Agnostic.com
4 1

What is Enlightenment?

Was ist Aufklarung?

ENLIGHTENMENT IS man’s release form his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own reason!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understand for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself, I need not think, if I can only pay–others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.

That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex)–quite apart from its being arduous–is seen by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from further trials.

For any single individual to work himself out of the life under tutelage with has become almost his nature is very difficult. He has come to be fond of this state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible indeed, if only freedom is granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow. Fore there will always be some independent thinkers, even among established guardians of the great masses, who, after throwing off the yoke of tutelage from their own shoulders, will disseminate the spirit of the rational appreciation of both their own worth and every man’s vocation for thinking for himself. But be it noted that the public, which has first been brought under this yoke bound when it is incited to do so by some of the guardians who are themselves capable of some enlightenment–so harmful is it to implant prejudices, for they later take vengeance on their cultivators or on their decedents. Thus the public can only slowly attain enlightenment. Perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking. Rather, new prejudices will serve as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking mass.

For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required by freedom, and indeed the most harmless among all the things to which this term can be properly applied. It is the freedom to make public one’s use of reason at every point. But I hear on all sides, “Do not argue!” The officer says: “Do not argue but drill!” The tax collector: “Do not argue but pay!” The cleric: “Do not argue but believe!” Only one prince in the world says, “Argue as much as you will and about what you will, but obey!” Everywhere there is restriction on freedom. ~ Immanuel Kant

The above is after the introduction by John Rajchman from the book THE POLITICS OF TRUTH by Michel Foucault.

Arachne 6 Apr 8
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

My stage so far, though I appreciate that the fact that I am still alive despite many, many "close calls" indicates to me that there are lessons still to be learned: No material thing has any value. Envy is wanting stuff that has no value and so pointless. Regret is pointless since any change in the fabric of existence cannot be known to be better. Everyone is doing the best that they can. You can disapprove of what they are doing but they are still doing the best that they can. There is only one value that has any meaning whatsoever and that is love. All indications that I have seen/experienced tells me that in some unknown form we continue living after what we call death. My hope is that either we add another dimension or there is some enormous perception change such that looking back becomes meaningless.
I find the concept of transmigration of souls without memory of previous learning totally pointless. I fine atheistic concepts as crazy as religions. What I do not have are beliefs and that may be the whole point. I hope that this life is merely a nursery.

0

Ah yes, enlightenment ..... I have another White Russian and another game of chess please and thank you! 🤗😁🤪

Kodiamus Level 7 Apr 9, 2020
1

Enlightenment is the attainment of understanding that everything is illusion. It is one thing to suspect this but another to realise it. The only factor in existence that has any meaning is love. Everything else are nursery effects trying to help you progress to this understanding. My hope is that I can reach it before death and meet Kdihr. I presume that I won't because it is so hard to look at material things and to also know that they do not exist.

I'm convinced too that the whole purpose of philosophy is, or should be love. I guess that's Platonic, as in anagoge. I'm familiar with Kant's notion of appearances being the closes we can get to things-in-themselves but surely a lot of other Enlightenment philosophers disagreed with him? I think that when science took off during that period, they stopped trying to understand the true nature of things and busied themselves just learning to control nature.

Descartes would disagree with you. Cogito ergo sum. Eyes are deceptive are they not? For something to be an illusion wouldn't others not be able to see what is or at least be subjective about the object? Love...the thing that is not tangible nor quantitative. Can you know the love of another? Can you tell to which degree they love you? Perhaps it is easier to hold your own and to quantify it as well. I don't know, but I question it because I had once pondered that I only know my level of love for another and it purity. Never could I be sure of the sameness as scales are not applicable.

@brentan Perhaps philosophy should be about love of wisdom as the word suggests. However, how does one gain wisdom? Where does it come from? Schopenhauer surely disagreed with Kant and he was adamant about his feelings toward him in The World of Will and Representation. Philosophy led to the sciences, but the philosopher still sought that something. We could look at Camus, Foucault, Satre and see the art of seeking did not die; it evolved with the times. The age of enlightenment was a period in time, however, I have to say that enlightenment did not stop after that time period. We could argue it though. I don't mean to be as I am, but it is my nature to be as I am.

@Arachne Yes I'm OK disagreeing with Descartes. I started with Plato and Socrates but that was when I was 15. At 30 I encountered Sufis and although I totally rejected their Islamic teachings I started on a new way of thought. We are taught all that we live within. Colours are defined to us. Words are given meanings. But none of that explains anything except our temporal understanding. The challenge is to figure out why we are here and my answer is to learn something. I know not what it it is but those who have had near death experiences report what I had concluded that we are here to learn love in a world that so purportedly delights in hate. I died once but too briefly for an out of body experience. The only out of body experience I ever had was during a fall off a roof. That taught me total acceptance of it being as it is.. Love is something that we come to understand more as we age. It is muddied by desires at first. We have to get beyond desires and expectations. Total acceptance is part of what we must achieve.

@Arachne I guess how to gain wisdom has been the question of the ages. I think it was wisdom about the divine nature and our relation to its reality when Plato dealt with it. I'm putting in a video where a guy explains it. It's covered from 40 mins to 45 mins. You might want to check it out.

I'm not saying Kant was right. He's being criticised to this day.

I think philosophers stopped looking for enlightenment in the sense of understanding the true nature of reality. Granted, they want to understand the human condition and what makes it tick but not in the old sense of aligning ourselves to the true nature of reality as was done from Plato to Aquinas.

1

I think there is a huge disconnect between the intellectual movers and shakers of this world and mankind in general. 'Dare to know' is fraught with danger and also a huge challenge. Great minds speak to a humanity that doesn't have the intellectual capacity or the leisure of time to rise to their challenge. It's no coincidence that these philosophers were rich men who had the good fortune to get great educations. Nothing but a more equitable society can raise everyone to a higher consciousness. As things stand, daring to know will probably only get you fired and divorced.

brentan Level 8 Apr 8, 2020

That may be so of John Rajchman but Foucault made major contributions toward the understanding of institutional power and its implications

I must admit I don't know anything about either of them. I was just making a very general comment.

There are worse things than the loss of a job or the lose of a spouse by divorce. The loss of life is the most dangerous. I believe that Decartes, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, was both for and against the church as he did not want to burn for heresy. However, I fee that he wrote out of both sides of himself to protect himself. Granted, you are right about their status granting them time to think at their leisure and to part their words to parchment. To the great thinkers of their time, like this piece by Kant, moves one to exercise the flabby parts of their brain and perhaps to raise their posterior enough to cause change. Perhaps it, this piece, so move Foucault to write of the wrongs and bring them so eloquently to light.

@Geoffrey51 The piece that I posted was written by Immanuel Kant who also brought much to light in this piece. There is bold energy and resistance. I can see why Foucault would have such an opening to his book. You would not find Kant opening for Schopenhauer.

@Arachne Okay I’m with you now.

@Arachne Why is loss of life dangerous? It is as it is and there are no mistakes.

@Arachne I'm reading this whole dialogue again.--- You show great knowledge from reading. I admit to very little reading after university, where I read it as a hobby. I much preferred novels. Yes, I read Sufi material but only just before falling asleep so that my mind could absorb the far from obvious lessons. But even that was 40 years ago. Maybe I am deluded but I feel that I am well on the way to enlightenment. I had to undergo various diverse painful lessons. I am fully aware that I can say what I have learnt and people will nod heads in agreement. But I now know some things which I believe are on the path to awkening. I do not put any true value to stuff. It has no real meaning, only temporal usage. I envy no-one for what they possessor what abilities or strengths they have as none of these is important. I know deep within me that love is what must fill us. I can avoid those who would do me harm. It may become difficult if we descend into fascism as I have been openly highly left wing for over 20 years. I have openly expressed very left wing thought and the thought police would love to silence such thoughts. But nonetheless, we must strive to always love. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing". Unlike many on this platform, I very much hope for a life after death in the form of a continuance in learning. Judgment? No, I do not expect that. There is a concept that everyone is doing the best that they can. Not for me to judge. My hope is that once dead we realise that we had been in a sort of nursery, which actually did not exist but was created within our collective conscienceness perhaps by our own selves. Gods? I like Arjuna and Krsna in the Bhagavad Gita where in even in the smallest, shortest glimpse Krsna reveals himself as filling the universe. That suits me fine as such a god has no relationship to anything we can imagine. I'd go further in saying that I do not believe the universe as we perceive it exists. To me the concepts of time and distance going infinitely in any direction is nonsense. We simply don't understand it so we invented infinity. Infinity is impossible so we are completely failing to grasp something and we plug in a concept to remain happy. I submit that fully understanding the impossibility of infinity is the path to understanding that we reside in an illusion and that illusion must be acting as our nursery.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 23

Photos

Posted by JettyPerspective

Posted by PontifexMarximusWhy Evolution Is True … I never realised that there was still so much opposition to science. [livescience.com]

Posted by NR92What is the reason to live? What are we living for?

Posted by NR92Is it correct that Nietzsche was Hitler's inspiration?

Posted by mzeeWhat is fear?

Posted by DonaldHRobertsThe Most Complicated question ever asked. WHY?

Posted by TheMiddleWayRussel, the greatest salesman the world has ever known!

  • Top tags#philosophy #world #god #truth #video #religion #book #laws #reason #humans #religious #moral #atheism #money #belief #death #Atheist #evidence #beliefs #friends #Christian #Bible #humanity #faith #DonaldTrump #TheTruth #scientific #USA #fear #hope #culture #morality #books #earth #Wisdom #freedom #media #imagination #tradition #existence #university #hello #society #rape #government #ethics #politics #children #created #wife ...

    Members 438Top

    Moderators