Warning Labels on Shampoo Bottles
One of my favorite memes on the planet right now says: "Oh, so you're the reason we have to have warning labels on shampoo bottles." I think Kant would have liked this meme. I love how he argues for free, individual, unique thought. He doesn't like the mindless sheep mentality. I guess my question in the midst of all of Kant's press for enlightenment is is it possible to be too enlightened? Can the desire for freedom of speech and encouraging everyone to have their own unique opinion turn out to be just as bad as if one hasn't been enlightened at all?
Kant argued that to be un-enlightened results in an inflated sense of entitlement, but the same can be said for those on the other side as well. Those who have been enlightened often feel their need to push their ideas and opinions onto others as well as berate those who express opinions contrary to theirs. A sense of hubris, you might say. Example: look at the comments under the trending stories on Facebook. You can't get very far before you see five types of people. 1: The poor person who believes every aspect of the article and gets all of the crying reactions. 2: The person who ridicules the person who bought into the article. 3: The person who defends the person who bought into the article. 4: The person who goes off on their own tangent about what the article reminds them of and gives you their "2 cents" which turns out to be three "read more" clicks. 5: The person who puts the stupid spam comments. The question becomes, who is better off? Obviously it seems as though person 1 is the "nonage" of the group--takes someone else's view and takes it as gospel instead of forming their own idea. However, which of the remaining four is the most enlightened? (If you say person 5, get out of Honors. If you are person 5, get out of Honors.)
I propose the hidden 6th person: the one who says nothing. Kant reiterates that one who knows something should say it, but he's careful to point out that how it is said, when it is said, and to whom it is said matters just as much. Kant also says that some thoughts should be entertained privately...and from here I move to Descartes.
I kind of think Descartes took the idea of enlightenment added a dash of crazy, stirred it with the y-axis he's so famous for creating, and drank his own philosophical Kool-Aid. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a mathematician and appreciate him pretty solely for his mathematical discoveries, but I think he takes the idea of questioning beliefs too far. I mean, he questions whether or not he exists. Not even Euclid or Archimedes did that. It's considered one of the axioms of mathematics: that it exists.
(I commented on Zelda and Sophia's posts)
Kant argued that to be un-enlightened results in an inflated sense of entitlement, but the same can be said for those on the other side as well. Those who have been enlightened often feel their need to push their ideas and opinions onto others as well as berate those who express opinions contrary to theirs. A sense of hubris, you might say. Example: look at the comments under the trending stories on Facebook. You can't get very far before you see five types of people. 1: The poor person who believes every aspect of the article and gets all of the crying reactions. 2: The person who ridicules the person who bought into the article. 3: The person who defends the person who bought into the article. 4: The person who goes off on their own tangent about what the article reminds them of and gives you their "2 cents" which turns out to be three "read more" clicks. 5: The person who puts the stupid spam comments. The question becomes, who is better off? Obviously it seems as though person 1 is the "nonage" of the group--takes someone else's view and takes it as gospel instead of forming their own idea. However, which of the remaining four is the most enlightened? (If you say person 5, get out of Honors. If you are person 5, get out of Honors.)
I propose the hidden 6th person: the one who says nothing. Kant reiterates that one who knows something should say it, but he's careful to point out that how it is said, when it is said, and to whom it is said matters just as much. Kant also says that some thoughts should be entertained privately...and from here I move to Descartes.
I kind of think Descartes took the idea of enlightenment added a dash of crazy, stirred it with the y-axis he's so famous for creating, and drank his own philosophical Kool-Aid. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a mathematician and appreciate him pretty solely for his mathematical discoveries, but I think he takes the idea of questioning beliefs too far. I mean, he questions whether or not he exists. Not even Euclid or Archimedes did that. It's considered one of the axioms of mathematics: that it exists.
(I commented on Zelda and Sophia's posts)
I loved this so much! I literally laughed out loud. I really love what you did with enlightenment portion, but I actually have to disagree with the Descartes portion. A note that I made while reading the meditations was that we obviously have the Bible to tell us who we are and what we are and the planet, etc. to an extent. However, being at this school so far (I guess mostly just the Honors class) has really taught me to question my own thoughts and everything we have been taught since day one of life. I really loved how twisted Descartes expressed his thoughts and I admire the fact that he actually wrote it. That's my "2 cents" I guess one might say. Great post!
ReplyDeleteWhat you said about being too enlightened is a big area where I feel Kant falls short. He says that letting others think for you is bad and that you should formulate your own ideas for everything. So what's the first thing he does? He writes a paper that tells people "Look at this great idea I have, you should all follow this reasoning." He thinks he has the big answer to knowledge, so he tells everyone to think for themselves by thinking like him. What? And unlike his pastor analogy, he really doesn't have any doctrine other than what he just created.
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to find the end meaning in Descartes meditations. He originally stated the purpose of them was to " demolish everything completely and start again from the foundations" so he could find out what was true and what was false. But when someone questions their own existence what foundation can they possibly be left with to start with? Not much or any at all from my own understanding. I just find my self more perplexed after each reading and re-readng of them. If someone in class manages to explain the wax I will publicly applaud him or her and buy that person a cupcake.
ReplyDeleteI’m about ready to scream because I had this GREAT response typed out, but ALAS UM’s wifi. ‘Nough said.
ReplyDeleteRound 2: Kant was a little confusing to me, but I like your facebook analogy. I guess I was mostly confused about his remark towards the end about the ruler that is enlightened is the one who gives his country freedom, but not total freedom. He says, “a lesser degree of civic freedom creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity.” To better understand, I’m kind of thinking about this from a psychology standpoint; when it comes to an intrinsic motivation, it can drive an individual towards great success in the area it deals with. However, when you add too much extrinsic motivation, the intrinsic will go away and make it much more difficult to motivate that individual. In example: you may love dance and going to dance class, but when you get older and join a competition team, it may begin to feel like a chore because you start to lose your intrinsic motivation. So, what I’m thinking Kant means is something along the lines of this: when people have complete freedom, they don’t feel the need to grow because they are comfortable in their nonage. When they still have some freedom, but not nearly as much as being completely free (not under a tyrant, though) they have a reason to strive for enlightenment.
*hugs you in 7 languages* THANK YOU. I can not agree with you more on Descartes (my post shows that clearly) i was literally yelling at my paper and then ranted to one of my friends about it who had no idea what I was even talking about. I think Descartes was trying too hard to be enlightened. And as for Kant I totally agree with the subject of being too enlightened. You have the issue of people forcing beliefs and everyone getting offended over EVERYTHING which is sadly a reality now.
ReplyDeleteThat first paragraph though. xD
ReplyDeleteI hadn't realized it at first, but your description of Descartes is completely on point. His reflection is definitely leaning towards the enlightened side, but overall it is completely off the wall. As for Kant, I agree with some of what he has to say about individual freedom, but you're right, there's a point where he's too enlightened, especially with the "nonage" talk. Forcing beliefs left and right is a common thing in this day and age, and as we all know, we are a fickle people, so one tiny thing can get all of us triggered - turning us all into person 4, as you mentioned. Most of the time, I'm the 6th person, but it's hard to see who is the true "enlightened" spirit (except for person 5, of course).