Improvement for an Improved World

While I initially thought that the Enlightenment perspective had much more weight, I thought the later readings we did about Romanticism also had a lot of truth. I do feel like Enlightenment goals are fundamental and totally worth going for, from the first impression of it to how it is fully embodied in our culture today. To somebody very familiar with the 21st century, to me, many of the ideals represented are 100% correct and pretty much just how it is nowadays. Beyond the process of how it shaped the world to the way it is today, I feel like at this point in time a lot of Enlightenment agendas are completely standard; to try to dispute many of these Enlightenment ideas is wrong and alien to me, if I’m being honest.

It initially seemed like Romanticism was just to be contrarian to many of these common sense truths of our current world. However, a lot of the readings we did had a lot of substance, especially when they weren’t mostly a rejection of progressive ideals. The text that wasn’t just presented as a contrast to Enlightenment ideas (which was most of what we read, contrary to my first impression) had a lot of truth to it as well, and while Enlightenment ideals seem to have a much more central theme, I definitely notice many Romantic ideals in how the system is dispersed throughout as well as in my personal life. I feel like the Enlightenment mentality definitely dominates the decision-making process, but Romantic ideas pervade many different parts of life. That being said, it may not be the best course of action to strictly adhere to Enlightenment standards when it comes to action, even if that is how it is right now – maybe different moves could make the world a better place.

From the course material I can definitely discern many things in how the system is now originated from these philosophies, back when they only existed as theory. It seems like every government in the world is operated based off these classical models. I also notice the heavy Enlightenment influence in how capitalism is – finance definitely seems to operate with empiricism first and foremost as its foundation. However, the biggest takeaway for me was how sound and accurate Romantic theory is. There is definitely a lot of truth that is missing when strictly pushing for an Enlightened world that is only truly and fully understood when considering things from a humanist perspective. To ignore the human heart of society is foolish and it is something that is often perpetuated nowadays. In spite of things being the way they are, I sensed a way for improvement not in Enlightenment texts, but in Romantic ones. Romanticism considers the human as an individual – in a world where it is easy to think of people as statistics, it makes a lot of sense to reevaluate things in a more Romantic way.

Enlightened Enlightenment

I believe in Enlightenment because I believe rational thoughts drive the humanity as a whole forward. Imagine living without computers, electricity, and science in general. Life will be reverted to its primal state and humans will be no different than animals. All these inventions are possible because of rationality and a strong emphasis on science for the last couple hundred years. Furthermore, I think rationality is important because it helps us avoid confusion is our life. While some may ask, “What is the meaning of life?” This is certainly a valid question, and I question this myself sometimes, too. Yet, no one can answer this question will full certainty. Therefore, I argue that, although it is interesting to fathom the answer to the question, it is ultimately impractical. Instead, we should focus on definitive questions such as: “How can we make and our life better?”, “How can we make the most of our life?”, etc. However, I also realize that life without Romanticist beliefs can be unbearable. We would be no different than robots that follow a set of predefined rules. A society without Romanticist elements, such as emotions, aesthetics, relationships, etc, has the full potential to become dystopian. In such a society, empathy, warmth, and genuineness are replaced by self-serving desires, coldness, and calculations. In short, it would not be a nice place to live in. Therefore, I believe extremity on both ends of the spectrum can be catastrophic, and it is certainly beneficial to strike for a balance of the two ideologies.

After learning about the Enlightenment and Romanticism, I gained a broader view of how Western politics and government are structured, in particular the US Government. Growing up in a very different culture (although a similar form a government), I was never taught the reason for the particular structure of the government that we used in our country, let along read the foundational writings of the philosophers that influenced and sprouted these thoughts. Therefore, it is certainly thought-provoking for me to read the works of Locke, Rousseau, Kant, etc. Following their reasoning, I saw different viewpoints of state of nature, natural rights, and ideal society. I realized many of these thoughts can be traced to the modern democratic society that most of us live in. For instance, Locke proposed the idea of fundamental human rights, which is practically embedded in most people’s minds these days and Kant develops an ethical system that emphasizes reason and rational agency, which is reflected in the jurisdiction system of contemporary western societies.

In summary, the main takeaway from this class, for me, was that following any principles to the extreme can be dangerous. In the Sorrows of Young Werther, we saw extreme devotion to romanticism can lead to a volatile mental state, like Werther and in Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, the author showed how reasoning leads to unnecessary social constraints, misery, and injustice. Thus, I believe modesty is the only way to ensure our physical and mental welfare.

Kant’s Philosophy vs. North Korea’s Philosophy

Kant’s philosophy of treating people as an ends in themselves instead of as a means to an end resonates powerfully with my idea of how politicians and governments should ideally treat people in a democratic country, or any country for that matter. This is a very important idea because it strongly emphasizes on the value of human life. I find this philosophy very interesting because Kant doesn’t just state the maxim out of a personal whim or opinion; he actually provides a logical explanation to back this categorical imperative. He reasons that since morality is determined by reason, moral law is universal because reason is universal. Hence moral law applies equally to everyone. Therefore, acting morally means to treat every person as a moral agent and therefore as an end in itself, not as a means to an end.

The reality, however, is far from Kant’s ideal. Some governments and politicians around the world regularly abuse human rights. For example, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is one of the most repressive and undemocratic states in the world. Kim Jong-un exercises absolute political power over the country. The authoritarian government restricts all forms of human liberty and freedom in the country, including freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the freedom to form political parties. The government systematically forces citizens (including women, children and prisoners) to provide unpaid labor , who are forced to build the country’s infrastructure and participate in events extolling the Kim family’s ruling and the Workers’ Party of Korea. The government uses arbitrary arrests, punishments, torture and execution to incite fear in people’s minds and gain control over them. The government partners with Chinese authorities to capture North Korean refugees and punishes the refugees for making international contact. The government does not care to protect and promote the rights of marginalized and weaker communities like women, children and crippled people. Kant would be devastated and horrified by the of abuse people, and most importantly valuable human lives, in countries like North Korea.



Taking Advantage on the Highest Level

Kant’s ideals, compared to the other philosophers we’ve covered so far, seem to be the most idyllic. While he acknowledges the propensity of humans to err, the other philosophers take it as fact that it is simply a fundamental of reality – Kant philosophizes as if this behavior is a choice, not as if it happens no matter what. He encourages people to “act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means”. To me, this assertion seems unrealistic but also worthwhile.

The idea of using others for your own gain is nothing new. Beyond happening on a small level, this type of behavior is pervasive, even in the highest level of government. While it’s a nice idea to rid the world of political corruption, as of right now the President of the United States is still holding his position exclusively because he’s taken advantage of his “party supporters” by making them his political scapegoats. Many influential republicans have taken the fall for him to secure his position as president, and as president the only thing he’s done is avoid catching fire for being corrupt. Trump hasn’t done anything for the country – he has only used his presidential power to avoid scandal. In spite of this, he was just acquitted by the senate of impeachment. Clearly, Kant’s philosophy does not realistically represent how things go down, even if it is a much better vision for how humans should interact. I think it’s a good idea to put it down on paper as philosophy, but to blindly ascribe to this system of belief because it seems like utopia is extremely naive.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/politics/trump-admin-departures-trnd/