Annotated Bibliography

Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?,” in Schmidt, ed.
,
What is Enlightenment? 58-64
Immanuel Kant is undoubtedly the first thinker from the Enlightenment to question, not
only his own role in the historical era, but to question its goals. Perhaps one of the most
famous works of Kant, outside of his critiques, his essay (in response to a question posed
by the Berlinische Monatsschrift) starts off with one of his most acclaimed lines:
“Enlightment is mankind’s exit from its self-incurred immaturity.” The unbelievable
precision, and clarity from his definition recasted all writing about the Enlightenment,
and the goal of gaining knowledge and understanding. This essay is undeniably valuable
for comparing and understanding what the Enlightment was considered from within. The
conditions of the intellectual world at that time are almost impossible to understand
without sources from within the zeitgeist – who is better prepared for such a reflection
than Kant himself? The essay falls short when trying to discuss Kant’s contemporaries
arguments: unfortunately, Kant had not realized that many other authors had responded to
the work (including Moses Mendelssohn), and hearing his agreement/disagreement with
those authors would certainly prove useful. Nevertheless, understanding the era of the
Enlightenment, and separating it from the act of being “enlightened” originated in this
exemplary work.
Hegel, Selections from Phenomenology of Spirit
Hegel finished the Phenomenology of Sprit while Napolean attacked Prussian forces in
the Battle of Jena. The chaotic origin of the work, may contribute to its intensely concentrated
and forward style, but the organization and Hegel’s goals are enormous, and fundamentally
change the course of philosophy after it. Hegel’s interest in this work is the progression of Spirit
(“geist”), and its interactions and growth as he treats it. Spirit, for Hegel, is the self-conscious
activity of history. The activity and constant development of history, and the ability for it to
unfold into forms of knowledge. One of the most interesting portions of the phenomenology is
when he discusses the Enlightenment – he makes clear that the notion of enlightment is closely
tied to the pure insight in opposition to faith. The diffusion of this pure insight, grapples and
overthrows the old knowledge prescent in consciousness, and iolently supplants it. Hegel’s
dialectic between pure insight and faith is intensely violent – and the struggle between both not
only redefine their conceptions, but define themselves. Spirit is the natural successor of the
Enlightenment and the dissemination of pure insight. Hegel’s understanding of Enlightnemt is
markedly different form Kant’s, and is rightfully so. The context in which Hegel wrote this work
(in the shadow of the French revolution, and during a war) properly reflects the conflict tpresent
in his understanding of [the] Enlightenment. For Hegel, old knowledge and incorrect knowledge
are part of the same coin as new knowledge because of their means of acquiry – where new
knowledge subverts the old, through Enlightenment, is through its connection the self. This
deterministic self, bound to the progression of Spirit, is where the crux of [the] Enlightenment
lies. The problems with Hegel lie mainly in his language, and style of discourse. Hegel’s writing,
and means of analysis are punishingly difficult for those without understanding of his historical
context, and historical approach to his writing. The work is lugubrious in pace, and the language
is undoubtedly challenging. While this means the work has a significant barrier of entry, every
person who analyzes Hegel will come out of it with different interpretations of his intent. While
this makes concurrency a rarity, the value of these perspectives help determine the nature of
Hegel’s thought.
Foucault, “What is Critique?” in Schmidt, ed. What is Enlightenment?, pp. 382-398

This work was written by Foucault in response to Kant’s famous response. Possibly the
most important finding by Foucault in this work is the understanding that this text is
possibly the first text that self analyzed the purpose and direction of the Enlightenment. It
is essentially the first meta-textual analysis of the enlightenment, and engages with the
forces that Kant himself was a part of. Foucault makes clear that Kant approaches this
understanding of Enlightenment in the negative – dealing with the nature of the question of
contemporary reality. For Foucault, Kant’s understanding of the Enlightenment is directly
associated with the “immaturity” associated with the will of someone who would blindly accept
someone’s authority in a case where reason is necessary. Kant sees that Enlightenment primarily
caused change by modifying the relationship between will, authority, and reason. Enlightenment
is not something which is a universal, but something that can be entered and participated in.
Foucault views this as a
Habermas, “Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present: On Foucault’s Lecture ‘What is
Enlightenment?’”, in The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’
Debate 173-180

Annotated Bibliography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annotated Bibliography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annotated Bibliography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?,” in Schmidt, ed.

“Enlightment is mankind’s exit from its self-incurred immaturity.” The unbelievable

Hegel, Selections from Phenomenology of Spirit

Enlightenment and the dissemination of pure insight. Hegel’s understanding of Enlightnemt is

Foucault, “What is Critique?” in Schmidt, ed. What is Enlightenment?, pp. 382-398

You might also like