Kant Vs Foucault

1316 Words6 Pages
In order to weigh the differences and similarities for the meaning of Enlightenment for Kant and Foucault, a look at Kant's "What Is Enlightenment?" gives better understanding of what Foucault is in favor or counters. The 17th century was the age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a time where men were emerging from the mind. Kant described the immaturity as a lack of autonomy. Once man was able to think for himself, he has reached maturity and can begin to question and debate everything. Kant mentioned that it was difficult for men to become enlightened due to the fact there is always a person of religion and government teaching the people laws of life. If a man didn't want to become enlightened, he would just follow the people who is above him intellectually and lawfully because it is easier that way. For Kant, the importance of being enlightened is for man to use his natural gifts and find his own reasoning of the way of the world. Kant believed a scholar's use of public reasoning gives people a sense of reassurance which gives people to obey because it is a way of reinforcement of rules and law that the scholar presents the public with on a congregations behalf. Public reason is what people follow in order to make the society around them run at ease. A scholar's private…show more content…
Enlightenment is the age of when man is able to think for himself and question in order to achieve the freedom of the mind. The goal is for the man to gain a maturity about himself in order for him to live at his own potential, but in while doing this he must obey morally. The enlightenment period allowed for scientific discoveries and ideas of rationality, universalism, and humanism. These ideas and discoveries, as long as inventions of technology, allowed people to expand their knowledge to understand life on a larger scale and could affect everyone. The enlightenment focuses on finding
Open Document