The rise of modern political thinking is not entirely political in the first place but more of a social thinking. The involvement of the social and the political has to be the biggest flaw modern political theory has made. Instead of creating a progression with the thoughts and theories of the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and other classical political theorists, modern political theory, as Hannah Arendt said, became the downfall of the political.
How has modernism devolved the human race in terms of political thinking? First is the individualistic tendencies of the human, through the reversal of roles between the public and the private. As we all know, in the classical political thought, the public is governed by law, while the private remains to be free. In the reversal of the public and the private, as evident with modern political thought, the public now becomes a free space for reasoning while the private is now governed by law, and thus promoting self-legitimization in modern political thought.
In fact, in Michel Foucault’s “What is Enlightenment?”, he conforms to the fact that the idea behind enlightenment was never meant to be evolutionary. Instead, Foucault stated that what Kant was proposing with the enlightenment was simply a mere illusion to the human soul, since human being the ultimate arbiter of knowledge can never be placed into context, no matter what manipulation you can make to present the enlightenment as a means of a humanistic and political evolution.
The evidence to such principle? Classical political theory. In St. Augustine’s “City of God,” we have been said and emphasized that man by nature can never be perfect unless he is God. I would use this text in emphasizing the fact that by all means, you can never ever place man as the ultimate person, the perfect being, the creator of perfect laws, and the perfect follower of these crafted laws. That is why social classes exist in the human society, in the “city of humans”!!!
By saying that man is an ultimate arbiter of knowledge, then it is as if you are saying that all of us have the same characteristics, the same abilities, the same knowledge, and the same social classes, which realistically and historically speaking was never the case. Because man is a historical being as Foucualt said , we are formed and we develop through the course of history, and hence, we are crafted by our being overtime, as we gain additional knowledge through innovations and inventions. Through what the Enlightenment is saying, we are all final and can never step up. This has to be one of the major flaws of the Enlightenment, equating society with the political.
Although I am not entirely saying that the Enlightenment has totally wrecked out the evolution of being --- in fact, I am in favor of Kant’s proposal of having the courage to use your own reason ---but for me the Enlightenment has not been crafted very well to fit in the political. The association of the social, as Arendt said, has degraded the being of the human.
In addition to devolution of the being, Foucault also states the fact that with the proposal of the Enlightenment, the “courage of reasoning out on your own” in the public should be placed in a proper context such that there is a boundary on “daring to reason on your own” in the public. In this aspect, Kant conforms to Foucault’s proposition as he states that this “dare to reason” has a limit, as evident in the context of Frederick. Although it may be of something positive to reason out publicly and become quiet in the private, the limit on reasoning out freely in the public can be explained as the sake of preventing any abuse of freedom of reason in the public. Hence, Foucault would explain the courage to reason as a risky move as the Enlightenment challenges in fact the sovereign, the ordered power relations of the state.
The rationale behind this is the distinct difference of living out freedom and having absolute freedom, as discussed by Karl Marx in the Jewish question. Living out freedom means that you are not being repressed by the absolute sovereign of your concerns regarding the stability of the state. Absolute freedom, on the other hand, entails to having no sovereign preventing the public mass on exercising their freedom, whether it is necessary or not. The former is preferred than the latter as it promotes further stability to the state and that the former is what the Enlightenment is pointing out as an emphasis: having the freedom to reason on your own understanding for the good of the state through a better craft of the laws. Foucalt agrees to this as there is a need for critiquing since we are historical beings, and hence, we try to make things better through time. The latter is considered to be dangerous as having no control on the freedom of the being can lead to unnecessary exercise of freedom “based on one’s own understanding”, causing chaos into the state, which for Marx has been the flaw of the Jews as they desire for not having a state at all.
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Beat the Status Quo? or Not?
"Have the courage to use your own understanding."
This is found among the opening lines of Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightentment,” of which is the motto of the Enlightenment as Kant said. Through my understanding of Kant’s principles regarding the enlightenment, he encourages the people during his time to actually step up and speak for their own reasons in the public, while conforming to the law in the private. Such principle is a complete opposite of what is being taught in classic political theory, wherein it is being taught that we should obey and conform to laws in the public, evident with the application of masks as stated through Machiavelli’s political thoughts.
I like the idea of Kant here on having the courage to reason out in the public as it gives the people an opportunity to step up and do greater, hence not being withheld within the sovereign. In his proposal, his justification of the private conforming to the law and the public being not withheld with the law is the fact that through such principle, we can legitimize ourselves internally in the private through speaking out our own reasons with courage so that we then develop what we call self legitimization. Self legitimization, in one aspect, is good as it prevents the abuse of power of the sovereign, of which usually results to tyranny and hence the repression of the public, as in Kant’s proposition, he encourages fair competition and equality within the public, such that it is through the public, the people’s voice and reason that the sovereign is then developed, hence creating an equal society in the process.
Yet, Kant’s proposal of having the courage to reason out to your own understanding does not mean having total freedom but merely just living out freedom. Hence, what Kant is pointing out as an emphasis to his proposal is the fact that having total freedom and living out freedom are distinctly different. In this aspect, I conform to Kant as having total freedom, unlike living out freedom, is of a negative connotation to the human soul such that total freedom will just make the human being end up being consumed by that freedom as he is not governed by any law nor sovereign, hence causing chaos eventually to the human race. As with living out freedom, which gives a more positive connotation as compared to having total freedom, it means that you get to voice out your own understanding and reason to the sovereign without fear of being attacked or repressed by the sovereign. In addition, living out freedom also points out that there should be a conformity within the limits within the sovereign. Hence, Kant here simply elaborates the principle of democracy, wherein there is freedom of reasoning out within the limits of the sovereign.
In agreement with Kant, Karl Marx also proposes a similar idea in “On the Jewish question” wherein he stated that the problem with the Jew’s desire to have a state of their own being free from the hands of the germans is that fact that they are being too particularistic with their demands. In fact, what they were actually demanding to the Germans is to be liberated out of the hands of the Germans, which just as Marx emphasized, became problematic with the Jews because of the Jews desiring for total freedom, not living out freedom.
As both theorists propose equality in society and hence eliminating competition, it eventually becomes a contradiction of the desire to step out of the status quo and uphold equality among the society because in such manner not that it puts an end to the political and a beginning to the social, it also ends up people going back to the status quo principle and not working hard to be the best. In Ateneo terms, the people, following what Kant and Marx proposes, will eventually not desire for magis and instead be tempted by dementors who encourage students to be just contented with a C instead of encouraging a student to aim for an A.
This is found among the opening lines of Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightentment,” of which is the motto of the Enlightenment as Kant said. Through my understanding of Kant’s principles regarding the enlightenment, he encourages the people during his time to actually step up and speak for their own reasons in the public, while conforming to the law in the private. Such principle is a complete opposite of what is being taught in classic political theory, wherein it is being taught that we should obey and conform to laws in the public, evident with the application of masks as stated through Machiavelli’s political thoughts.
I like the idea of Kant here on having the courage to reason out in the public as it gives the people an opportunity to step up and do greater, hence not being withheld within the sovereign. In his proposal, his justification of the private conforming to the law and the public being not withheld with the law is the fact that through such principle, we can legitimize ourselves internally in the private through speaking out our own reasons with courage so that we then develop what we call self legitimization. Self legitimization, in one aspect, is good as it prevents the abuse of power of the sovereign, of which usually results to tyranny and hence the repression of the public, as in Kant’s proposition, he encourages fair competition and equality within the public, such that it is through the public, the people’s voice and reason that the sovereign is then developed, hence creating an equal society in the process.
Yet, Kant’s proposal of having the courage to reason out to your own understanding does not mean having total freedom but merely just living out freedom. Hence, what Kant is pointing out as an emphasis to his proposal is the fact that having total freedom and living out freedom are distinctly different. In this aspect, I conform to Kant as having total freedom, unlike living out freedom, is of a negative connotation to the human soul such that total freedom will just make the human being end up being consumed by that freedom as he is not governed by any law nor sovereign, hence causing chaos eventually to the human race. As with living out freedom, which gives a more positive connotation as compared to having total freedom, it means that you get to voice out your own understanding and reason to the sovereign without fear of being attacked or repressed by the sovereign. In addition, living out freedom also points out that there should be a conformity within the limits within the sovereign. Hence, Kant here simply elaborates the principle of democracy, wherein there is freedom of reasoning out within the limits of the sovereign.
In agreement with Kant, Karl Marx also proposes a similar idea in “On the Jewish question” wherein he stated that the problem with the Jew’s desire to have a state of their own being free from the hands of the germans is that fact that they are being too particularistic with their demands. In fact, what they were actually demanding to the Germans is to be liberated out of the hands of the Germans, which just as Marx emphasized, became problematic with the Jews because of the Jews desiring for total freedom, not living out freedom.
As both theorists propose equality in society and hence eliminating competition, it eventually becomes a contradiction of the desire to step out of the status quo and uphold equality among the society because in such manner not that it puts an end to the political and a beginning to the social, it also ends up people going back to the status quo principle and not working hard to be the best. In Ateneo terms, the people, following what Kant and Marx proposes, will eventually not desire for magis and instead be tempted by dementors who encourage students to be just contented with a C instead of encouraging a student to aim for an A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
