Before submitting to and praising Immanuel Kant and the somehow simple yet beautifully complex nature of his ideas, I feel compelled to first address one of the most astounding of my ‘huh’ moments. It rather shocked me to read into the depths of a man whose core beliefs align with the freedom of thought and the unlocking of one’s own understanding of oneself and one’s surrounding world without the interference of the will of others, and yet he still manages to contradict his primary stance. This odd moment lies within the larger paragraph on the second page, as he writes, “In the same way, a clergyman is bound to instruct his pupils and his congregation in accordance with the doctrines of the church he serves…” (Kant 2). He continues, with
…show more content…
Deeper into the piece, Kant discusses the notion of society adhering to a set belief system as sort of going against nature, as there would be no one to think freely and to think beautifully. With this mindset, all that humans know would not be bettered nor perfected, and mankind would remain at a standstill. This, of course, rings true; however, he fails to see, somehow, that, for instance, in the case of the clergyman, not applying his or her ideas and reasoning to this position is a mistake, as his or her very role is perpetuating a dependency upon others, upon doctrines written by others, and upon this concept of blind faith. How could one possibly remain faithful to such a position within the religious realm, and then free oneself in the eyes of the public and question all that one …show more content…
There are several passages to discuss, but due to the limited space, I will simply comment upon his initial statement, his key claim from which he builds his argument. His first line reads, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity” (1). This alone is marvelous—the diction, the topic, and undoubtedly, the idea. With this combination of words, he manages to convey two very important concepts: man’s enlightenment is suffocated by immaturity, and he is in control—man keeps himself down, though he possesses the ability to rise. In a seemingly simplistic statement, Kant draws attention to the matter at hand, and creates a call to action. The construction is just
Deeper into the piece, Kant discusses the notion of society adhering to a set belief system as sort of going against nature, as there would be no one to think freely and to think beautifully. With this mindset, all that humans know would not be bettered nor perfected, and mankind would remain at a standstill. This, of course, rings true; however, he fails to see, somehow, that, for instance, in the case of the clergyman, not applying his or her ideas and reasoning to this position is a mistake, as his or her very role is perpetuating a dependency upon others, upon doctrines written by others, and upon this concept of blind faith. How could one possibly remain faithful to such a position within the religious realm, and then free oneself in the eyes of the public and question all that one …show more content…
There are several passages to discuss, but due to the limited space, I will simply comment upon his initial statement, his key claim from which he builds his argument. His first line reads, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity” (1). This alone is marvelous—the diction, the topic, and undoubtedly, the idea. With this combination of words, he manages to convey two very important concepts: man’s enlightenment is suffocated by immaturity, and he is in control—man keeps himself down, though he possesses the ability to rise. In a seemingly simplistic statement, Kant draws attention to the matter at hand, and creates a call to action. The construction is just