- Martin Buber
Paths in Utopia, 7
Paths in Utopia, 7
This quote can be related to Kant's "What is Enlightenment?". Kant posits that human freedom cannot exist without limits. Kant proposes a critical approach, i.e. freeing oneself from self-imposed immaturity. But, as he intimates in WIE, a critical approach to knowledge is not done in a space detached from "a fundamental relationship to the existing condition of humanity". However, Kant's qualifier - "obey and debate as much you want" - places a strict limit on such a critical relationship. Man, as he puts forth, remains beholden to the order that secures his very existence and stabilizes the world he lives in.
"But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no fear of phantoms, yet who likewise has at hand a well-disciplined and numerous army to guarantee public security, may say what no republic would dare to say: Argue as much as you like, but obey! ...A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent." (Kant, What is Enlightenment?, Political Writings, 59)
Kant is fully aware of the paradoxical nature of this. In positing this, he inevitably concedes how he could not circumvent the set of assumptions put forth by Hobbes - namely that the state must be present to impose order, the grounds necessary for civilization. The Leviathan is not a beast, but a machine - a composition of individuals united in a grand collective.
"This spirit of freedom is also spreading abroad, even where it has to struggle with outward struggles imposed by governments which misunderstand their own function. For such governments can now witness a shining example of how freedom may exist without in the least jeopardising public concord and the unity of the commonwealth. Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artifical measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it." (Kant, WIE, 59)
The limit Kant imposes on maturity is one he willingly inherited from Hobbes. The modern state or Leviathan - by definition - claims to deal with the existing condition of humanity by securing the conditions under which individuals can act freely.
"Thus once the germ on which nature has lavished most care - man's inclination and vocation to think freely - has developed within this hard shell, it gradually reacts upon the mentality of the people, who thus gradually become increasingly able to act freely. Eventually, it even influences the principles of governments, which find that they can themselves profit by treating man, who is more than a machine, in a manner appropriate to his dignity." (Kant, WIE, 59-60)
Of course, the assumption is that the sovereign is "enlightened", like Frederick the Great, in allowing his subjects to pursue enlightenment. The limitation to this is that governments and those who head them are not always enlightened and often percieve critical and contrary perspectives as "dangerous" to their own power - or under the cloak of legitimacy - detrimental to the existence of the nation-state. So in place of education, they provide propaganda. In place of maturity, they facilitate immaturity. The insecure sovereign, the insanely paranoid leader, is like Nero - invariably on the verge of setting his kingdom on fire, to purify it of those who oppose him. Kant's vision for enlightenment has never materialized. The situation is far more complex than "obey and argue as much as you want". The skillful duplicity of those in power throws a wrench in Kant's plans - placing the emphasis on OBEY, and negating the rest.
"But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no fear of phantoms, yet who likewise has at hand a well-disciplined and numerous army to guarantee public security, may say what no republic would dare to say: Argue as much as you like, but obey! ...A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent." (Kant, What is Enlightenment?, Political Writings, 59)
Kant is fully aware of the paradoxical nature of this. In positing this, he inevitably concedes how he could not circumvent the set of assumptions put forth by Hobbes - namely that the state must be present to impose order, the grounds necessary for civilization. The Leviathan is not a beast, but a machine - a composition of individuals united in a grand collective.
"This spirit of freedom is also spreading abroad, even where it has to struggle with outward struggles imposed by governments which misunderstand their own function. For such governments can now witness a shining example of how freedom may exist without in the least jeopardising public concord and the unity of the commonwealth. Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artifical measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it." (Kant, WIE, 59)
The limit Kant imposes on maturity is one he willingly inherited from Hobbes. The modern state or Leviathan - by definition - claims to deal with the existing condition of humanity by securing the conditions under which individuals can act freely.
"Thus once the germ on which nature has lavished most care - man's inclination and vocation to think freely - has developed within this hard shell, it gradually reacts upon the mentality of the people, who thus gradually become increasingly able to act freely. Eventually, it even influences the principles of governments, which find that they can themselves profit by treating man, who is more than a machine, in a manner appropriate to his dignity." (Kant, WIE, 59-60)
Of course, the assumption is that the sovereign is "enlightened", like Frederick the Great, in allowing his subjects to pursue enlightenment. The limitation to this is that governments and those who head them are not always enlightened and often percieve critical and contrary perspectives as "dangerous" to their own power - or under the cloak of legitimacy - detrimental to the existence of the nation-state. So in place of education, they provide propaganda. In place of maturity, they facilitate immaturity. The insecure sovereign, the insanely paranoid leader, is like Nero - invariably on the verge of setting his kingdom on fire, to purify it of those who oppose him. Kant's vision for enlightenment has never materialized. The situation is far more complex than "obey and argue as much as you want". The skillful duplicity of those in power throws a wrench in Kant's plans - placing the emphasis on OBEY, and negating the rest.
