Some Notes for Discussion of Kant, “What Is Enlightenment?”
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR
The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR: From Rejection to Selective Commemoration Corinna Munn Department of History Columbia University April 9, 2014 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Volker Berghahn, for his support and guidance in this project. I also thank my second reader, Hana Worthen, for her careful reading and constructive advice. This paper has also benefited from the work I did under Wolfgang Neugebauer at the Humboldt University of Berlin in the summer semester of 2013, and from the advice of Bärbel Holtz, also of Humboldt University. Table of Contents 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1 2. Chronology and Context………………………………………………………….4 3. The Geschichtsbild in the GDR…………………………………………………..8 3.1 What is a Geschichtsbild?..............................................................................8 3.2 The Function of the Geschichtsbild in the GDR……………………………9 4. Prussia’s Changing Role in the Geschichtsbild of the GDR…………………….11 4.1 1945-1951: The Post-War Period………………………………………….11 4.1.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………11 4.1.2 Public Symbols and Events: The fate of the Berliner Stadtschloss…14 4.1.3 Film: Die blauen Schwerter………………………………………...19 4.2 1951-1973: Building a Socialist Society…………………………………...22 4.2.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………22 4.2.2 Public Symbols and Events: The Neue Wache and the demolition of Potsdam’s Garnisonkirche…………………………………………..30 4.2.3 Film: Die gestohlene Schlacht………………………………………34 4.3 1973-1989: The Rediscovery of Prussia…………………………………...39 4.3.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………39 4.3.2 Public Symbols and Events: The restoration of the Lindenforum and the exhibit at Sans Souci……………………………………………42 4.3.3 Film: Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria………………………..45 5. -
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Self-Expression, and Kant's Public
Diametros 54 (2017): 118–137 doi: 10.13153/diam.54.2017.1136 FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF SELF-EXPRESSION, AND KANT’S PUBLIC USE OF REASON – Geert Van Eekert – Abstract. This article turns to early modern and Enlightenment advocates of tolerance (Locke, Spi- noza, John Stuart Mill) to discover and lay bare the line of argument that has informed their com- mitment to free speech. This line of argument will subsequently be used to assess the shift from free speech to the contemporary ideal of free self-expression. In order to take this assessment one step further, this article will finally turn to Immanuel Kant’s famous defense of the public use of reason. In the wake of Katerina Deligiorgi’s readings of Kant, it will show that the idea of free speech requires a specific disposition on behalf of speakers and writers that is in danger of being neglected in the contemporary prevailing conception of free speech as freedom of self-expression. Keywords: John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, freedom of speech, free- dom of self-expression, public use of reason, Enlightenment. Contemporary debates about free speech or freedom of speech primarily deal with the question how free speech should be (in the sense of both “How free should speech be?” and “How should free speech be?”), and not (or at least not mainly) with the question why speech should be free.1 Admittedly, there seems to be no reason to urge the latter question: it is rather generally agreed upon today (at least in liberal democratic societies) that freedom of speech should be both es- teemed and categorically defended because it is both a fundamental human right and a key pillar of democracy and of the (scientific) quest for knowledge. -
Rabbi David Fränckel, Moses Mendelssohn, and the Beginning of the Berlin Haskalah
RABBI DAVID FRÄNCKEL, MOSES MENDELSSOHN, AND THE BEGINNING OF THE BERLIN HASKALAH. REATTRIBUTING A PATRIOTIC SERMON (1757) Addenda Gad Freudenthal On December 10, 1757, R. David Fränckel (1707–1762), Chief Rabbi of Berlin Jewry, delivered in German a sermon on the occa- sion of Frederick the Great’s victory at Leuthen five days earlier (5 December). Volume 1 of EJJS carried my article describing the genesis of this so-called “Leuthen Sermon” and established that (contrary to previous consensus) it was written by David Fränckel and not by his former student Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1796).1 Rather, it was written in Hebrew by Fränckel and only translated into German by Mendelssohn. In an appendix, I described the very rich aftermath of the sermon: after having been very elegantly translated into English (we do not know by whom) and published by the ephemeral London publisher W. Reeve in 1758, the translation was reprinted no less than four times in New England. Mr. Shimon Steinmetz from Brooklyn (N.Y.) kindly drew my attention to three earlier relevant items that had escaped my atten- tion. He also supplied copies of them. I herewith thank him warmly for his generous and erudite help and share his findings with readers of EJJS: [1] As early as March 1758, The Scots Magazine, published in Edinburgh, carried the following entry in the section “New Books”: A thanksgiving-sermon from Psal xxii. 23.24 for the King of Prussia’s victory Dec. 5. Preached on the sabbath of the 10th, in the synagogue of the Jews in Berlin. -
Staying Optimistic: the Trials and Tribulations of Leibnizian Optimism
Strickland, Lloyd 2019 Staying Optimistic: The Trials and Tribulations of Leibnizian Optimism. Journal of Modern Philosophy, 1(1): 3, pp. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32881/jomp.3 RESEARCH Staying Optimistic: The Trials and Tribulations of Leibnizian Optimism Lloyd Strickland Manchester Metropolitan University, GB [email protected] The oft-told story of Leibniz’s doctrine of the best world, or optimism, is that it enjoyed a great deal of popularity in the eighteenth century until the massive earthquake that struck Lisbon on 1 November 1755 destroyed its support. Despite its long history, this story is nothing more than a commentators’ fiction that has become accepted wisdom not through sheer weight of evidence but through sheer frequency of repetition. In this paper we shall examine the reception of Leibniz’s doctrine of the best world in the eighteenth century in order to get a clearer understanding of what its fate really was. As we shall see, while Leibniz’s doctrine did win a good number of adherents in the 1720s and 1730s, especially in Germany, support for it had largely dried up by the mid-1740s; moreover, while opponents of Leibniz’s doctrine were few and far between in the 1710s and 1720s, they became increasing vocal in the 1730s and afterwards, between them producing an array of objections that served to make Leibnizian optimism both philosophically and theologically toxic years before the Lisbon earthquake struck. Keywords: Leibniz; Optimism; Best world; Lisbon earthquake; Evil; Wolff The oft-told story of Leibniz’s doctrine of the best world, or optimism, is that it enjoyed a great deal of popularity in the eighteenth century until the massive earthquake that struck Lisbon on 1 November 1755 destroyed its support. -
Enlightened Despotism
ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM FRITZ HARTUNG 2s 6d PUBLISHED FOR THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION BY ROUTLEDGE AND KEGAN PAUL [G. 36] ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM THIS PAMPHLET IS GENERAL SERIES NUMBER 36 First published 1957 Reprinted 1963 FRITZ HARTUNG Copyright by the Historical Association Printed in Great Britain by Cox and Wyman Ltd., London, Reading and Fakenham Non-members may obtain copies 2s. 6d. each (post free], and members may obtain extra copies at is. 6d. each (postfree) from the Hon. Secretary of the Associa- tion, 59A, Kennington Park Road, London, S.E.li The publication of a pamphlet by the Historical Association does not necessarily imply the Association s official approbation of the opinions expressed therein Obtainable only through booksellers or from the offices of the Association 1957 Reprinted 1963 ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM SAINT AUGUSTINE once said: " If no one enquires of me, I know; if I want to explain to an enquirer, I do not know ". That is also the position of historians who have to deal with " En- lightened Absolutism ", or (as it is usually called in English) " Enlightened Despotism". When, some forty years ago, lecturing on modern constitutional history, I had for the first PREFACE time to deal with the subject in detail, it was still possible to treat it as a clearly defined and unambiguous notion. It was, It is a privilege for the Historical Association to have the opportunity of publishing this pamphlet by Professor Fritz Hartung, in an English version prepared by Miss in fact, the only stage which in the controversy about the H. Otto and revised by the present writer. -
Guidelines and Value Statement on Freedom of Speech and Expression
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION VALUE STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES Approved by USM Board of Regents June 21, 2019 Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement of Values The free exchange of ideas and information is central to higher education’s foremost obligation of fostering both intellectual development and the discovery and dissemination of knowledge. Scholarship and learning can only flourish in an environment in which the unfettered expression of all ideas is nurtured. To that end, the University System of Maryland (USM) is committed to promoting and protecting every person’s freedom to express their views, however controversial, in a lawful manner. With certain exceptions, such as threats of physical violence and unlawful harassment, free speech is protected by the United States Constitution. The State of Maryland and the USM share the commitment to free speech that is imbedded in our nation’s constitution. Any effort to limit protected speech based solely on content is a violation of USM’s legal and academic responsibilities and is therefore impermissible. The USM’s duty to advance facts and the truth -- as well as our commitment to the students, faculty, and staff who comprise the USM community -- can also impose an obligation to condemn, confront, or correct speech that is hateful or discriminatory. Institutional leaders and other campus community members may counter speech designed to denigrate others or undermine evidence- based scholarship with additional speech. Offensive speech cannot be banned, but it can—and often should—be challenged. A healthy and thriving community also depends on the civility of its members towards one another. -
Free Thought, Free Speech, Free Action Intellectual Individualism According to Robert H
Jacob A. Sandstrom Free Thought, Free Speech, Free Action Intellectual Individualism According to Robert H. Jackson The Robert H. Jackson Center 305 East Fourth Street Jamestown, New York 14701 716.483.6646 www.roberthjackson.org Free Thought, Free Speech, Free Action Intellectual Individualism According to Robert H. Jackson Abstract What can be said of a man whose life was so vibrant, yet so short? For Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, words were a craft—his sword and his solace. Though Jackson’s life was cut short by a fatal heart attack, his words remain in his masterful writings, speeches, and opinions. Among the themes Jackson references, sanctity of individual thought—the basis of a functional democracy—is constant. A practical man, Jackson professed that though certain forms of harmful speech and action could be subject to limitation, thought was beyond the control of anyone but the individual. Ultimately, the public’s chief goal is to find items of “social value” through consensus, a result of discussions that welcome a wide range of opinions. Jackson’s views of free thought were strengthened by his time serving as U.S. Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg; his willingness to pen opinions— particularly individual concurrences or dissents—following Nuremberg seems to be more than a mere matter of coincidence. This paradigm begs the question: what did Jackson find at Nuremberg that so profoundly altered his understanding of the world? The physical atrocities of World War II are upsetting to any empathetic human being; there is no doubt that Jackson was disturbed by the blatant horrors of Nazi rule. -
Freedom of Expression and the Liberalism of Fear
volume 20, no. 34 I. Introduction november 2020 Much recent philosophical work on free speech proceeds in the fol- lowing ostensibly plausible way. Rights, it is said, protect weighty interests (Raz 1986). Therefore, if there is a right to free expression, then there must be some weighty interest(s) that it protects. More- over, reasoning about the best means of protecting and advancing Freedom of Expression and these interests determines a right’s normative limits. For example: if we have a right to free expression because it aids us in the search for truth (as J. S. Mill suggests), then, when limiting speech helps us in our search, we ought to impose the relevant limitations (Leiter 2016). If we the Liberalism of Fear: have a right to freedom of expression because it facilitates democratic deliberation, then, when silencing speech does so better, silencing is justified (Schauer 1982). If we have a right to free expression because A Defense of the Darker Mill such a right promotes the perfection of our capacities, then, when pre- venting some speech does so better, we ought to prevent speech just that far (Brink 2001: 149−172). If a right to free expression protects us against oppression, then our speech can be regulated insofar as it con- stitutes oppression (McGowan 2014). And so on. As Stanley Fish puts the general point, speech “is always produced within the precincts of some conception of the good to which it must yield in the event of conflict” (1994). Or as Erwin Chemerinsky writes, courts must inevitably decide “what speech is protected, under what circumstances, and when and how the government may regulate” (2017: 1237−1238). -
Quick Study Guide
WH07MOD_te_ch05_Rev_s.fm Page 204 Monday, March 5, 2007 2:44W PMH07MOD_se_CH05_rev_s.fm Page 204 Friday, January 26, 2007 4:03 PM Quick Study Guide CHAPTER Progress Monitoring Online 5 5 For: Self-test with vocabulary practice Quick Study Guide Web Code: nba-1741 I Have students use the Quick Study I Enlightenment Thinkers I American Declaration of Guide to prepare for this chapter’s tests. • Thomas Hobbes: social contract in which people give Independence: Main Ideas Students may wish to refer to the fol- power to the government for an organized society lowing pages as they review: • John Locke: natural rights—life, liberty, and property Declaration of Independence: Main Ideas • Baron de Montesquieu: separation of powers; checks • All men are created equal and have natural rights to life, Enlightenment Thinkers and balances liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. • Voltaire: battled corruption, injustice, and inequality; • It is the government’s obligation to protect these rights. Section 1, pp. 183–186 defended freedom of speech • If a government fails to protect these rights, the people can • Denis Diderot: Encyclopedia revolt and set up a new government. Enlightenment Ideas Influence Democracy • Jean-Jacques Rousseau: social contract in which Section 1, pp. 183–185; Section 3, people follow the “general will” for true liberty pp. 200–201 • Adam Smith: free market; laissez faire I The U.S. Bill of Rights I American Declaration of Independence: Enlightenment Ideas Influence The U.S. Bill of Rights Main Ideas Democracy 1st: Guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, Section 3, p. 198 Government’s and petition Separation power comes of powers from the people. -
Race, Neoliberalism, and Intellectual Freedom
Speech and Silence: Race, Neoliberalism, and Intellectual Freedom Maura Seale1 and Rafia Mirza2 1 University of Michigan, 2 Southern Methodist University ABSTRACT: In 1977, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) produced a film entitled The Speaker which depicts a high school that invites a professor to speak on the inferiority of African Americans. A throughline connects The Speaker in its 1977 incarnation to OIF’s 2018 actions and discourse around its 2018 revision of the “Meeting Rooms: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” to specifically include hate groups. It is not coincidental that the construction of the library as a marketplace of ideas takes place through debates around the fundamental humanity of Black people in the United States; this throughline is embedded in racial capitalism. In this essay, we argue that debates around intellectual freedom within librarianship, with their reliance on the metaphor of the library as a “marketplace of ideas,” must be understood through the broad lens of racial capitalism. More specifically, we use Jodi Melamed’s typology of liberal antiracisms in the twentieth and twenty-first century to analyze ALA and OIF documents, as well as The Speaker, and draw on Randolph Hohle and David Theo Goldberg’s work to consider the relationships between public space, neoliberal policy, and race at play in the “Meeting Rooms” documents. Keywords: race, neoliberalism, intellectual freedom, free speech, critical theory This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. -
Kant's Ostensible Anti-Thesis of "Public" and "Private" and the Subversion of the Language of Authority
KANT's OSTENSIBLE ANTITHESIS OF "PUBLIC" AND "PRIVATE" AND THE SUBVERSION OF THE LANGUAGE OF AUTHORITY IN U AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: .IWHAT Is ENLIGHTENMENT?'" Michael D. Royal Wheaton College 1 In U An Answer to the Question: 'What Is Enlightenment?'," writtenin1784, Kant brought to the table of philosophical discourse what previously had been merely a political concern -the manner in which enlightenment ought to proceed (Schmidt, "The Question" 270). His essay was one of tw02 historically significant responses to Protestant clergyman Johann Friedrich Zollner's query, posed in a footnote of an essay in the Berlinische Monatsschrif. "Whatis enlight enment? This question, which is almost as important as [the ques tion] What is truth? would seem to require an answer, before one engages in enlightening other people... ./1 (qtd. in Bahr 1-2). The topic of social enlightenment was widely debated as Europe searched· for a scientific identity, one which Kant was willing to supplywithwhathecalledhis own "Copernicanrevolution." Kant's line of reasoning in "What Is Enlightenment?/I is different and more compelling than those of his contemporaries in that Kant not only proposes bothdefinitionofandmethodforenlightenment, butconjoins the two in an intimate relationship, the essential link between them being free speech, but (as we will see) a qualified kind of free speech termed Ifthe public use of reason./I Consequently, Kant's argument is political in its aim but philosophical in its approach, appealing to the nature of the polis itself, the nature of historical progress, and the nature of reason. As such, its implications are deep and far-reaching. -
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) by Louis Godbout
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) by Louis Godbout Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com Frederick the Great. Image Copyright © 2003-2004 Clipart. King of Prussia (1740-1786), general, and writer, Frederick II greatly expanded his com. kingdom through a series of brutal wars and cynical reversals of alliances in which he showed both military genius and diplomatic acumen. His homosexuality was an open secret during his reign, yet some historians have attempted to deny it or diminish its significance. In spite of the carnage wrought in the bloody battles of the campaigns he led, Frederick saw himself as the archetype of the Enlightened ruler. He was, indeed, not only a protector of the arts and sciences, bringing to his court some of the best minds of the eighteenth century, but also a flute player, composer, and writer, albeit of modest talent. Because Frederick's military conquests made Prussia the core around which Germany would coalesce in the nineteenth century, he has often been portrayed as a national hero and as such his homosexuality has frequently been glossed over. Even some recent biographies continue to exclude any allusion to or hint of his homosexuality. German historians especially have considered it impossible for such a virile and stoic man to have been homosexual, and have regarded the king's reputation for homosexuality as a slight by the French. Yet proof of Frederick's sexual proclivity is overwhelming. It comes not only from the writings of satirists and enemies, but from the observations and correspondence of friends and from the works of Frederick himself.