The quality of living as a free human has been debated throughout the time particularly during the age of Enlightenment. As a major consequence of enlightenment, the traditional religious belief and a categorical assurance was replaced by egalitarianism and thus supported individual values. Kant and Wollstonecraft along with other philosophers and writers have led this dramatic change. This essay draws a comparison between the point of views of these two philosophers with regards to what it takes to be free and posits the wisdom of uncertainty as to the eternal approach of one’s freedom and autonomy.
The state of subjection to other’s domination may happen in a variety of ways. Kant asserts that “lack of resolve and courage to use [understanding] without guidance from others” (p.2), keeps a person “in lifetime immaturity” (p.2), while Wollstonecraft contends about the state of woman and stresses that they are “so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence” (p.31). Kant explains that “immaturity is self-imposed” (p.2), therefore, those who incurred immaturity their guidance by someone else would be inevitable. Likewise, while affirming the law of nature that “female […] strength is, in general inferior” (p.30), Wollstonecraft complains that “men endeavour to sink us still lower’ (p.30) because “women intoxicated by the adoration which men, under the influence of their senses, pay them” (p.31). Although Kant and Wollstonecraft both argue the issue from different perspectives, they are equally identifying either guidance’s or men as those who are benefitting from the absence of autonomy and thus endeavouring to limit the state of others to think independently and be free.
According to Kant, immaturity is the result of indolence. Kant argues that people are reluctant to endeavour the hardship of thinking independently, and makes the conclusion that those with immaturity let their guidance to practice faculty of reason on behalf of them. However, according to Kant “laziness and cowardice” (p.2) are causing immaturity, the question of the perpetual factor remains experimental. In responding to this question, Kant scrutinises the idea further and explains that “fear” generates a tendency in which immaturity continues. Therefore, in Kant’s view, “fear from danger” is the major obstacle which does not allow people to leap from immaturity, they “regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult” (p.2). In contrast, Wollstonecraft argues the abandonment of women from education, and contends that the potential of women overwhelmed, perversely, by the notion that women should be humbler, sophisticated and attractive “women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that […] should they be beautiful, everything else is needless” (p.32). In Wollstonecraft’s view, women should obtain a mutual strength for both their body and heart. Nonetheless in reality, as it has mentioned by Wollstonecraft, girls became women while their emotional aspect is largely at variance with their body strength. This is the major factor causes women as subordinate beings “enslave women by cramping their understanding and sharpening their sense” (p.32).
Youth is ephemeral and Wollstonecraft emphasises on this fact to express that when beauty is gone, female’s inefficiency and insignificance emerge as the consequence for the pleasing rendered. Therefore, criticising Rousseau and all those men who propose a “pleasing” oriented education for women, is sensible and expected. Wollstonecraft suggests some measures to be taken “provision should be made for the more important years of life when reflection takes place of sensation” (p.33). Furthermore, Wollstonecraft demands equal education for girls, asserting that woman cannot be “good wives and mothers” (p.44) unless they obtain a good education. That said, one has to admit that Wollstonecraft was extremely pragmatist and too focused on reaching a goal. Therefore, a straightforward, and totally matter-of-fact approach has limited her viewpoints to bound the freedom of women on being ‘“good wives and mothers” rather than free human and independent female creatures.
The reason is universal and genderless. Wollstonecraft demands women to attain a rational culture and improve their own reason rather than seeking the attractiveness that men place upon them, while Kant urges that public and free exercise of reason is necessary for a mature society. One way or another, both philosopher emphasis on reason as the only canonical form of human intellect. Both writers insist that reason is more productive for all human being in order to allow every individual to improve his or her own potential, nothing should be examined except reason. Although the universality of reason as a major tool to determine independent thinking is a matter of fact, it is almost inconceivable to define a unique contrivance and specific approach for preserving freedom because from one hand thinking independently is not necessarily equal to freedom as it may reach to captive oneself in his or her very first self-reliance and on the other hand freedom depends on to various factors which may differ based on personal condition and turn free being as a relevant object. Therefore, in response to the question of what it takes to be free, it is quite hard to limit the answer to mere reasoning.
In conclusion, despite the fact that reasoning is the backbone of rationality but being free cannot be determined through rationality alone because rationality does not make the whole concepts of human progress and it is not the overall intellect of human being. Therefore, it is highly important to consider the entire of human capacity and keep the precious balance of the wisdom of uncertainty in respecting of the issue of a free being.
References:
Kant, I. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.
Wollstonecraft, M. “A Vindication of the Right of Woman” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.
No comments:
Post a Comment