Thinking about the Enlightenment

Modernity and its Ramifications

Martin Davies

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317238348
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Thinking about the Enlightenment looks beyond the current parameters of studying the Enlightenment, to the issues that can be understood by reflecting on the period in a broader context. Each of the thirteen original chapters, by an international and interdisciplinary team of contributors, illustrates the problematic legacy of the Enlightenment and the continued ramifications of its thinking since the eighteenth century. Together, they consider whether modernity can see its roots in the intellectual revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The collection is divided into six sections, preceded by a comprehensive introduction to the field and the most recent scholarship on the period. Across the sections, the contributors consider modern day encounters with Enlightenment thinking, including Kant's moral philosophy, the conflict between reason and faith, the significance of the Enlightenment of law and the gender inequality that persisted throughout the eighteenth century. By examining specific encounters with the problematic results of Enlightenment concerns, the contributors are able to illuminate and offer new perspectives on topics such as human nature, race, politics, gender and rationality.

Drawing from history, philosophy, literature and anthropology, this book enables students and academics alike to take a fresh look at the Enlightenment and its legacy in the modern world.

PART I

Thinking about Kant and the Enlightenment

1

KANT’S CONCEPT OF ENLIGHTENMENT: INDIVIDUAL AND UNIVERSAL DIMENSIONS

Olga Poznjakova

In this essay I plan to outline two dimensions within Kant’s concept of the Enlightenment: the individual and the universal.

First I will demonstrate a traditional interpretation of Kant’s idea of the Enlightenment based on the context of his essay ‘An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?’ Then I will show the importance of the Enlightenment on a specifically individual level. I will emphasise the difference between the internal and the external motivational impulse of a human being to be enlightened. I will demonstrate that the fact of an external motivation to the Enlightenment contradicts Kant’s teaching about the universal character of human nature.

After that I will underline the significance of Kant’s concept of the Enlightenment on a unsiversal level. Giving a brief summary of Kant’s philosophy of history, I will show the role of the Enlightenment in the life of people on their way to the ‘perpetual peace’, a ‘world-civil society’, and a cosmopolitan world order within Kant’s philosophical system. Finally I will argue that Kant’s concept of the Enlightenment should become one of the main principles of the doctrine of international cooperation in the twenty-first century.

Introduction

Immanuel Kant is probably the most important philosopher of the past 2,000 years. He lived near the end of the Enlightenment, a European cultural movement that spanned the eighteenth century. Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire and David Hume sought to replace the traditions and superstitions of religion and monarchy with a world-view that relied primarily on the powers of reason. Kant’s work belongs to this tradition. His three Critiques investigate the scope and powers of reason and emphasise that the proper study of metaphysics is our own rational faculties, not the sort of theological questions that occupied earlier generations.

The Enlightenment drew from, and furthered, the development of the new science that had begun during the Renaissance and inspired the republican revolutions in France and America. Kant was at his most productive around the time of these two great revolutions, but as he spent his entire life in eastern Prussia, he was largely untouched by the world events unfolding around him. Nevertheless, he wrote a number of important essays on political questions, particularly one discussing the possibility of perpetual peace.

Kant’s influence has been immense. No philosopher since Kant has remained entirely untouched by his ideas. Even when the reaction to Kant is negative, he is the source of great inspiration. German idealism, which arose in the generation after Kant, draws heavily on Kant’s work even as it rejects some of his central ideas. Similarly, the tradition of analytical philosophy, which has dominated the English-speaking world for the past century, takes its start from Gottlob Frege’s criticisms of Kant.

In this essay we will try to investigate Kant’s attitude towards the Enlightenment process beginning from its traditional interpretation based on the context of Kant’s essay ‘An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?’ (Kant 1983: 29–37). It will be shown that there are at least two dimensions within Kant’s concept of the Enlightenment: individual and universal. Both of the interpretations will be based on the understanding of the main principles and aims of Kantian philosophy as a whole system.

The traditional interpretation of the idea of the Enlightenment within Kant’s philosophical teaching

While analysing Kant’s idea of the Enlightenment within its individual and universal dimensions it is important to reveal the essence of its traditional interpretation based on Kant’s fundamental essay ‘An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?’ (Kant 1983: 29–37). It should be considered in the context of the intellectual atmosphere that prevailed in Europe in the eighteenth century.

By that time in Germany, as well as in France, England, and Scotland, the process of the Enlightenment was already widespread. However, there was still no consensus on a fundamental theoretical level about the answer to the question ‘What is Enlightenment?’ This problem was raised for the first time in France by Diderot in 1755 in the fifth volume of his Encyclopedia. In Germany, it becomes a matter for discussion only in the 1780s, on the eve of the French Revolution.

The thing is that Kant gives his answer to the question ‘What is Enlightenment?’ from a point of view completely different from the vision of his contemporaries. His intellectual position was presented as original and rather sophisticated. His way of thinking reached Berlin from distant Königsberg, but that had little to do with the debate conducted by his colleagues in the capital of Prussia. Kant makes an appeal for freedom of thought because ‘When one does not deliberately attempt to keep men in barbarism, they will gradually work out of that condition by themselves’ (Kant 1983: 33). This idea has saved the life of the Kantian interpretation of the Enlightenment, while all the rest discussed in the 1780s had to disappear in the crucible of history.

Kant characterises the world historical process as a plan of Nature intended for the human race, for the full development of all the best human abilities. He defines the Enlightenment as a turning point, one of the most exciting stages of the development of human mind. In revealing its essence as another mechanism for overcoming the natural status between individuals and for achieving a society of world-citizens, he elucidates the fundamental principles that should guide people towards achieving the Enlightenment.

First, there is the principle of judgement based on one’s own reason. Kant shows that before the Enlightenment humanity was not used to applying its rational capacity independently. In his opinion, people have previously been unable to use their intellect without guidance from someone else. He defines such a condition as ‘tutelage’ (Kant 1983: 35) and explains its characteristic feature as ‘willing to remain for a lifetime adolescent’ because of ‘laziness and cowardice’ (Kant 1983: 34). Moreover, Kant says that tutelage is exhibited most shamefully in respect to the sciences and the arts.

The Age of Enlightenment, in the opinion of Immanuel Kant, has made possible a new type of culture based on the ability to form reasonable judgements, the ability to use your own intellect without guidance from other people. Hence, Kant says that ‘Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed tutelage’ (Kant 1983: 29) which produces a ‘true transformation of the way of thinking’ (Kant 1983: 31). The ability to form judgements for oneself is a fundamental characteristic of a human ‘adult’, guided by the rule ‘Sapere Aude!’ – ‘Have the courage to use your own understanding!’ (Kant 1983: 29), marked by Kant as the motto of the Enlightenment.

Second, there is the principle of free rational judgement. Kant argues that freedom is a necessary condition for the implementation of the Enlightenment process intended to transform the way people think. He also notes: ‘It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable’ (Kant 1983: 36). The task to provide people with this freedom belongs to a new type of society that Kant calls ‘a society of world-citizens’. Moreover, the philosopher regards the restriction of freedom of judgement as a restriction of freedom in general, and declares it a major crime against humanity.

Third, there is the principle of freedom and obedience. Kant’s arguments about the need for restricting freedom must be of particular interest. In his opinion, not all kinds of freedom can be useful for the Enlightenment process and not every restriction of freedom prevents people from being enlightened. Speaking about the problem of the co-existence of civil and spiritual freedom, Kant concludes that the more civil liberty people get, the less spiritual freedom is left for them, and vice versa. Further, Kant makes a distinction between the ‘public’ and the ‘private use of reason’ (Kant 1983: 31), and attributes to them varying degrees of freedom. By the public use of one’s reason he means that use ‘which a man, as scholar, makes of it before the reading public’ (ibid.). For Kant the public use of reason is an expression of spiritual freedom, exemplified by the relationship between a scientist or academic and his readership. As far as its private use is concerned, Kant calls it a ‘use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him’ (ibid.). Under the private use of reason Kant understands reasoning concerning matters of an ‘official’ character, and believes that its degree of freedom should be limited for reasons of compliance with the official order. So, Kant comes to the conclusion that for an enlightened state the private use of freedom is not acceptable, and puts forward the following formula which describes the proper condition of affairs: ‘Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!’ (ibid.).

It should be added that Kant considered his age to be not yet ‘enlightened’ because ‘it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal [of religious truth] is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general Enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed tutelage are gradually diminishing. In this respect this is the age of the Enlightenment and the century of Frederick [the Great]’ (Kant 1983: 33).

Defining Enlightenment as a mechanism for overcoming the natural state of the people, the German thinker aims to answer the question of how pure reason can determine the human will. Since it does not contain anything empirical, and human actions are always based on empirical assumptions and are intended to achieve the objectives of the empirical world, pure reason must act on its own fundamentally different level, prescribing the necessary laws for action. The necessity of empirical behaviour is always hypothetical; that is, it always aims to achieve a particular, meaningful purpose. Therefore, from Kant’s point of view the law of pure reason cannot contain anything empirical and generally cannot contain any specific content. Consequently, the subject for which pure reason legislates must be only its form. This explains Kant’s formulation of his famous, fundamental law of pure practical reason, according to which a person should act so that the maxim of his or her will at all times could also be set as a principle of universal law. Therefore, the moral law is certainly important for every rational being, or, in other words, the law is certainly important for each person to the extent that he or she is guided by reason. Kant is well aware of that fact that human actions are determined most of the time by their empirical motives, and above all – by human egotism and selfishness in their very different ways. Moreover, Kant has no illusions about the fact that this circumstance can be fundamentally changed because it is only holy people who ultimately are capable of acting always in accordance with the moral law and solely on the basis of pure reason. However, every person has the ability to control his or her actions, which requires only the freedom to make decisions, supported by the process of Enlightenment in society.

It should be emphasised that, according to Kant, Nature wants people to be enlightened about how to use freely the ideas of pure reason in empirical conditions, that is, to act in accordance with the categorical imperative. As a result, Kant anticipates the full development of the best qualities of an individual as a representative of a human race. And even if the ‘society of world-citizens’, determined by reason, can never be achieved, it should still be an ideal purpose for us, meant for creating the most favourable conditions for the existence of civilisation in the future. Therefore, the process of the Enlightenment cannot be reduced to simple historical and political action. The process is important within itself: a person should enlighten him- or herself, rather than the educated elite enlighten uneducated people. Moreover, a human intention towards Enlightenment comes from the trouble [die Not] people cause for each other without proper guidance by the laws of Reason. Ultimately, this situation will force people to create a legal civil order in which they will be able to enlighten themselves. After all, the implementation of a permanent Enlightenment process promotes the highest value of a human being – his or her dignity, which in Kant’s philosophy of history is directly related to the implementation of morality, of the categorical imperative, and the establishment of a ‘society of world-citizens’.

Kant’s idea of the Enlightenment on the individual scale

In order to get the full understanding of Kant’s idea of the Enlightenment it would not be enough to investigate its traditional interpretation based only on Kant’s essay ‘An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?’. To depict fully its meaning within Kant’s philosophical teaching, the idea of the Enlightenment needs to be considered on not just a universal but also an individual level. In this section we will reveal the essence of the controversial character of the Enlightenment process on the individual, transcendental, and empirical scale. For this purpose we will need to explicate Kant’s concept of the universal character of human nature.

Kant’s teaching about the universal character of human nature

It is well known that the question ‘What is a human?’ plays a fundamental role in the Kantian philosophical system. The answer to this question can be summarised in Kant’s teaching about the universal character of human nature. The essence of this teaching will be analysed further.

Speaking about human nature in general, one must admit that almost all the philosophers somehow touched upon this problem during different historical periods. Thus, in pre-Kantian philosophy European thinkers were mostly concerned with the issue of whether a man is by nature a good or, on the contrary, an evil being. Some philosophers (for example, Hobbes) argued that human beings are evil by nature, so that civilisation and civil society are given to them to restrain their evil inclinations. Other philosophers (like Rousseau, for instance) were convinced that human beings are originally good and all the evil comes from the perversion of human nature. The third group of philosophers believed that human beings are neither good nor evil by nature, but they would become one or the other depending on the social environment. This, in particular, was the point of view of the French materialists of the eighteenth century.

Where the Kantian doctrine about the universal character of human nature is concerned, it doesn’t belong to any of those trends shown above. Kant rather argues that a human being has an opportunity to be moral a priori, but he or she has to develop this skill during all their life. In essence, one can distinguish two levels in Kant’s teaching about the universal character of human nature: the epistemological and the ethical.

The epistemological level

On the epistemological level Kant shows that it is the knowledge a priori that makes a human different from all the other creatures in the world. Thanks to the discovery of a priori forms of sensibility and reason, Kant develops his doctrine which will be later called the ‘Copernican revolution’. According to this idea objects must conform to our knowledge but not vice versa. This thesis means that a number of fundamental characteristics of objects depends on the nature of our (human) cognitive abilities. It also means that any object of our knowledge must obey the universal forms of sensibility and reason, as a condition of the possibility of human experience. Kant’s concept of space and time, the theory of the deduction of categories and the theory of imagination and schematism play here the fundamental role.

Moreover, the notion of the transcendental unity of self-consciousness and the transcendental unity of apperception, this central element of a human nature on its transcendental level, creates a background for our understanding of human nature. Ascribing the ability of reason to the synthesis of categories, Kant is able to explain the unity of consciousness of a thinking subject. He declares that the ‘transcendental unity of self-consciousness’ is given us a priori, which means that it doesn’t need to be proven. He also calls this ‘subjective unity of consciousness’ which has an a priori character – ‘the supreme principle of any cognition’ (Kant 1998b: 183).

Apart from that, Kant develops his theory of a priori ideas of pure reason (cf. The Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Diale...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I Thinking about Kant and the Enlightenment
• PART II Thinking about Enlightenment and politics
• PART III Thinking about Enlightenment and religion
• PART IV Thinking about Enlightenment and gender
• PART V Thinking about Enlightenment and its limits
• PART VI Postscripts: Thinking about Enlightenment thinking
• Index