Kant's Views on Attaining Enlightenment

For centuries, governments have struggled to reach the correct balance freedom and regulation for a society to be best suited. Some believe that strong civil liberties allow people to freely express themselves and make the best decisions based on their decisions. Others believe governments should regulate “bad” behavior to keep people on the correct path. In “What is Enlightenment?”, Immanuel Kant provides his views on how to best balance these two ideas to attain “enlightenment”.

Kant defines enlightenment as the ability to use and act upon one’s own rationality. He states that the main reason people are often unable to do this is the fact that they lack the courage to make their own decisions. It is often easy to allow society to take control of the way we act and think, preventing us from making our own decisions. This “laziness” is understandable, as the human instinct is to avoid unnecessary pain. The full use of reason requires practice in order to be fully developed. Kant even goes as far as to state that conflict is necessary for reason to develop, which is also understandably avoided. However Kant describes these as individuals to reach enlightenment and for societies to truly flourish.

Established religion is used as a strong example in “What is Enlightenment?” as an example of a societal lack of critical thinking. In a church, individuals attend ceremonies in which a pastor describes how they should be thinking. Rather than deriving morals and ethics from rational thinking, they allow themselves to mirror the mindset of the other members of their church. Furthermore, Kant explains how the pastor himself must also suspend his critical thinking. As a pastor, he is “bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition.” The pastor may use his critical thinking to find errors with these lessons, however he will not pass on this information to his congregation, as it is not his job to do so. With a congregation blindly following a pastor and a pastor blindly following his religious teachings, churches exemplify Kant’s idea of laziness. By relying on others for these ideas, individuals avoid burdensome thought, however they also avoid the increased understanding that would come from thinking about these issues.

Despite Kant’s calls for greater rational thinking, he does not believe that total freedom will lead to enlightenment. In describing an enlightened society, Kant separates public freedom from private freedom. He views the current climate as one in which people are told to refrain from arguing and just obey. Kant believes it is still required for people to obey the rules of their society in order for it to work properly, but that argument should be encouraged, or in his words "argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!". Public freedom is the ability to argue and think rationally in an open and free manner. This is the only way that the public can truly strive towards enlightenment. However, there would be no issue restricting private freedom, which would be viewed as obeying the rules necessary for a smooth running society. An example of this contrast would be an individual publicly decrying a supposed unfair taxation, while continuing to pay the tax. This allows individuals to strive towards enlightenment without disrupting the workings of a society.

When comparing the work of Kant to those of other philosophers, it is notably more realistic than some. The idea of maintaining order by restricting private use of reason shows Kant is less concerned with a overhaul of existing laws, simply a change in the way we think. Additionally, “What is Enlightenment?” reinforces the idea that quick revolutions are uneffective at helping people reach enlightenment, changes are only made through slow changes in thought. However, there are instances in which restricting private reason and focusing on slow changes would lead to problematic outcomes. Throughout American history, blacks have faced discrimination not only through the ideas of individuals, but even through discriminatory laws. Kant’s view of a situation like slavery or the African American civil rights movement would likely have been that rational thinking would slowly lead to a time in which slaves are freed or blacks are given equal rights. However these slow changes would have kept blacks enslaved or repressed until the full transformation was complete. The freeing of the slaves or the civil rights laws would be seen as breaking the restrictions on private reason. Kant’s ideas lay a good ground for a society in which people freely share ideas and think critically, however there are some extreme cases in which these ideas do not hold up.

Essay on Aristotle's "The Nicomachean Ethics"

One of the defining features of humans is our self awareness and free will. These attributes often lead us to believe we are in total control of our actions and character. However, in “The Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle argues that individuals are the product of their environments, with their values and ethics shaped by the society in which they live in. Furthermore, he explains that our adherence to these principles is dependent on our upbringing. 

One of the key points of Aristotle’s thesis is that the character of a human is dependent on the society in which they live. From the day we are born, we are constantly being trained on the types of behaviors that our society views as correct.We can explain the social forces that mold an individual as a current. When an individual conforms to social norms, they move smoothly along the path set out by society. However, one who deviates from the pattern set by society will be met with resistance and struggle. Aristotle breaks the virtues that we learn into two categories: intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are explicitly instructed to us, and requires “experience and time” for us to learn them. However, moral virtues are learned through experience. We first experience these virtues by observing them in others, and acquire them by practice and repetition. It important that humans learn these virtues at a young age, as the older one gets, the more they become resistant to changes in their virtues, and Aristotle argues that virtues are not something that can not simply be consciously changed.

In addition to explaining where humans attain their virtues from, Aristotle also explains what makes different behaviors “virtuous”. First of all, an individual must have full awareness of the action they are taking and it’s expected outcome. The person must then deliberately chose to take a virtuous action, rather than have that action forced upon them or happen out of habit. Accidentally helping out someone else would not be viewed as virtuous because the person did not intend or expect to be helpful. Finally, the action taken by the individual must be taken in following their “own firm and immutable character.” Many small children act correctly under their parents’ watch, but this does not make their actions virtuous. The drive to take virtuous actions must be a part of the person’s character. However, Aristotle does make clear that the character of a person is based on their actions rather than their emotions, stating “for we are not called good or bad for our emotions but for our virtues or vices.” In following with the idea that the basic human goal is to seek pleasure and avoid pain, Aristotle notes that we can use these ideas to measure how strong one’s moral virtues are. An individual who has been trained well with moral virtues should experience pleasure for doing the right types of things and pain for doing the wrong types of things. While Aristotle expresses criteria for the types of behaviors we can identify as virtuous, he is clear to state that these virtues are not part of humans by nature, “for nothing that exists by nature can be transformed by habit,” as he says.

The result of this training of an individual is what Aristotle calls “Prudence”. Prudence is the ability of an individual to recognize the correct course of action and make it. Virtuous people must be able to analyze a given situation and rationally conclude the correct course of action to be taken. To act in accordance with what society deems is virtuous behavior, Aristotle explains that actions must fall into the mean, “which is equally distinct from both its extremes.” This means that actions should not be too excessive, nor insufficient. For example, when someone is in the threat of physical harm, a virtuous person should aid them rather than choose inaction. However, it would be foolish for that person to place themself in a situation where they too are at risk of physical injury. Prudence should tell the person to act according to the mean of the situation and safely help the person.

After reading these select portions of “The Nicomachean Ethics”, it is clear that the social forces described by Aristotle are very much a driving factor of today’s society. While humans do have some generic traits expressed by all, much of the character of a person can be seen as coming from the environment that they come from. Additionally, many people present themselves and even pride themselves on taking a firm stance on their values. For example, many people see themselves as always honest, always helpful or always brave. However, the actions of these people will then show them taking the mean course of action. Humans are social beings, and Aristotle’s writings help show us the way society sculpts and molds who we are as people.