if we change things too quickly or too radically, people will get scared and want to regress back to the old certainties of tutelage, and "the most dangerous traditions" will return. Isn't that EXACTLY what happened when the nuclear threat of the Cold War drove desperate Americans to trust Senator McCarthy and triggered the return of "witch hunting" in a new form? So your points about gradual "minor transformations" are very strong. I wonder if people agree?
Reply
Mr. Biggs
11/30/2014 06:01:09 am
Great comments so far!
Reply
Emilie Weiner
12/3/2014 07:44:20 am
To say that "the Enlightenment was the first time Western civilization truly became civilized" is an extreme one, but not totally irrational. While Salem completely lacked structure, some may argue that similar barbaric roots and preposterous reasoning still linger. Perhaps we're not hanging people for witchcraft anymore, but every day people are still dying for their beliefs. I'd say that the Enlightenment, "shed light" per se, on what a civilized civilization could be, but did not, ultimately, create this (relative) utopia. Civilization - specifically equal ones - take a lot of cooperation from a lot of people to function efficiently; to ask for that is often too much.
Reply
Claire McEvoy
11/30/2014 07:58:05 am
The problem with Kant’s idea of Enlightenment is that he imposed a perfect philosophy on a flawed society. Every individual is different, and has goals and thoughts unique to themselves. Kant’s dream of total enlightenment is impossible to achieve because some members of society will not necessarily be willing to individually reach this stage. People can live up to Kant’s standards by subconsciously breaking out of their self-imposed mental cages. But if all of society doesn’t want to reach this state, it will never be accomplished. With all of this said, the Enlightenment movement only helped the modern world. After these ideas began to spread, “nearly everyone…walked away from the Enlightenment in a better position”(The Enlightenment 1). It started a wave that will never finish crashing because full Enlightenment of Kant’s definition cannot be achieved. The ideas introduced by the Enlightenment thinkers will never go away because they opened up a whole new perspective of life that is never ending. Kant should have never set a goal for this society to live up to, because just introducing the thoughts of this new philosophy was enough to change the western world for now and posterity.
Reply
Griffin Perry
11/30/2014 09:26:13 am
Nicely put Claire! I disagree with your ideas on how the Enlightenment movement only helped the modern world because those in the 1700s and 1800s totally experienced Enlightenment. However, what you said about Kant's definition not being able to be achieved hit home with me and I agree with you on that. You seem to be a little bit anti-Kant, because you thought he never should have set an unreasonable goal, but I think that this goal in general is what pushed the population at his time to becoming enlightened.
Reply
Abigail Joyce
12/1/2014 12:13:06 pm
I agree with your statement on how if everyone doesn't want to achieve Enlightenment on a whole, that it will never be accomplished. I believe that the Enlightenment has to do with the commitment of those reliant on it and the true want to aspire to it. If we do not try to strive for the goal, it will not last. Enlightenment can only be achieved through teamwork and the desire to remove yourself from tutelage.
Reply
Jordan Swartz
11/30/2014 08:08:49 am
The Enlightenment’s ideas resulted in the loss of life and redefined the very basis of insanity. For example, in 1790’s France, there was one man who took those ideas of Enlightenment to a whole new level, Robespierre was that man. He was the ring leader in a “Reign of Terror” that swept all of France. “The instability reached a violent climax with the ascent of Maximilien Robespierre, an extremist who plunged the revolution into the so-called Reign of Terror of 1793–1794, beheading more than 15,000 suspected enemies and dissenters at the guillotine." Robespierre was a byproduct of the Enlightenment and, the power he retained was not handled well at all. The reason why this period is called the “Reign of Terror” is because Robespierre saw a necessary evil to be eradicated. This frightened many people into believing that the Enlightenment was bad. Consequently, no one followed it’s ideas. Although it did have many points that the majority of people could relate to and follow, but anyone who does is declared an extremist.
Reply
Griffin Perry
11/30/2014 09:21:01 am
Like all ideas and theories, these two or more opposing sides bring up many good points supporting different thoughts. Kant and Focault both develop their ideas of enlightenment tremendously, but Focault believes Kant approaches it wrong and the morals of Enlightenment are unreasonable. Kant, on the other side (as we know) , thinks Enlightenment is a mans escape from a state of "self-imposed tutelage". Although it's true the Age of Enlightenment occurred in the 1700s-1800s, we have not yet completed our enlightenment as a human race. I don't think this is because the ideas are flawed, I think it is because the power of the thoughts have dwindled since the 1800s; like a new toy as a kid, it's really important and special for a bit but the attention goes away as time wares on. The enlightenment, I feel, has worked the same way, and in doing so we have caused ourself to fall back into a flawed and corrupt system. The government censors important things from the public, technology takes over our entire lives, and humans are forced to go to school for a third of their lives and then work until they die. Mankind today must rekindle the thoughts of enlightenment in order to escape this system. It's not that the ideas are impractical, it's just that we are lazy, in a state where everything we need is at our fingertips. Like Foucault explains, "we are in a state of "immaturity" when a book takes the place of our understanding, when a spiritual director takes the place of our conscience, when a doctor decides for us what our diet is to be" (Foucault 1). Other people do the thinking we have to do, causing our generation to exemplify the "immaturity" that Foucault elaborates on. Because of this, it is clear no one in our modern world has reached enlightenment because of the blinders society and government puts on us. However, for all we know future generations will be able to rip off these blinders and begin a new age of enlightenment that will influence the forthcoming human race.
Reply
Emma Westgate
11/30/2014 09:48:27 am
Immanuel Kant defined enlightenment as having the courage to break away from a fixed way of thinking. To be enlightened, one has to mature and no longer have someone else guide them. I believe Kant’s theory of Enlightenment is correct, but most people weren't ready for this kind of maturity. For instance, the people in the French Revolution embraced the ideas presented in the Enlightenment and overthrew their monarch. However, “they soon fell prey to internal dissent, and leadership changed hands throughout the years that followed” (Enlightenment 1). The French people did not fully mature, and they could not hold onto their beliefs on how a government should be run. They let someone else come into power and guide their way of thinking once again. Ostensibly, the people weren't ready to follow Kant’s ideas about Enlightenment because they didn't have the courage to truly think freely. This could be why humankind isn't fully enlightened; we remain immature and get scared of different thoughts. At first we are brave and go into the unknown, but eventually some people will falter and return to their guided and safe way of thinking.
Reply
Ellie Farrington
11/30/2014 11:01:21 am
I agree that the most likely reason for mankind not being fully enlightened is fear. Most regular people don't have the courage to stand up for what they believe or think for themselves. Like you said, those who do take that leap into the unknown many times find themselves sinking slowly back into the crowd. They let leaders control them and influence their thoughts and actions. I think someone needs to go through an enlightenment and actually see it through.
Reply
Debra Tuberion
11/30/2014 09:57:19 am
There are always two sides to a story, or two opinions. Kant described enlightenment to be a release from self-imposed tutelage or someone escaping "the state of immaturity" which he also refers to as tutelage (Foucault 1). Focault believes that Kant approaches the idea of enlightenment wrong and seems to disagree with his morals. In my opinion, people today have not yet reached enlightenment or experienced it. Whether we realize it or not, we always depend on others assistance, whether it's something as simple as helping each other with homework or something as serious as asking someone to help you make a life long decision. I know from personal experience that I always go to my friends for advice and I worry about other peoples opinion, so I have not yet experienced an enlightenment. It is possible to live up to Kant's expectations of what enlightenment truly is, but society as a whole will have to work together to do so.
Reply
Allie LeLand
11/30/2014 10:42:38 am
I agree with you debra! i definitely think almost everyone depends on other peoples actions and opinions. I ask my friends, teachers, and family members for help with different things so many times throughout the day. Personally, I would not be able to live up to Kants expectations, but maybe some extremely independent people may be able to.
Reply
allie leland
11/30/2014 10:17:30 am
The idea of Enlightenment was so peculiar to everyone. In my opinion this was because society was used to their normal routines and traditions and it was too difficult to change. I think the main reason why Kants idea didn't work was because he was trying to achieve goals not all people in society were capable of. "Everyone.. walked away from the Enlightenment in a better position" (Enlightenment 1) Also, if all of society doesn't have the desire to change, Kants ideas and way of life will never be accomplished.
Reply
Mikayla Byron
11/30/2014 10:27:29 am
It should be obvious that we have not reached the state of "full enlightenment of all humankind" that Kant dreamed of - the question is, why not? Was there something wrong with the Enlightenment idea, or could people just not live up to it? (Or, if people can't live up to it, does that mean it's a bad idea because it's impractical and impossible?)
Reply
Ellie Farrington
11/30/2014 10:56:13 am
It is clear that we have not reached the grand Enlightenment that Kant desired for mankind. Almost everyone is stuck in what he refers to as "self-imposed tutelage." I think that both Kant and Focault make excellent points. I agree that the Enlightenment is not a bad idea at all, but that it has been poorly executed. As humans, we are too afraid to speak up against what is normal. We remain in a state of safety by not questioning authority or government even when it is doing wrong by us. There is always someone who we are looking to for the answers or advice because we are too insecure to break out on our own. That is the "immaturity" that Kant talks about. And then in some cases people did try to think for themselves, but became too desperate for new knowledge. "...this open-mindedness manifested itself in pure gullibility, as supposedly well-educated Europeans fell prey to “intellectual” schemes and frauds based on nothing more than superstition and clever speech" (Enlightenment 1). I think that the concept of an Enlightenment, the release from the power we let others hold over ourselves, is so important. Like we see from this example and others like the French "Reign of Terror," show us that there are flaws to this plan. We need to find a balance so that maybe one day mankind can reach this state of intelligence and freedom.
Reply
Madison Ciccone
11/30/2014 11:44:41 am
It is known that we have not come to a point of being completely enlightened. In order to be enlightened we must first break away from our normal routines because clearly, we are getting no where from them. From the start when enlightenment came about, there were many flaws. Routines were needed and people were scared to be different. We are born into a life already forced upon us of school,work, etc. and this will stay the same unless we take action to change this. If we don't take matters into our own hands, we will never be completely enlightened because nothing will be changed. Foucault stated, " If we are not to settle for the affirmation of an empty dream of freedom, it seems to me that (we must work) at the limits of ourselves. (We must) grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take" (Foucault 1). Like Foucalt was saying, we can change what we want as long as we have the determination to do it. We each need to take an individualistic approach towards our own enlightenment to then be enlightened as a whole.
Reply
Kelly Gagliano
12/1/2014 05:09:20 am
After reading the two passages, I have come to realize a few things. One of which is that humans by nature are immature. Foucault explains that "many things in our experience convince us that the historical event of the Enlightenment did not make us mature adults" (Foucault). The sheer fact that we believe we each have made some sort of extreme realization due to the Enlightenment as an event is immature and irrational. An event cannot change who we are and how we act as individuals. We have to change ourselves and stop relying on others to make the change for us. It is impossible and idiotic to think in that manner. Also, I have realized that as a whole, our society acts like children. We constantly have to be "babied" and told what to do. We can't think for ourselves for once and grow up. We blindly follow our leaders just as dogs listen to the commands of their master. And we constantly fear that we will be punished. The sheer stupidity of this is that we have essentially been trained to never question or disobey our master because there will be consequences. However, the only reason that these consequences have an effect on us is because we allow them to. We allow ourselves to live in fear and oblige. Each one of fears and believes this, so the punishments are given power. The only way to change this is to stop acting with complete obedience and change ourselves and essentially grow up.
Reply
Kelsey Ballard
12/1/2014 09:34:00 am
I agree with you, Kelly. Your response made me think of the world in V for Vendetta, especially the part where you talked about people being babied and told what to do. I also think that everyone has the power to grow up, but some people don't want to because they are happy being told what to do. this is a huge moral debate within our society.
Reply
Paige Whittle
12/1/2014 06:28:13 am
Foucault’s response to Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” makes it obvious that we, as humans, have not reached our full potential of enlightenment. The basic teachings of Kant are that individuals should be able to conjure ideas on their own without the guidance of traditions and others around them. This idea of enlightenment is by no means too far-fetched; however, seeking guidance through tradition has become routine to human beings, which is the reason we are being held back from reaching this ideal state of enlightenment. While humans may be trying to make this change to be an individual thinker, Kant points out that thinking by tradition is “a phenomenon, an ongoing process; but he also presents it as a task and an obligation” (Foucault). This quote means thinking by tradition seems to be a naturally occurring event, but it all causes a lack of uniqueness which makes this mundane way of thinking an obligation for everyone to fit in. Without using this method of thinking by tradition, one may be criticized as “the other”, and his or her individualistic ideas may not be well-respected. Ultimately, the idea of enlightenment is not impractical or unreachable; however, it goes against years of tradition that have become a lifestyle for many people, and these traditions will be hard to break, but must be broken in order to reach a full state of enlightenment.
Reply
Alex Sosa
12/1/2014 06:48:41 am
In the review of Kant's Enlightenment theory, Foucault states that one does not have to be for or against Enlightenment. I conclude that we are somewhere in the middle. Our society today has not reached the world that Kant pictured. In fact, we are nowhere near perfect. I do think Enlightenment has a good message, yet I simply do not believe that for everyone, it is possible to achieve. How are we supposed to think for ourselves when we grow up in a society where we should not question? From the time we were born, teachers and parents surrounded us. We absorb their opinions and begin thinking that way ourselves. Some adult figures wont let the child speak their opinions because what they believe is considered, "right." So while most children are being brainwashed into believing what is right or wrong, nothing is changing. Of course there are the few that begin to think for their own as they expand their horizons. We meet new people and learn new ideas outside of our environment. The issue is, not everyone is capable of doing these things. Even when learning new ideas and possibilities, we lean on others to find what we want, instead of thinking on our own.
Reply
Tierney Baldwin
12/1/2014 07:14:07 am
Kant defined enlightenment as the release from self-imposed tutelage. He opposed man’s incessant dependency on others and believed “man himself is responsible for his immature status” (Foucault 1). In order to be truly enlightened according to Kant, one had to escape the chains that hindered his ability to think and act independently. Foucault interpreted Kant’s vision of enlightenment “as a process in which men participate collectively and as an act of courage to be accomplished personally,” for men have to collectively reject implied thoughts and decisions, and willingly form personal opinions and beliefs (Foucault 1). In other words, all men have to want enlightenment in order for society as a whole to achieve it. In my opinion, this is where mankind encounters the most problems. If some people continue to follow or support restrictive rulers or beliefs, then they prevent the rest of the world from enlightenment. If some are too inexperienced or intimidated to think independently, then they become followers and the whole conundrum is created all over again. Unless all of society is on board, we can only progress for short periods of time before people begin to latch on to the leadership and guidance of others, and the world is once again trapped in the endless cycle with enlightenment dangling just beyond our reach.
Reply
Alma Sanchez
12/1/2014 07:18:41 am
Foucault's response to Kant's view of The Enlightenment makes a very interesting point. "In fact we know from experience that the claim to escape from the system of contemporary reality so as to produce the overall programs of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world, has led only to the return of the most dangerous traditions. (Instead) I prefer the very specific transformations that have proved possible.." The idea of freeing yourself from tutelage is a rather broad goal. Humans can not make that radical of a change to themselves easily, but it is possible. If, the goal, enlightenment, is broken down into more achievable mini goal. However, enlightenment, could also be argued, not for everyone. Many people,are content to never having a controversial idea in their lives, to think for themselves. Others, are more than capable of thinking for themselves. The idea of Enlightenment, is achievable, if the person has the knowledge, and the desire to liberate themselves. Will mankind ever be completely enlightened? Enlightenment is achievable, it can not be done overnight, and should be divided into smaller goals. This changes the definition of Enlightenment, perhaps Enlightenment means to make small changes to your lives so that you are able to think for yourself. It is possible to be able to think for yourself, but if the desire and the tools necessary to do so are not there, then enlightenment is not possible.
Reply
Ceci McCormick
12/1/2014 07:44:53 am
Focault's review on Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" shows that we have a long way to go before reaching our full enlightenment. Focault shows some examples Kant uses when he writes, "We are in a state of immaturity when a book takes the place of our understanding, when a spiritual director takes the place of our conscience, and when a doctor decides for us what our diet is to be." (Foucalt). What is meant by immaturity is when we allow others to direct us in areas when we should be directing ourselves. In this case, we are definitely immature. All three of those examples are going on right now and yet no one is having the courage to do anything about it. That is our problem. Fear. I believe that the enlightenment has very good ideas and can eventually be accomplished, but first we must break out of tutelage. We need to not be afraid of thinking for ourselves and this will bring us closer to the enlightenment. Of course not everyone is just all of a sudden going to become a total philosopher and have all these crazy ideas about what they truly think is right, we must start from the beginning. From the moment we learn to communicate as children most of us are being taught to not talk back or speak up when you are being told what to (don't get me wrong manners are great), but this is just making us think that that is what we are supposed to do all the time, but this is not the case. We should definitely speak up when we think something is wrong or out of place, this is how we got where we are with corrupt governments and leaders around the world by not doing so. This is the first step we need to take, learn when it is necessary to disagree with the crowd and think for yourself. After this comes the courage to do so, once we are brave enough we can change the problems going on in our world. I believe our enlightenment is completely within reach, we just need to be ready to question each other as well as ourselves.
Reply
Kyle Neary
12/1/2014 07:59:00 am
There are always two sides, or opinions, to everything. Immanuel Kant defines Enlightenment as "a process that releases us from the status of...a certain state of our will that makes us accept someone else's authority to lead us in areas where the use of reason is called for." (Foucalt 1) While reading Foucalt's response, I could tell that he didn't agree with Kant before he even stated it himself, as he kept on pointing out flaws in Kant's writings. But he then states it explicitly in the fourth paragraph by saying "I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood" Foucalt believes that while trying to become enlightened, we have become lazy, which is only pushing us further from full enlightenment.
Reply
Grace Cody
12/1/2014 08:43:24 am
I agree with certain points made in Kant's article, as well as points made by Foucault. In Kant's article he discusses how no one can ever reach Enlightenment if they still need guidance from someone 'higher' than them. I agree with saying that in order to be enlightened you have to be somewhat independent and not imitating someone else. Michel Foucault said in a review to Kant's "What is Enlightenment?", "I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood," which I agree with. According to Kant you need to be fully independent and receive no guidance with your decisions to have reached Enlightenment, and if this is true, I do not think anyone will ever reach Enlightenment. From time to time, no matter what age, I believe that people will always need some kind of guidance. Foucault also talks about how if we are going to talk about achieving freedom, then we should actually go out and achieve it and not just discuss achieving it. He talks about how we should find where change is possible, and make that change happen. I agree with Foucault that we should take matters into our own hands if change is possible and needed. I also agree with Foucault on the point that Enlightenment may never be achieved if one has to be totally independent.
Reply
Kathleen Murray
12/1/2014 11:03:54 am
Grace I strongly agree with you when talking about not fully reaching Enlightenment. I think that is totally true. As you said as human beings we all need that guidance in some form, we can never fully be independent and think on our own feet. So, technically I think you were correct when saying we can not fully reach to that state of enlightenment because we have so many influences in our lives.
Reply
Skylar Simone
12/2/2014 07:25:19 pm
I agree with this. If we want to reach enlightenment then we have to stop talking about it and actually do it. I also agree that is we want to reach it we can't be intimidated by other people.
Reply
Kelsey Ballard
12/1/2014 09:30:36 am
If Kant's idea of enlightenment was such a good one, why is it that we as a global society have not yet been released from the self-imposed tutelage that is everywhere? I believe the answer to that question lies not in Kant's philosophy, but in the people. Most people are generally happy in our world of self-imposed tutelage. They see something, and even if they don't like it, they do nothing to change what they see. The Enlightenment in Europe was an explosion of new ideas and most importantly, questions. People wondered why things were the way they were, and if the answers did not make them happy, people wanted to do something about it. 'The movement resulted in greater freedom, greater opportunity, and generally more humane treatment for all individuals."(sparknotes 1). I agree very much with that quote, but I think that today, we still have a long way to go in achieving full enlightenment. Since people are generally happy with the way things are, they do nothing to question why things are so. It seems to take a big tragedy, like 9/11, to force people to question their surroundings. I believe that we should always question the things we see. Why is it that gay people can't marry, and that gun control is still limited? These are questions we should ask ourselves everyday, because our society is nowhere near perfect, and we should want to change that.
Reply
Sean Murphy
12/1/2014 09:56:13 am
Enlightenment is the act of escaping tutelage, and learning to think for yourself. Kant came up with this idea, and dreamed that one day everyone on Earth would become enlightened and see the full picture. Enlightenment itself was an excellent concept, but it is better in theory than in action. Some people are very willing to escape the control of others, such as those who took part in the French Revolution. Others need more of a "push" to become free, and these are also the very people make the idea of everyone in world becoming enlightened virtually impossible. So many people are used to living mindlessly and never making decisions, because that is how they've spent their whole lives. Foucault is much more realistic about enlightenment and sees that "Kant showed us how to critique what we are saying, thinking, and doing through a historical study of ourselves" (Foucault 1). We can have our own thoughts and criticize people, but not everyone will. Foucault sees some people just wont care for thinking for themselves, and are happy the way they are. They may not agree with their ideas, but he can't just force the people to accept them, because then he would be making their decisions. The fact is that Kant had many great, revolutionary ideas involving enlightenment, but it was just irrational to think everyone would eventually be enlightened.
Reply
Will Grant
12/1/2014 10:10:03 am
There are always two sides to a story. In this case, Emanuel Kant started the talk of "Enlightenment". He views Enlightenment as "man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity". I think that this still rings true today because people in society still are being told what to by parents, or superiors for adults. Once people can make their own choices all the time, then they are truly enlightened. However, I agree with some points made by Foucault as well. For example, Foucault states that"I do not know if we will ever reach adult mature hood"(Foucault paragraph 4). I agree with this because I believe that society cannot function without some type of superior so therefore I think that we will never reach true adult mature hood. So in the end, I believe that people can never reach full enlightenment because there always will need to be order in the world which requires superiors. This means that people will never be able to make all of the choices in their life.
Reply
Adrian Hernandez
12/1/2014 11:02:26 am
We as a society haven't all experienced enlightenment. As obvious as it is, it is because we all haven't all had something to make us "transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that lakes the form of a possible transgression" (Foucalt 1) In V for Vendetta, there was something to make the people want to escape tutelage. In America today, not everyone really wants to do this because they are content to how things are already. Of course, this doesn't apply to all of us. And, there are acts of enlightenment in a much smaller scale compared to wanting to change the government of a nation. Enlightenment is possible. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but it the future. We just need to be given the chance.
Reply
Isabella Ramos
12/1/2014 11:02:48 am
The whole idee, in general, of an enlightenment among our society is so complex and would have to be planned out immaculately in order for it to be effective. It is obvious our modern people are not enlightened because we still are lazy humans who follow the rules just to get by. I think that the enlightenment is too broad to answer why it didn't work, however many factors contributed to why man did not escape from his self-imposed tutelage. First off, humans are lazy; we are born "in a state of "immaturity" when a book takes the place of our understanding, when a spiritual director takes the place of our conscience, when a doctor decides for us what our diet is to be", everything is handed to us (Foucault 1)! Our minds are in a state that everything is at our disposal, which makes no need for an escape or freedom of any sorts because that life sounds great. Another reason is today's human population is so much more corrupted than they were in the 1700 and 1800s. We have technology, and advertisements, and work all diverting our attention from the real problems we should be thinking about to what new iPhone there is or learning more about a new flavor of Coca Cola. In the 18th century, however, people had time to think and read and study which gave them an advantage on how much they could question around them because nothing was blocking their thoughts. Furthermore, the products of enlightenment end up being just as messed up as society is before the enlightenment. To list a few- forced schooling, money, politics, and prisons all were products of the Enlightenment. Prisons are inhumane ways to treat people who don't follow the laws. Laws come from politics which involves fighting and disobedience and mudslinging. To be involved in politics you need money, which decides rank in society and how high on the social pyramid you are deemed. To get money, you need a job, where adults are miserable for an average of 90,000 hours in a lifetime. To get a "good" job, you need to go to school, where kids are even more miserable for an average of 15,000 hours in a lifetime. The ideas of the Enlightenment clearly contradict the product of the enlightenment, causing for there to be no clear escape from a man's self imposed tutelage until we can break free from the system and take a look in from the outside. The Enlightenment most definitely can happen, humans just need to see how.
Reply
Abigail Joyce
12/1/2014 12:07:46 pm
Kant identifies Aufklarung as an exit or a way out. Now you may be asking out of what? Well out of your self imposed tutelage. Otherwise, your immaturity. Kant is identifying a way of growing up. In our society today, we have not reached a state of complete understanding. If you think about our society on a whole, a vast majority isn't seeking a change, whether it be in equality or other issues, many people are comfortable living this way. I do not believe we cannot live up to it because it is too challenging. I believe many of us don't want to live up to it because it is too much of a change. If you are privileged, you may see society as wonderful. You may think that it is unnecessary to strive for enlightenment because there is nothing wrong. That is an immature state of mind. Enlightenment is trying to get people to think outside of what is in their peripheral vision, to become mature and understanding of the fact that there is something wrong and work to change it. I think that through Enlightenment society could answer Kants question, "What difference does today introduce with respect to yesterday?" and notice how far we could go to achieve true equality.
Reply
Victoria White
12/1/2014 12:43:44 pm
"Kant indicates right away that the 'way out' that characterizes Enlightenment is a process that releases us from the status of
Reply
Charlie Weisman
12/1/2014 01:50:01 pm
The Enlightenment is a hard subject to discuss. On paper, it is an amazing idea. But when it is applied to real life, it is an unreasonable goal to achieve. Actually enlightening an entire society would be impossible. Michele Foucault recognized this, and stated "I do not know if we will ever reach adult mature hood"(Foucault 1). It is funny that you mention Redemption Song by Bob Marley, one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite artists. To expand upon the line you posted, I'll write my favorite line from the song: "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
Reply
Jack McNally
12/1/2014 02:26:32 pm
I’d say that the reason that the “Enlightenment of Humanity” has not occurred yet is because of a flaw in Kant’s theory of enlightenment. He says that everyone has to think on their own and that we can’t reach full “enlightenment” or “adulthood” until we become entirely self reliant. I have to disagree with this, because the entire concept of society is based off of relying on others. Even in the beginning of humanity, civilizations would split up into hunter and gatherers. The hunters would have to trust that the gathers were not picking poisonous foods, and the gatherers would have to trust that the hunters were hunting for fresh meat instead of scavenging for rotten meat. Would Kant say that even the people in these early civilizations were not enlightened because they trusted each other? Kant stated that you are immature “when a doctor decides for you what your diet is to be”, but I think differently (Foucault 1). I think that letting a doctor decide something for you is not an act of immature reliance, but rather a necessary act of trust. You trust that the doctor is doing his job correctly, and society moves forward. However, if one were to question something that a doctor says, than how could they prove him wrong or right. One could do their own research on what their diet should be, but if every single person who talked to a doctor questioned his advice, and ended up doing their own research, then the job of the doctor would no longer be necessary, and much time would be wasted. This is why society put individuals in different work places: so we can rely on each other when it is necessary. It’s impractical to not trust anyone around you, because you will never have the time to do everything for yourself. You have to do your job, and let others do theirs. That is the way society has functioned since the dawn of man, and it should continue to function that way, because it works well, even if there are some flaws.
Reply
James Latimer
12/3/2014 08:20:36 am
You bring up very interesting points that I did not think of myself. Your example of the hunter-gatherers was very well thought out and presented. The part mentioning the doctor was also presented very well. Your paragraph provides the common sense part of the problems with Kant's theory, that following an educated authority in a specific subject saves more time and energy rather than researching everything yourself. Your paragraph provided interesting information and answers that can be considered problems with Kant's enlightenment theory.
Reply
Lauren Kirk
12/2/2014 12:27:36 am
Although the ability of one to think for himself is greatly desired, I think that there is a huge fear that comes with placing too much freedom in the hands of the inexperienced. In Immanuel Kant’s article “What is Enlightenment?” he states that “the man who casts [his self-imposed tutelage] off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement”. When people are placed under the power of another figure, they feel protected from their own potentially wrong decisions. They place themselves in the hands of authorities because it is easier to follow directions than to create their own pathway through reasoning and intense thought. However, Kant greatly encourages the Enlightment; he preaches the importance of using one’s own understanding instead of listening to the words of others without criticizing. He believes “we must grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take” (Foucault). This is tremendously important, as evidenced by history. The European Enlightenment brought “scientific advances [that] laid an indestructible foundation for modern thought, while political and other philosophies questioned and ultimately undermined oppressive, centuries-old traditions in Europe” (The Legacy of the Enlightenment, Sparknotes). The Enlightenment is a very positive concept, and it is crucial that everyone in a society has the ability to use logic and reasoning to form their own opinions. However, the world will never reach total Enlightenment because of the many people who feel the need to have someone in control, whether it is due to their own laziness, or the fear of acting with complete freedom.
Reply
Shaye Gillmartin
12/2/2014 11:17:35 am
I completely agree with you Lauren, you make many great points. It is so true where you say that people will never reach enlightenment because they are either too lazy or have the fear of acting with complete freedom. Everyone grows up relying on others to help them do easy and hard tasks that they become so used to it, that they don't know how to be independent and make their own decisions. You are right on laur !
Reply
Kevin Laughlin
12/2/2014 12:29:32 am
The idea of enlightenment was a very positive and uplifting thought inspired by Emmaunel Kant. Many people took Kant's ideas and decided to change their perspective on life and how they were governed. However, not all people wanted to change their view on life. Many people were satisfied with their rights and how they were governed. Michel Foucaut believes that Kant showed people how to think for themselveswhen he wrote,"Kant showed us how tocritique what we are saying, thinking and doing through a historical study of ourselves" (Foucault 1). However, he uses reverse psychology in his words showing that some people use their freedom of thought to choose to not follow the idea of Enlightenment.
Reply
Juliet Slattery
12/2/2014 05:45:40 am
"And by "immaturity," (Kant) means a certain state of our will that makes us accept someone else's authority to lead us in areas where the use of reason is called for." (Foucault 1) Foucault says how humans will rely and trust in someone else's opinions if this person is in authority. I believe that this is prominent in today's society. Human nature shows how we like to stick together and stay in groups. More often then not we see that someone favors being apart of a family, community, or just with another person. No one wants to be left alone at the lunch table, or be isolated. It is more comfortable to be apart of something and with someone. This is most likely why that "release from self-imposed tutelage", as Kant puts it, is so hard for us. We want to stick to the norm and follow tradition. Change is uncomfortable for anyone, and breaking free from something that has been one way for so long, is so hard and difficult for any one of us to do. Kant's ideal idea of Enlightenment has not been achieved because of this awkwardness that change causes. No one wants to be the first person to try something new. What if it doesn't workout? What if it makes them look bad? No one wants to be the guinea pig for something different. This is the source of us not changing. The negative outlook, and the fear of making a fool of yourself
Reply
Shaye Gilmartin
12/2/2014 11:11:46 am
Kants idea of enlightenment was a very new and different idea, that appeared to be weird to others however it inspired people. Kant defined enlightenment to be a release from self imposed tutelage or as someone escaping “the state of immaturity” (Foucault 1). By that he means people becoming independent and no longer needing to rely on others for guidance. Enlightenment is a good idea and people can reach their own enlightenment, but it is a very difficult thing to do. I think Kants idea does not work out, because everyone grows up doing the same routine every day and having someone in authority telling them what to do but one day they try to go off on their own but are lost because they are so used to their old strict routine. Also, people are too lazy that they do not strive for enlightenment but rather sit back and continue to rely on others. I think by people being so lazy its very difficult to succeed and ultimately escape their state of immaturity. In order for this to change people need to recognize that they need to grow up and change their lifestyle.
Reply
Skylar Simone
12/2/2014 07:21:44 pm
As Aude Sapere said, Enlightmenment is "Dare to Know". You must think outside the box and use your own thoughts. You have to be willing to not always go with the crowd.You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. Foucault talked about the immaturity of mankind. He didn't even know if he could ever become mature enough for all of us to reach Enlightenment. I agree with him because there are approximately 7 billion people in this word and many of them don't want this change in spirit. It is mostly impossible for Enlightenment to happen to everyone. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. There are also many people in this word that can reach it. Its still a start.
Reply
Kent Hottmann
12/3/2014 07:52:41 am
I think that Kant's idea of Enlightenment is impractical, because there is no way that everyone in the world will be able to become enlightened. This is partly because humans just can't change how they think quickly, or sometimes at all. Because most people aren't born learning the ways of Enlightenment, when they find out about it it's too late for them to change their beliefs and the way they think. Maybe if Kant's idea had become popular when he first wrote it, over time it would become a regular thing to learn about Enlightenment. Then, eventually most of the world would become enlightened.
Reply
Emilie Weiner
12/3/2014 07:53:29 am
The Enlightenment movement was a series of questions that encouraged the thought of everyone who pursued it. It would be unfair to peg its completion on either the people or the idea fully, because in order for any idea to be carried out, it must not only be well-developed, but also have the right crowd following it. The Enlightenment still has yet to die (as V said, ideas are immortal), but I do believe that it would have be further developed. The oppression and intolerance of "the other" during the time period it was in full swing erased some of the most important theories of the time. They generated things farther than mental prison; they built real ones. It is not to say that Enlightenment itself is impossible, just, in a sense, malnourished. It needs more; ideas are constantly asking to be fed and grown. On the other hand, the people of the time were not only gullible and narrow minded, their lack of civilization and individuality separated the people from the goal. Foucault says, "Thus Enlightenment must be considered both as a process in which men participate collectively and as an act of courage to be accomplished personally. Men are at once elements and agents of a single process." So in the end, both the people and the ideas needed work – as the most brilliant processes often need! But I do believe Enlightenment can be reached, despite the amount of time it takes.
Reply
James Latimer
12/3/2014 08:13:25 am
Immanuel Kant's Sapere Aude, dare to know, was his formula for an individual's enlightenment, a release from relying on an authority for direction in life. This is an excellent idea for establishing liberty and freedom within oneself, and still one of the most influential ideas from the enlightenment, but it simply cannot be achieved. There are too many variables in society that cause us to become worse people and move farther away from the true idea of the enlightenment. For instance, forcing people into asylums just shows that society is based on "the other". If anybody was seen as "too different", they could have been thrown in an asylum instead of understood and possibly taken seriously. This is limiting people's questioning and critically thinking skills, which was a main idea in the enlightenment. We are also forced to follow the standard of going to school 5 days a week, for many weeks a year. This is society trying to train us to become "normal" people in today's world. This is counter-intuitive to the enlightenment idea, as we are supposed to think for ourselves, not blindly follow the system for most of our young-adult life. Humans are not given opportunities to think freely, as we confine ourselves in following the instructions of the authority figures and not expressing our own thoughts.
Reply
Jack McNally
12/3/2014 11:58:12 am
I like how you showed in your statement that the Enlightenment was a paradox in onto itself. Also it's interesting that you see society as a kind of being that will sometimes transform you into something that you are not, especially in the sense of a school teaching its student on subjects that they could really make up their own mind about. Also, it is good that you leave the reader with a simple statement on your opinion of weather or not an individual can achieve Kant's so called Enlightenment.
Reply
Jake
12/3/2014 08:24:48 am
Kants idea of enlightenment was a very new and different idea, that appeared to be weird to others however it inspired people. Kant defined enlightenment to be a release from self imposed tutelage or as someone escaping “the state of immaturity” (Foucault 1). He means to become non reliant which in some ways is a good thing. People need to be their own person but it is not that easy. People tend to look for the easy way out and like to follow a routine that may not involve much thinking. This hinders Kant's ideas because since people do not always like change a whole enlightenment movement could not work out or be very difficult. For Kant's movement to work people have to stop being immature a grow up finding a way that suites them instead of being a follower. Since change is scary in ways the easy way out for most people is just the to follow someone and an idea instead of creating your own.
Reply
Sierra Lopez
12/3/2014 09:22:08 am
The Enlightenment ideal in which everyone becomes enlightened, or "released from tutelage", as Kant put it, is a lovely concept, but once thought about realistically, is both impractical and in no way possible. It'd be absolutely wonderful if everyone in the world were able to think and make decisions based off of their own thoughts for themselves, but it's just simply too far-fetched to be a possibility. Now, of course, I'm quite a pessimistic person, so I may be seeing the world through a negative bias, but given the vast amount of people in the world and how many of them at any given time are stubborn to their own beliefs, it'd just be too difficult of an idea to implement to ever actually work. Foucault said, "I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood," and I am inclined to agree with that. As with most things, there is a small chance for impossible things to happen (if one were to take an Alice In Wonderland mindset to every impossibility), but with such a daunting task like every person achieving enlightenment, it just seems like it could never actually happen.
Reply
Connor McLoone
12/3/2014 09:43:32 am
The Enlightenment could not have been a better idea. If everyone was to reach true Enlightenment like Kant had imagined, the world would be a phenomenal place to live in. However, that is just not realistic because there are way to many outliers and "troublemakers" in the world. Sadly a society could never rely solely on a persons word, for this could end in many people, and possibly the whole society, being taken advantage of. My opinions coincide very well with those of Foucault as he says "I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood". I think the answer would be no, which would also be saying that for everyone to reach true enlightenment would be impossible. Enlightenment is what our society is constantly striving for in hopes that one day it will be reached, I just find it extremely hard to be optimistic about it.
Reply
Kathleen Murray
12/3/2014 11:01:07 am
When finished reading both Foucault’s opinions on Kant’s idea of Enlightenment and looking at facts about the Enlightenment and some more background on it the realization is that Enlightenment cannot occur properly in our society. According to Kant, one must have “the courage, the audacity to know,” (Foucault 1). Meaning that if you don’t have the strength, bravery, and ability to be fearless, then there can be no enlightenment. There has to be a change in views of society and something that sparks a change of opinion. Right now at this time there has been that spark, but hasn’t had that full impact on people. The main problem with our society today and generations before is we are afraid of change or aren’t prepared for it because we believe change always takes a turn for the worst and in the end doesn’t work out. Foucault I think rather try to make change for the good of others, maybe try to focus on making change for one’s self. That was his idea that we have not reached full Enlightenment because of the limits we put on ourselves. According to Foucault, by limiting ones' choices, one limits what they can achieve.
Reply
Brenna Bonner
12/3/2014 12:06:30 pm
i believe that the Enlightenment is a very good idea. i think that without an Enlightenment and without people being enlightened, this whole world would fall apart. However, i do believe reaching a whole enlightened stage throughout the world with everyone being enlightened is impossible. No matter what, i believe that its way to challenging to always stick to your own thoughts and make decisions off of these thoughts and these thoughts only. For example, if everyone today wears jeans and a tshirt but you would love to come to school in a ball gown, you probably will not wear it because you will stand out, or be called an "other". i agree with Foucault when he said, "I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood." This is so true. No matter how old you get i do not think anyone will completely mature. No matter if you're 9 years old or 50, you will always think spongebob is funny.
Reply
Edith Torres
12/8/2014 12:15:31 am
I believe that the ideas of enlightenment and enlightenment hasn't been completely reached,because people are ignorant towards it. People don't want to believe that there's something beyond our normal dependent thinking. "When a book takes the place of understanding, when a spiritual director takes the place of conscience, when a doctor decides for us what our diet is to be." (Foucault 1) To me those who act more like a child, silly, creative, imaginative, and independent are much more mature。The other kind has lost sight of growth development and building of things that are bright and anew. They think that all hope is lost and that through perfection and order things will get better. But ultimately, these many immature figures are just afraid that they'll become a child, again. What they don't realize is that it's much better to have the youthful mind of a child, then anything else. After all, as said numerous times, children are our future of the world.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
AuthorMr. Justin Biggs Archives
August 2016
|