Everybody Makes Mistakes... Even God

In “Meditation Four” of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes is primarily concerned with God, His creations, and the faculties assigned to His creations.

Descartes begins by restating the conclusion he came to in “Meditation Three”—that he is a thinking thing. He is a thinking thing that doubts, or is uncertain of things, so he is incomplete and dependent. And because he is incomplete and dependent, he comes to the conclusion that there must exist something that is the opposite: a complete and independent being—God (36).

According to Descartes, there is a supreme being (God), the non-being (nothingness), and the being in the middle of these two (himself). The supreme being is perfect, meaning that His judgment is undoubtedly correct and therefore He never makes a mistake. The non-being, or nothingness, is as far away from perfection as possible, meaning that it has traits that are uncertain. And the being in the middle shares both these traits to lesser degrees (36).

Descartes says that God is the supreme perfect being, so nothing else that exists can be perfect because He is supremely perfect. This means that God is unable to create other perfect beings because he is the perfect being. Therefore, he can only create less than perfect beings. Because he can only create imperfect beings (for example, Descartes), those beings’s judgments are not always correct, and those beings are prone to making mistakes. But because these imperfect beings are a creation of God, these imperfect beings and God must share a similar trait, which must be flawed judgment and proneness to make mistakes. Thus, we can’t be certain that God is a perfect being if he creates things that are imperfect, because creating things that are imperfect reflects a flaw in judgment. And if we can't be certain that God is a perfect being, we can't be certain that he exists.

But Descartes says that God is a positive, perfect being and so, He can never make a mistake. “… it is impossible for God to ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is always indicative of some imperfection” (36). Here, Descartes says that God would never deceive him on purpose because that would indicate an imperfection, and God cannot be imperfect by definition that he the perfect being. However, God may not be deceiving Descartes on purpose. Perhaps Descartes is deceiving himself because God gave him a faculty that is supposed to work that way. But why would God give him this faculty with which he can both avoid and make mistakes and cause uncertainty? Descartes says that God created him and gave him no faculty for making mistakes so he cannot make them. But if God is perfect, why would he create an imperfect being? If God Himself never intended to create an imperfect thing, and created Descartes, an imperfect being, that would mean God unintentionally made a mistake. God may have an ulterior motive, but of that, we cannot be certain. Because we cannot be certain of whether or not God has ulterior motives, we can't be certain if God really is perfect, and if we can't be certain if He really is perfect, he may not even exist because He would not have the attributes contrary to Descartes’s incompleteness and dependence that are required of Him to exist.

In closing, here are wise, wise words from a Disney star:

“Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days…. Nobody’s perfect.”

—Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus

Thank God for God

In the essay “Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation Three,” Renee Descartes sets out to prove, or make certain of his existence. He does this by making certain of Gods existence.
            Descartes begins by trying to prove his existence by establishing that he is a thinking thing. “I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses” (p. 24). Here, Descartes clearly states that he is a thinking thing, and then goes into what a thinking thing does. To Descartes, due to the fact that thinking things are deceitful it is hard to base his existence on something which is uncertain, such as imagining and sensing. All of these things a deceitful, and therefore cannot be the determining factor of his existence. All that he knows is that he is in existence because he is a thinking thing. However, Descartes needs something to further explain his existence. He therefore attempts to explain the existence of God, because if he can prove, or make certain of the existence of God, something which is infinite, than he can make certain of his existence.
Descartes establishes that humans and all other things that exist are corporeal things. Corporeal things can only affect and come from other corporeal things. In addition, corporeal things have limitations, therefore, according to Descartes, they are finite. “But perhaps I am something greater than I myself understand” (p.31). Here, Descartes expresses that he is a finite being, because he cannot fully understand himself. Therefore, the only thing that could fully understand a finite being would be an infinite thing or being.
“Thus there remains only the idea of God…I understand by the name “God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful and that created me along with everything else that exists” (p. 30). The fact the Descartes exists means he is a finite being, therefore a finite being must come from an infinite being, which is God. Finite beings have a beginning and end. They run a course, but God, who is infinite, has no beginning or end. In addition, according to Descartes, to even fathom the idea of finite beings is so beyond what a finite being can fathom, that it would take an infinite being to fathom. Due to this, finite beings cannot fathom infinite beings. “It is no objection that I do not comprehend the infinite or that there are countless other things in God that I can in no way either comprehend or perhaps even touch with my thought. For the nature of the infinite is such that it is not comprehended by a being such as I, who am finite” (p. 31). Here Descartes demonstrates his vulnerability by stating that he cannot comprehend an infinite being. In turn, by doing this it proves how finite things can have uncertainty. However, because these finite objects and things come from an infinite thing, whom is God, which is supremely perfect, it can be certain that he is certain that he exists.
Finite things can produce and fathom other finite things. They cannot therefore think or produce infinite things, because it is beyond their scope of reason and thought. Therefore, there is much uncertainty to finite things. It takes an infinite thing to create a finite thing. In order for Descartes to prove his existence, it takes a thing, which has no beginning or end to bring him into existence. That thing is God. God is infinite, and in order for finite to exists, infinite must exists, hence, Descartes exists, because God exists.

Critical Reading ...

Can anyone explain to me what the following text means? In particular, how long the quiz is available for? I've been reading philosophy texts for so long stuff like this bounces right off me.

This is a quiz on the readings from Aristotle's Physics and Categories. It will be available from October 23rd, at noon, until October 30th, at noon.

Pretty confusing, no?!

Wake up and smell the fire!

In the Second Meditation of Rene Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy", the Meditator is concerned with knowing something certain, or at least knowing that nothing is certain. In order to continue in his attempt to know something certain, he will “put aside everything that admits of the least doubt, as if I had discovered it to be completely false” (17). By doing so, he will allow himself only to focus on those things that can not be doubted any longer, which would mean that they are certain. He supposes that everything he sees is false, and that he no longer has senses.

The Meditator has become certain of the fact that he is a thinking thing, and because of this he begins to question why he can not identify what the “I” that does the thinking is. He uses the example of a piece of wax to help him identify what this “I” is. First he examines the wax with his senses by looking at its color, shape and size. He realizes that it makes a noise when it raps his knuckles, and it smells like fresh honey. He then places the piece of wax by a fire where it begins to melt. The Meditator notices that the previous solid piece of wax was changing shape and smell, and no longer makes a noise when raps his knuckle. This is when he realizes that all of the sensible properties of the wax have changed, however he still knows that it was the same piece of wax. He then asks “so what was there in the wax that was so distinctly grasped? Certainly none of the aspects that I reached by means of the senses. For whatever came under the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains” (21). This allows him to realize that he did not come to know wax through his senses, or his imagination, but instead through intellect alone. He concludes that, contrary to his initial ideas, the mind is a far better knower than the body.

I agree with the Meditator that the senses can be deceiving, but I think that it is a combination of the senses and the mind that allow us to learn and come to know things, not just intellect alone. For example, if some one were to ask you if you smelled something burning when in fact you did not, it may be possible that their senses were deceiving them, although in order to know what something burning smells like, you must also have experienced a burning smell before. Some one who was uses senses alone with out the help of the intellect would not be able to tell if something was burning because although he may smell the actual fire, he would not be able to identify what the smell is. With his intellect alone he would not smell the fire, but only be able to categorize it as a fire. With the combining the mind and the senses, not only can you smell the fire but you can realize that it is dangerous and you should get out. In this situation, the separation of the mind and the senses are much less usefull. Together they allow you to become aware of the fires existence, and know how to react in this situation.

A Little Bit of Perfection

In “Meditation Three” of Descartes’ Meditations of the First Philosophy, he reviews what he already knows and then questions what other things he is made up of that he has not already brought up, but then becomes doubtful. “…I am certain that the same reality was not in me, either formally or eminently…therefore I myself cannot be the cause of the idea, then it necessarily follows that I am not alone in the world, but that something else, which is the cause of the idea, also exists.”(pg 29) He realizes that the cause of his ideas comes from “without” and thinks that there is a possibility of a God who cause have given him these ideas in order to deceive him.
Descartes then says he has no cause to think that there is a God deceiving him. Rather, his perception of the “ infinite” comes before his perception of the “ finite”. By expressing this idea, he knows that in order to understand why he doubts and desires is by comparing himself to a “more perfect being”, which is God. (pg 31) He says that he cannot comprehend the infinite, but then continues by saying that of all the ideas he has, the idea of God is the most clear. But how can this be the most clear if he cannot fully comprehend the infinite, which is God? It is true that being finite (man) limits our understanding of the infinite, but according to Descartes there can actually be some minor form of perfection that increases within us gradually. If that is the case and we are made in God’s likeness, is it possible for us to attain the perfection in which He has? And if so, how do we know when we have reached this perfection? Since we cannot truly know the infinite, how can we know how perfect God is? Descartes looks to compare himself, a finite being, to God, but how can he possibly compare himself? If he is trying to represent all other men, and all other men contain slight perfection which grows gradually, then can it be that one man can be more perfect than another? Depending upon how this perfection grows, one man may gain perfection quicker than another. If this perfection of which Descartes speaks is attained gradually by his increasing knowledge, then maybe this “perfection” is his idea of maturity. Each person has a certain degree, yet the process of becoming more mature is gradual; and once we reach what we think is full maturity, maybe we can understand God more.
If this is the case then what are the necessary steps which one must take in order to enhance the slight perfection that we have been given? He says that the potential of perfection is in him anyway.(pg32) By saying “potential“, Descartes now poses the idea that perhaps we do not actually have perfection inside of us, but the potential to become closer to perfect rather than actually becoming perfect.

Perception: The Foundation of Existence

The "meditator" in Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy" believes that whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true. But what does perception ultimately mean? Perception, according to dictionary.com, is the "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding." This is ultimately true; it is how we understand and reason through the senses or the mind. This plays a huge role, according to the meditator, in determining what an "I" is. By an "I," he is ultimately asking what clearly defines existence. He concludes that an "I" is a thing that thinks, understands, wills, imagines, and senses. Note that none of these things are physical or tangent things. By stating this, he is saying that an "I" is something that perceives. Perception defines existence. We can now see what a huge role perception has upon us.

The meditator states that "..even bodies are not, properly speaking, perceived by the senses or by the faculty of imagination, but by intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seem, but only through their being understood, I manifestly know that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than my own mind," (Pg 23, paragraph 34).He breaks down perceptions into two groups; imperfect/confused and clear/distinct. He shocked to reveal "how prone my mind is to errors," (Pg 22, paragraph 32). It is easy to be deceived, especially through sensible and imaginative qualities. What defines sensible qualities? They are what we feel, what we taste, what we hear, what we see, and what we smell. Imaginative qualities are what we imagine, or ultimately make up through things in real life. Mermaids, for example, are half woman and half fish. He believes that whatever we perceive through these two qualities will ultimately be imperfect and confused perceptions. He provides us with the "wax" example. Through our senses, we can conclude that wax is hard and cold. This is an example of how easy a mind could be deceived. As we move the wax towards something that emits heat, a fire for example, the wax loses its structure and becomes liquid. We can imagine the several different shapes that it can become, but still it does not provide us with a clear definition of what wax is. It is only through our cognitive abilities and careful mental scrutiny that we determine the lasting qualities on wax, which are that they are "extended, flexible, and mutable," according to the meditator. He states that "insight is not achieved by the faculty of imagination," (pg 22, paragraph 31). Thus he concludes that sensible and imaginative qualities provide us with imperfect/confused perceptions, while careful mental scrutiny provides us with clear/distinct perceptions. In his third meditation, he elaborates more on the idea of perception. He believes that when examining tangible and corporeal things, you can only clearly perceive size, extension, shape, motion, duration, number, and substance. But as a thinking thing, there are no limitations. Whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true.

The meditator is clearly true when it comes to clear and unclear perceptions. We must depend on our sensible and imaginative qualities, but they only provide us with indefinite answers. From there, we must rely on our reasoning and cognitive abilities to provide us with clarification. The meditator believes that what defines an "I," or existence in this case, depends strictly on one's ability to think. This is clearly true. Form does not determine existence, our ability to think does. Look at God for example. God has no "true" form, but most of us still know that he exists. The same is true with us; even without a body, if we still continue to think, we still exist.

Doubt and Existence

In Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes, he discusses his doubt, his existence, and the existence of God. In the First Meditation, Descartes sits by a fire and thinks about things he believed but came to know were false. After this he clears his mind so he can build his opinions back up again from the ground. "Accordingly, I have today suitably freed my mind of all cares, secured for myself a leisurely tranquility, and am withdrawing into solitude. At last i will apply my self earnestly and unreservedly to general demolition of my opinions."(Descartes. 13). Descartes states that he has accepted that most of what is true he can perceive through his senses. But he states that at times your senses can deceive, but with only regard to objects that are small or at a distance. He believes that you can not doubt simple or universal things such as arithmetic or geometry, but you can doubt things such as "physics, astronomy and medicine"(Descartes, 15) because they are dependent on other things unlike arithmetic and geometry. Lastly in Descartes Meditations One he states that a God must exist because if God didn't exist there is a greater chance of us being deceived by our senses since they would not be created by a perfect being.

I can mostly agree with Desecartes on his concept of doubt with regard to the senses, mathematics, and science. What we see, feel, touch taste, and smell (without regard to those that suffer from hallucinations, delusions and things of that sort) must be true because that is how it is perceived the world. If we doubt our senses then the world we live in and everything around us would be subject to question. As for his thoughts on mathematics, I believe he is correct because they are based on concrete structure, for example two and two will always be four. I also agree with Descartes that science can be doubted because science is based on theory, subjects that are not based on a solid structure or truth.

In Descartes' Second Meditation he takes up the subject of his existence. He recalls on his first meditation asking what if his senses are defective and if what he sees does not actually exist. He also pretends that he lacks a body and senses . He discovers that since he is thinking these things, he must exist. "Here i make my discovery : thought exists, it alone cannot be separated from me . I am; i exist - this is certain."(Descartes,19). He also questions what is "I", what does that make him. He doubts all of his aspects except for one, that he thinks, and decides the he is only a thinking thing.

I agree that as human being an important part of our existence is our thought . But i feel that to say we only exist because we think is absurd. For example, if a person gets into an accident and is brain dead, this person may not think, but still exists in the real wold.

Descartes and the Journey Into Dreams and Reality

In Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy and more specifically in his first meditation, the eternal question of what is real is explored and dissected to the point of asking whether our own senses can be trusted in this search for truth. In this first meditation, the nature of dreams and its role in the search for reality is explored. Descartes believes neither dreams nor what we call reality can be trusted and distinguished as he writes " I see so plainly that there are no definite signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep"(14). I believe that dreams and its role in our lives is not sufficiently explored on a metaphysical level and also its role on a day to day basis. It is interesting to observe the connection between Aristotle and Descartes in the sense of what is real. Aristotle wouldn't view a hand as something that might not exist but something that truly exists as a differentia. The hand is connected to a person, who would be the primary substance and Aristotle believes the primary substance to be what is real and which all nature stems from. Descartes asks the question of how do we know the primary substance actually exists and how do we know the nature of something if it truly might not exist at all? Most people have such lucid dreams that seem so real and when just awaking it seems hard to distinguish between the real world and the dream world. In a movie called Inception, there was a character, who entered the dream world often and needed a physical object, an anchor, to let him distinguish between the dream world and the real world and let him know whether he is still dreaming. It would be interesting to know what Descartes thought of this idea and even more interesting if future technology would let us to be able to examine our own dreams on a deeper level. If this was possible, would Descartes still question the distinction between dreams and reality. Has technology let us to be able to view our beings and consciences in a more objective fashion such as viewing our own selves on television. Or does this make no difference? Can viewing ourselves in any fashion, television or otherwise. still be a subjective manifestation of our imagination? It seems these questions are eternal and might possibly never be answered because even forming these questions and thinking about them, might not actually be happening according to Descartes because reality and imagination might never be distinguished. At the end of the first meditation, Descartes seems to favor the notion of "ignorance is bliss" because living in the dream world seems more peaceful than having to fight the notions of what is real and what is not real on a day to day basis. The question of whether we would choose a particular dream and live in it forever or have to battle the day to day questioning of what is real seems to depend on how much time we spend towards metaphysical examination on a day to to day basis and how much it means to us as humans.

Does a Tree Falling in the Forest Make a Sound if Noone Hears it?

I overheard a precocious child asking his mother this question on the subway. For him, it was resolved: yes, because the event produces soundwaves that are emitted regardless of whether someone has heard them.

My favorite version of this question is:
Does a work of art lying in the bottom of the ocean continue to be a work of art? (Schelling)

Or:
Does a blog that no one reads and contributes to continue to be a blog?

Does Altruism Really Exist?

I think the answer is clearly no. However, I am guessing some of you think otherwise. You should read the essay "Is Pure Altruism Possible?" by Judith Lichtenberg on "The Stone", which is a New York Times blog. I am sure you read the NYTimes regularly, or the Washington Post (both free online). If you don't, you should. At any rate, "The Stone" regularly features short essays written by actual well known professors of philosophy (like myself, albeit not as well known).

A question about altruism would be a great extra credit question on a quiz.  Just sayin'.

Just for your edification, here's what I think. I am of the Kantian/Freudian persuasion (as she charitably puts it).  That is, I think, if altruism is understood as action on behalf of others purely for the sake of others and not for self interest, than yes, it is impossible.  I reach this conclusion because it seems that people are always motivated by multiple (self-)interests or desires (depending on your Kantian or Freudian persuasion) and those interest or desires are never completely clear to us.  Thus, if it is possible that there are other interests or desires motivating us, we cannot be acting purely for sake of others.

I don't think that is a problem.  I don't know why people should have to act only for the sake of others in order for their actions to have moral or ethical worth.  On the other hand, I am also not concerned that all actions are necessarily egoistic, and this because our own interests are frequently bound up with the interests of others.

Even if all actions were completely egoistic, it seems like frequently there would be actions ethically or morally significant in terms of their consequences.  For example, I think that public libraries are a vital social and cultural good and the charity that supports them is ethically laudable.  Thus, even if a blue blood donates to this charity wholly because of the cachet it may give him or her in the neighborhood where he or she lives, that still seems to be ethically laudable action, and so because of its consequences (the maintenance of public libraries).

All right, back to grading.  See you later today.

Physic

In the book of Physics, written by Aristotle. He talks about nature, cause and chance, teleology and necessity in nature. I was intrigued by the first two pages, where he talks about nature and form. In his introduction he talks about this idea, all natural objects being the substances. First let's talk about what he thinks to be the nature.
In the first paragraph Aristotle stated: " among thing that are, some are natural, others are due to other causes. Those that are natural are animal in their parts, plants in the simple bodies, such as earth, fire and water; for we say that these things and things of this sort are natural. All these things are evidently different from things not naturally constituted; for each of them has in itself an origin of change and stability, whether in place, or growth and decay or alteration".
When I think about it, what he says, make sense and i agree. I interpret it to be, things that when we human beings came on earth, we've seen many unexplainable things. Such as trees, animals etc. All these things we have no clue, on how they ended up being in this planet are consider to be natural. therefore nature are things we don't know the origin. He later says whatever has a nature is a substance. I think is right, for example: a substance is like a molecule in human body, without this molecule we wouldn't be human, and i think it's the same for nature. Without this substance there would'nt be nature according to Aristotle. Also he thinks that form is nature. I agree, because for something to be call nature, it needs a form or it has to have a form first, for example: a tree, would not be a tree if it didn't have the form. therefore according to Aristotle. so therefore the form plays an important role than the nature itself. The form precedes nature. that's why i believe he stated: " the form is nature more than the matter is ". Matter for Aristotle i think is what is actually is, for example: when we plant an apple tree, the result will be the same thing that was originally planted. According to Aristotle the apple is not the origin. It's being nothing more than what it really is.

Science or Scripture?

Summa Theologica is a discussion of the components of religion. According to Aquinas, "... things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man though his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith" (386). His discussion tackles the idea that religion can not be classified only in one category and must consist of both to make sense. I agree with this idea and definitely think that small parts are gathered together in this case to make up an entire idea. When taken just as parts, each one is significant for its own reasons but isn't as powerful as the end result. Each article he presents a different idea that is subsequently tackled to be shut down. He says things like, “It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science, for a practical science is that which ends in action, according to the Philosopher” (388). In the first quote we assume he is siding with a philosophical stand point, we move down to the second and realize that the complete opposite is stated here. There is no side taken by Aquinas because he is pushing for the idea that they can not exist for the purpose of doctrine separately. This is like the idea that language is a sum of its parts. Words mean one thing on their own but when placed into a context their meaning may or may not change. Here we have a repeated mention of how technical science is and very close behind it we are convinced about how scriptures and doctrines were written by people who were only capable of thinking scientifically and therefore have to have meaning behind it all. I think that because he constantly repeats ideas he supports, he wants his reader to focus on that which is key, not just the body of the text.

Is it all just luck?

In “Book II: Physics,” Aristotle talks about the nature of things and how they change. According to him they change because of four causes: material, formal, efficient & final. In section 4, titled “Luck and Chance,” (Pg.207) he discusses how luck and chance are said to be causes, and what exactly they are. The passage that interested me was the one titled “Doubts about the existence of luck.” In it he says that some people wonder whether or not luck exits because nothing results from it. Anything that is said to result from it has a “cause.” He gives the example of a man going to a marketplace and meeting another man that coincidently he wanted to meet but did not expect at this time. The “cause” was the man wishing to go to the market.
So, does luck exist or not? Yes but not as a “cause”. In fact Aristotle says that luck stems from events that nature itself may have cause. While reading this passage I was reminded of Spinoza, and how a mere coincidence can cause an entire belief in superstitions. Since fear causes irrational behavior, superstitions (that stem from fear) are irrational beliefs that something good will happen only if you follow a certain ritual. The fact that something good does happen is a coincidence. There is nothing that proves that the opposite could have equally happened. What does this have to do with luck?
Well, luck defined is good or bad fortune caused by accident or chance and is also associated with faith or superstition. Since luck is basically coincidences it cannot be thought of as a cause of anything in nature, seeing as how things in nature did not happen as just a coincidence. Right before the end of this section on luck and chance (Pg. 211 paragraph “How luck and chance are…”) Aristotle himself says that the mind and nature must be prior causes of many things in this universe and chance and luck are posterior.

Categories, Aristotle

In his treatise Categories Aristotle breaks down the function of words in relation to each other. He defines language in terms of primary substances, species and genus. In terms of meaning, on can associate the intelligibles and perceptibles that Al-Farabi wrote of to the primary substances and to the species and genus, respectively. The primary substances are subjects and all other entities depend on them, there wouldn’t be species or genus without primary substances. Aristotle’s analysis of language is also a reflection of how reality is simply a creation; random words, assigned to elements of the universe, define our existence. This reading was overall boring and difficult but Aristotle reveals his thought process most lucidly in the paragraph entitled There Are Ten Kinds Of Beings. Here he identifies the various types of primary substances said without combining other words. These beings are, “substance or quantity or quality or relative or where or when or being in a position or having or acting on or being affected.” Aristotle also writes that in order for these primary substances to be true or false, that is, to have affirmation, they must be combined with other words. This begs the question; does combination affirm the existence of some being because it makes it true or false? Is man just being called man not enough confirmation of his existence?

Grow Up! Immaturity prevents Enlightenment

In the reading “What is Enlightenment ?” by Kant is based upon the idea of enlightenment and what prevents a man from achieving it. “Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.”(p.54, 1^st paragraph) When we think immature we think, people acting like little kids. That’s why we tell people act your own age. Kant specifically thinks immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another.(p.54, 1^st paragraph) Kant believes that immaturity is one of the first steps in order to achieve enlightenment. If one doesn’t get the courage in order to speak out against things they believe than they are still immature. He believes a man should use their own understanding when doing things and listening to things. A man shouldn’t have to listen to other people when it comes to making a decision but in reality just rely on themselves. It is very hard to become mature according to Kant because 1. There are many people who already tell us what to do and 2. There are ways is which we can’t speak what we believe.

“It is so convenient to be immature.”(p.54, 2^nd paragraph) Now why is it so convenient? There are many professionals out there who have taken the job over us as a person. We have doctors, spiritual advisors, and authors who write books. Basically, as long as we have money we need not to think for our self. Now imagine this was back than he was saying all this, imagine now. Now he must think the world as a whole is completely immature. Our world has prospered since his time. The problem is now we have a lot more resources. We have a doctor for everything; we have maids, teachers, religious leaders, and much more. One other thing we have is the internet. The internet allows us to put whatever we like in like Google and get answers for it. So, are we still in this day immature and have we not had an “enlightenment?”

Kant believes that in order to achieve enlightenment, “all that is needed is freedom.”(p55, 2^nd paragraph) He believes freedom of speech and freedom to question or two very important aspects in order to achieve enlightenment. The reason for this is because if a person is able to question what another person says that means they’re thinking for themselves. They are no longer just going along what other people have to say but questioning so they can come up with their own belief. The one problem that comes up though, is how to do that when if someone tries to question authority they get in trouble or put in jail. In his time this was very hard. Kant knows there are restrictions everywhere but he believes that there are only certain restrictions that prevent enlightenment. I agree, you can disagree with a certain person but, you have to obey.

Lastly, Kant believes that religion is a focal point in achieving enlightenment. “rulers have no interests in assuming the role of guardians over their subjects so far as the arts and sciences are concerned, and secondly because religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonorable variety of all.”(p.59, paragraph 1) Now is the second statement true? Is religious immaturity the most dishonorable? I believe that it can be but, not in all cases. People are grown in to a certain belief. It is their choice whether they continue believing on it or not. Well this is in our time at least. We have the choice whether to leave or not

Kant believes that there are a lot of things preventing enlightenment and I agree. I only agree in his time. In today’s age and time that is not true. We have the freedom to say what we like we just must obey. If there weren’t rules there would be many immature people. Kant would probably agree.

Kant, " What is Enlightenment?"

In the reading, “What is Enlightenment?” by Kant is based upon the “… freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters (p.55, 3^rd paragraph).” This quote taken by the reading is something that one needs to ask them self, what does this mean? After reading Kant’s ideas several times one begins to have an understanding of what he thought society was doing and what they could achieve. Kant’s idea of “public use” will help a man to break through his immaturity and at the end would want to gain a kind of enlightenment, to produce their own way of thinking (p. 54-55). As one continues reading the break down and later the break through of his ideas are established.

Kant understands that everyone who has reached that level of maturity doesn’t need the guidance of anyone to say what they want. But at the same time they have limited freedom when belonging to a certain institution. In his writing he gives a couple examples of this such as, “… the officer receiving an order…” also “… the citizen cannot refuse to pay taxes…” and for Kant the important one “… clergyman is bound to instruct his pupils and his congregation in accordance with the doctrines…(p.56)” These were all examples he gave relating to different people having the same kind of law they must obey which was to do what was said of them. He stated a kind of slogan that kept people in line; which was to, “ Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! (p. 55 and p. 59).” This basically meant that you were free to say whatever you wanted but there were limits and also says that only a certain kind of limits can prevent enlightenment (p.55 at the bottom). It’s more of a hard decision than an easier one because your not really sure how far you can go with your own ideas. He than continues to state that if one uses their thoughts, and it’s all right to do so, than one would be able to get to reach enlightenment (p.55).

The main example given about the clergyman is something that must be mentioned thoroughly. The clergyman’s position is at a level of already authority to the church and what he preaches can contain certain thoughts that may not always agree with the doctrines that are already written (p.56). One would think, what would happen if this authority figure doesn’t always agree with everything that is written? This question was easily answered as one continues to read because he than mentions if the clergyman doesn’t agree with the meaning of religion and decides to preach it than he isn’t fulfilling his duties and should instead quit his job (p.56- 57). Kant’s answer regarding the “public use” in this case made one realize that his logic on letting one express their thoughts is to be able to be free to say anything but just not passing boundaries.