Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”. (Page 522) This means using your own reason to make decisions and not being influenced by others. People should practice autonomy, not paternalism. To go about this, citizens should do research and make judgments for themselves. People are allowed to discuss others’ opinions and think about them, but should ultimately use their own convictions to make every decision. This idea of enlightenment is often encouraged in the American government, yet many do not practice their rights. It is becoming increasingly important for people to use reason when making decisions, yet some groups of citizens are denied the resources to achieve this. Whether by their own actions or those forced upon them, most Americans are far from enlightened.
American Presidential candidates begin campaigning months and months before the actual election. This is the perfect opportunity for citizens to act in an enlightened manner. Candidates present all of their positions on major topics and give their negative feedback on the others in the running. All of this information is easily found on the internet and television; it is essentially handed out on a silver platter. The state is providing the populace with a way to be autonomous without the state being paternalistic itself. With all of these resources available, people still don’t use reason when stepping into the voting booth. Numerous young voters mark the ballot with the candidate who best reflects what their parents hold as valuable or what they learned in church. People who make decisions in this manner are essentially asking others to act paternalistically. Kant would be rolling in his grave if he heard of this happening. Another hindrance to the populace becoming enlightened is the system of an Electoral College. Many people do not find the significance of voting since their vote cannot directly elect the President and therefore, do not take the time to educate themselves about candidates and current issues.
There are many resources in society that make it easy to be enlightened on certain issues, yet there are groups of people who are left out. In the United States, Amendments to the Constitution eliminate the possibility of marginalization in voting. However, impoverished children are not always given the same education as middle and above classes. They often cannot buy books and other school materials and states frequently do not provide enough funding for adequate resources. Outside of the United States, many people in third world countries are denied the right to participate in the education system at all because of their poverty or even because of their sex. All of these factors contribute to a less enlightened society.
The way the internet has taken over the world allows for people to obtain information at a much faster rate than ever before. Yet, citizens still chose to allow others to make decisions for them. On the other hand, many marginalized groups, such as the impoverished are denied the resources to enlighten themselves. In one way, the government encourages citizens to form opinions and do research, and in another, it denies certain citizens from being educated. At this point, America is nowhere near the smallest bit of enlightenment.
Modern Political Thought. Edited with Introductions by David Wooton. Kant page 522.
I would agree that most Americans could be more enlightened in the electoral process, but you make a lot of general claims in your argument that call for a more specific examples.
When you say that most of society is not enlightened, what exactly do you mean? How can we truly verify that a citizen is uneducated when he or she casts their vote? Just because it is an issue we might not agree with doesn’t necessarily make it uneducated.
As for getting plenty of information from politicians before the elections date, it could be argued that Kant would discourage listening to what they have to say directly. Any information about a politician coming from a politician is bound to be biased in some way or another. Therefore, I think Kant would insist that citizens take a step further and research from independent sources (as you later pointed out) or from their own unbiased point of view before casting a vote.
I believe it is very hard for citizens to “enlighten” themselves. As stated before children and young adults tend to follow or can be greatly influenced by the voting techniques of their parents. In addition, it is hard to disregard the information that is prevalent in the news and media when forming opinions and making decisions. It is much quicker and easier to derive information from other sources and people, therefore, it is unlikely that many citizens will reason it out themselves. I think the idea of the impoverished being at a disadvantage was an interesting comment. However, I am curious how Kant would address this topic and if he would believe that the impoverished still have the potential to “enlighten” themselves.
I have left similar comments agreeing with the overall argument you have made. I think some people see the human advances in areas such as technology and productivity that we confuse that with progress and wisdom. In my opinion, it is the human nature itself that must reach enlightenment and that is something our entire species is quite far from attaining when considering the atrocities still prevalent in today’s world.
A similar point was made in my discussion section a few weeks ago. One must think though, although in the sense that you made, American’s aren’t enlightened, you missed a few key points. Kant said that enlightenment is independence; the ability to think for one’s self. It is maturity. Someone made the comment that no one can be truly enlightened because there is no way that one person can know everything about every subject, but I don’t think that is what Kant implied when stating his definition on enlightenment. I don’t think that Kant wanted individuals to go educate themselves in every possible area. Kant meant the “independence” to be the ability to make the smartest choice. This means that rather than trying to learn all the techniques of brain surgery by one’s self, and individual should make the wise decision of trusting a brain surgeon. Basically, I feel that Kant’s definition of enlightenment could be argued many different ways, and I really don’t know what he would say if he saw America now.
I would agree with some of the things said in the original post, but some of the arguments I would have to question as another post above has already done. There are no facts or statistics in the argument, which brings up the point of how would we know if someone is enlightened or not because there are no statistics on this matter. Yes, Americans have everything that they need to become enlightened, but that does not mean that everyone, or no one is enlightened because a vast majority, or small majority does not use the resources available to them to become educated when voting. You also bring up a good point that for some, it is almost impossible for them to be enlightened because of poverty or other reasons and that is why I feel it is so hard to put a label on America whether we are enlightened or not because there are so many different factors that come into play with enlightenment.
America compared with the rest of the world is definitely an enlightened place with the freedom allowed to every citizen to believe and think the way they want, however that doesn’t mean America is perfect. When thinking in terms of the spectrum of how far enlightened a nation can be I think America for sure has a ways to go, for example too often a minority of concentrated money and power influence a much larger percentage of the population that consists of ordinary working people. It is unfair to say there is no enlightened practices in America we are just not all the way there yet as a country.
I agree with Jami that is difficult for voters to enlighten themselves. Uninformed and young voters can be persuaded much easier. For instance in the last election first time voters probably had opinions similar to their parents and might have not researched the candidates enough to be confident in their decision. With constant coverage and potential spin it is always harder to make a confident decision. It is hard to tell what is important and what the media makes important. While it is the media duty to cover such an important event sometimes they blow things out of proportion
I agree that Americans are strongly influenced by other sources, such as the media. But I do believe that Americans are enlightened and that Americans lived in an enlightened state. Although they obtain opinions and ideas from others, they still ultimately make their own decisions. If they agree with sources in which they encounter, their reason is telling them that the source’s ideas are plausible and correct. In this post it says, “People should practice autonomy, not paternalism. To go about this, citizens should do research and make judgments for themselves.” If people did research, they would most likely be researching on the internet, because that is the most abundant current resource. On the internet, they are heavily influenced as well. Just because society now is much different that the enlightened society that Kant described, does not mean that Americans are not living in an enlightened state.
Agreed! It makes no sense that most of the public, while having the ability and means to become “Enlightened”, chose to instead wallow in ignorance (this goes for people with all political and religious affiliations). The time one gains autonomy is the ideal time to start the path to enlightenment; one can think and act as he/she wants and therefore must engage in Kant and Mill-type discussions, taking into account ALL sides and building truths from this. As for the argument of the inaccessibility of enlightenment, for some, I would say that they, those kept from becoming enlightened by institutionalized methods, must be given the opportunity, they cannot be enlightened if never given the opportunity.
In reading Kant, I have decided that what he aimed to do was to guide us in a direction in which we could better our human condition. I do not think that he intended for every human to become enlightened, but rather he wanted us to have a mindset with which we think for ourselves and attempt to make our own educated decisions. I think that there is a lot of pressure in our society to follow a laid out path, which i do feel goes against the ideas of Kant. Kant would want more people to try and live life differently than others, and determine things for themselves, outside the system.
Enlightment is necessary in todays America,no doubt about that. But What’s most important? It should be how and which field should people be enlightened.
For modern life, I can say that ,for the majority, they know about the important of enlightment but they just sometimes can’t be in the position. Because modern people have way more things to worry about so they can’t keep their mind clear in every aspect of life but to follow the opinions of the authority or majority.
What people need is to be enlightened in the field that they mostly concerned or specialized in.