Immanuel Kant argues how during the period of the enlightenment people used to rely heavily on other to make decisions for them. Now, an important question to ask ourselves is why do these people choose to live like this? To this question, Kant argues that it is because of laziness. If people are deciding what you should eat or where should you work why should you bother to do it your own. I also think that it because of fear because as the time period suggests, we know that during this times if you went against the rules of the authority you could get punish or even killed. This reading, on the other hand, uses repeatedly the word “light” represents freedom. A freedom that according to him can be achieved by the use of public reason, for example, by becoming public intellectuals. When I think about Kant’s ideas it resonates a lot to my teenage years because growing up my parents who in this case symbolize the authority make all my decisions for me. I couldn’t decide on small things such as what kind of clothes I wanted to wear or bigger issues such as giving my opinion a topic because it will be taken as invalid, or as a joke as I will feel, just because I was a kid. Once I decided to think on my own, I started questioning my parent’s way of educating me and finally became aware of all the different ideas that people have that I could relate to.  

Kant suggest that the lack of enlightenment is the exact reason tutelage exist. People are too fearful to give reason to their thoughts therefore, it is rather easier to let someone “protect” them than to think for themselves. To have the courage to venture into uncharted territories is to be enlightened. The reason governments have so much authority over the general public is because the public is too afraid to become intellectuals which would mean to go out of the ordinary. To be enlightened is to be able to use human intelligence and reasoning to guide one to truth, change and progress. I strongly agree with his statement because, without questioning norms and traditions, there would be no progress. It is still relevant today as the political state of many places around the world only seem to deteriorate. The general public gives the ones in authority the power to suppress them by not becoming intellectuals and giving up their freedom to the hand of the authority. Freedom is the key aspect of being enlightened and often people think they have freedom when they actually don’t. Monarchies or governments are not the only one to be blamed for depriving the general public from education and suppressing them to obedience through manipulation. The people after all have the power to fight and when they pull up the courage to take action, they will see progress.

Enlightenment thinkers, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, all had very similar beliefs of what made an individual enlightened and what made a society/nation enlightened. An enlightened person was defined as “one who dares to think for himself… trampling on prejudice, tradition, conventional wisdom, authority, in a word, all that enslaves most minds” according to the French Encyclopedie. Many enlightenment thinkers also disagreed with religion and authority in general. Europeans, during the age of exploration, sought out unfamiliar territory to find new goods and services to bring back to their land. Being exposed to a nation governed by reason and rationality, Europeans looked down upon native countries and cities that governed their nation based on their religious faith, traditions and culture. They saw them as “primitive and unreasonable” human beings, not to mention, “childlike” and basically inferior to the people back in Europe. Kant believed in enlightened monarchs with strict order and a “well disciplined army” not a country that is convinced to change their opinions constantly based upon what the higher authority had to tell them or a purely democratic nation.

Reading through “What is Enlightenment?,” there were many ideas and concepts that I agreed with that Kant or the Enlightenment thinkers believed in, some of which include the notion of freedom, rationalism and critical thinking as factors to what defined an enlightened person. But there were definitely a few ideas that I personally disagreed with. In the beginning of the reading, the author established what makes a human being human? They asserted that human beings, unlike animals, are governed with the faculty of reason: having the capacity to reflect on the the relationships between object or events throughout their lives. Though according to Enlightenment thinkers this is the characteristic that makes a human being human, a woman isn’t acquitted the same freedom and authority that men possess. Many of the enlightenment beliefs allude to supporting the notion that inequality of reason and knowledge varies among gender, race and religious beliefs, which I must say I personally disagree with. Kant’s belief that an enlightened nation is one that has strict order shows in part his support for inequality which still is very much present even today. The notion that your religious background or your ethnic background plays a factor in the superiority of your knowledge and reasoning capacity is completely absurd. We have successful Christian advocates, we have successful Muslims, there successful Asians and African Americans, not limited to the Europeans only.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s main beliefs about enlightenment are summed up on Page 102 of the reading. He believed that debate, along with the access to information, was the way to enlightenment. I wholeheartedly agree with that belief. As a journalist and radio host, as well as an aspiring lawyer, I know how valuable debate can be. It opens up the minds of all parties debating, allowing for everyone’s ideas and beliefs to manifest themselves in the minds of their counterparts. The access to information is crucial to the success of a debate. In Kant’s time, they had the encyclopedia, as well as newspapers and magazines. Those who had access were able to debate with others about their beliefs about the issues they were debating. With the dawn and importance of the internet today, we not only have access to a plethora of information, but also forums to spread that information to others and debate with others. The spread of ideas between people, whether or not they agree with the ideas, will still expose the parties to a different view on an issue or topic, allowing the people to form their own thoughts and opinions. That, in a nutshell, is enlightenment. The ability to take the ideas of others, and combine them with our own to form our own opinions and ideas ourselves, is the basis of enlightenment for humans.

(Sorry for the late submission, I did not know I was in Group 2 until I checked a few minutes ago).

According to Kant, the freedom to use one’s own reason against traditional authorities can enlighten the public. It should not harm the whole of society and others. One must work for public interests as a member of the community. Kant’s enlightenment generally surveys the ideals of thinking in general rather than considering traditional authorities, or history. In other words, Kant believes that the ideals of enlightenment can be realized in reality. However, people in reality do not live only with the freedom to use one’s own reason. Rather, the world of human habitation and the process of history have inevitably been determined by its own laws. Laws of history is made from universal truth and human free will and acquired experience so, humans can not ignore their experiences while living their lives. I believe that human beings learn the world through experience and also create laws of life. Therefore, unless we try to realize the ideal, the efforts can never be achieved unless it conforms to the historical tide of traditional authorities. Kant says, “Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey!”, and he answers “the public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.” These propositions contain Kant’s intention not only to maintain social order, but also to seek social progress through public use of reason. However, contrary to Kant’s position, there is a contradiction in this logic. If humans truly have the freedom to use one’s own reason, an individual can think, blame, criticize, argue and disobey the public.

I disagree with Kant’s suggestion that each person can be both a “scholar,” as Kant put it, and fulfill another, contradicting position at the same time. On Page 107, Kant points to a clergyman that is in his free time a scholar, who is bound to preach along the rules of the church, unable to act against the confines of religion is free to criticize it in his free time; this is an unhealthy idea that leads to such concepts as a preacher that will collect donations for the church and then behind the backs of his donors repurpose these funds to serve some personal indulgence such as furniture or an airplane. Furthermore, this suggests that he is obligated to teach to others information that he, and others, may find to be uncertain or entirely incorrect. His obligation to abide by the rules and teachings of his church, then, would lead him to deliberately misinform those under his tutelage despite the fact that he can, via free thinking, take an opposing stance and speak the truth. Similarly, an officer should not necessarily be ruined by resisting an order of a superior officer if said order leads him to do something heinous, up to and including criminal activity.

Sam Kelley

On page 101, Kant first discusses critical thinking and how it is a necessary daily habit and “a legacy to the Enlightenment.” This really struck me because in my life I am familiar with people who follow a political voice. The political voices are not actively involved in politics themselves but rather will digest the news that they deem relevant, translate it into their own words and then give it to their audience. Many people follow these political voices religiously and the fact is that their involvement in our political system is majorly governed by them. People trust one person more than a news source because they have the misconceived notion that there is a personal relationship between them and the political voice. Although, the truth is that these people who can dictate certain contributions in the political system most often aren’t saying the things they say because they truly believe them but because they know that they will gain higher ratings and maybe boost their viewing or listening numbers. In short, some people need to acquire their own voice rather than just trusting one person that they have been following for the past few years.

Kant’s thoughts could also apply to identity politics so rather than believing that because you fall into a certain ethnic or racial group you must vote for one person you should gain your own individualism. Both dutifully following a political voice or acting a way because you fall into a certain class or group are easy traps to fall in to but we should cultivate our critical thinking so “we become independent and skeptical adults , never carried away by mere prejudice or habit, and willing to examine all beliefs.”

Ruth Jean-Lubin

One of the many propositions given by Immanuel Kant about the notion of enlightenment is that the only tool necessary to gain enlightenment is freedom (106). Although at first I agreed with this statement, the deeper I thought about it I realized that this statement cannot be completely true. I say this because in my opinion there is not really a complete level of freedom that one can achieve. For example, America claims to have religious freedom, however this is not truly a complete freedom due to the fact that there are still restrictions both the government and society places on that “freedom.” For example, the beliefs of Christianity cannot be taught in public education in the United States while other historical religions and beliefs are allowed to be taught. An example of societal restrictions is that it is looked down upon to seek about one’s belief in God to those who do not believe. This shows that we can’t reach the public freedom that Kant describes in his reply to “what is enlightenment?” If one cannot truly say what they want where they want then how can we achieve the “freedom to make public use of one’s reason at every point” which Kant says is a requirement to gain enlightenment. Therefore, freedom cannot be the main requirement for one to obtain in order to begin their enlightenment process. Instead I would say that realizing the people or things that have influence over you and your thoughts would be the main requirement to becoming enlightened.

Kody Liang

On page 102 of the reading, Immanuel Kant argued that “debate was itself crucial to the process of enlightenment. He claimed that societies would make progress only if they opened all questions to public deliberation, inviting a full discussion of alternatives.” This statement by Kant can relate to what is happening in our country today. Just recently, President Trump decided to put an end to DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA protects undocumented children that were taken into the United States of America at a young age from deportation. There are over 800,000 young adults that were brought into the United States illegally that has little-to-no knowledge of their birthplace. DACA helps these children live without fear of deportation. But Trump announces the end of DACA and orders Congress to think of a replacement within 6 months. Trump made no action to find a replacement and talk about the consequences of removing DACA. Children that are a part of DACA are known as dreamers. If there is no replacement, the dreamers will eventually be deported back to their country where they were born. These Dreamers have started to speak out in hope of Donald Trump to listen and change his mind about his decision. As Kant says, societies would make progress only if they opened all questions to public deliberation, inviting a full discussion of alternatives. This is what we need to help what is happening in this country.

(While I had emailed this to you on the day it was due, I am posting it here now since I didn’t know how to before, sorry about that.)

In Basho’s travel notebook, he stylistically writes in both prose and poetry. His use of prose serves to express his journey in terms of observations as the language is more straightforward while his use of poetry expresses feelings that are more indirect. By intertwining prose writing with poetry, Basho is able to depict what he sees on his journey and how he feels about it. The haiku serves to describe his emotional state. For example when the season is changing along with the beauty of the place he resides, Basho writes in prose: “Not passing any place without attending to its beauty, from time to time he wrote some moving poems. And now, facing departure…” then in poetry: “scribbled on,/ now the fan is torn up:/ reluctant parting” (148). These lineated verses come after his description which illustrate how it feels to disregard the fan used in the summer and adjust to the cool weather of early autumn. Basho purposefully chooses to write in poetry when describing this feeling because it would not have the same meaning to it if it were written in prose. Throughout the text, Basho makes the stylistic choice to write in prose and in poetry to emphasize that when he writes in prose, we as the reader understand only what he directly says. Whereas in poetry we can give our own meaning to it. Essentially the reader is able to see through Basho’s eyes in prose and then incorporate our own vision to Basho’s experience with nature.