Enlightened Chains, pg. 2
all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.” Both are aiming at the same target, Kant simply lays it out more specifically.
The idea is a radical one: that man can improve his lot in life simply by applying his mental faculties to doing so. However, it is rather simple to argue that mankind has always attempted to improve his lot in life and that his chief instrument in doing so has been his mind. What is radical then cannot be the goal or even the tool, but rather the determination of what constitutes an obstacle and the leveling of the field against what had previously been held as sacrosanct: the power of the church and that of the state.
Previously, it had at least been implicit that the power of church and state was used for the betterment of mankind. In return, both church and state could call upon both individual men and groups of men to repay the debt through taxation or by service. This line of reasoning had been split, however, by Luther’s insistence that the church had not actually upheld Biblical teachings, but stood athwart them for its own interests. While Luther’s teachings were specifically used to unite the German principalities under a common faith and to justify war against people and states of other faiths, it planted a seed. That seed held the idea that each man was capable of deciding for himself what was in his best interest. The corollary was that both state and church had conspired to maintain power by working against that interest.
There is the impression among some in the modern right wing of politics that the Enlightenment simply set out to destroy religion. If one limits the Enlightenment to only French writers, it is an understandable error - but an error nonetheless. Once the search is expanded to include Enlightenment writers from beyond the French borders, the
Next Page
The idea is a radical one: that man can improve his lot in life simply by applying his mental faculties to doing so. However, it is rather simple to argue that mankind has always attempted to improve his lot in life and that his chief instrument in doing so has been his mind. What is radical then cannot be the goal or even the tool, but rather the determination of what constitutes an obstacle and the leveling of the field against what had previously been held as sacrosanct: the power of the church and that of the state.
Previously, it had at least been implicit that the power of church and state was used for the betterment of mankind. In return, both church and state could call upon both individual men and groups of men to repay the debt through taxation or by service. This line of reasoning had been split, however, by Luther’s insistence that the church had not actually upheld Biblical teachings, but stood athwart them for its own interests. While Luther’s teachings were specifically used to unite the German principalities under a common faith and to justify war against people and states of other faiths, it planted a seed. That seed held the idea that each man was capable of deciding for himself what was in his best interest. The corollary was that both state and church had conspired to maintain power by working against that interest.
There is the impression among some in the modern right wing of politics that the Enlightenment simply set out to destroy religion. If one limits the Enlightenment to only French writers, it is an understandable error - but an error nonetheless. Once the search is expanded to include Enlightenment writers from beyond the French borders, the
Next Page
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home