Free

Freedom in the Eyes of Kant Essay Term freedom implies various aspects and is seen as man’s endowments and thoughts within his parameter and his relationship with himself, his society and his environment. Various sociologists and theorist have their own interpretations and thoughts on what constitute freedom for a man. Whether in Rome or Greece, there has been constant transformation of Greek thoughts and methodologies on the concept of freedom. Epicurians thought that, â€Å"No bodily thing was born for us to use, Nature had no such aim, but what was born creates the use. † (Carus Humphries, 143) There is nothing in this universe that has been created for us to use but what has been born naturally becomes an essential element for us. From this doctrine, freedom gets its new meaning implying we are part of the nature and to the nature we owe our existence and our freedom is also based on this natural concept. From this concept, westerners began to analyze their thoughts on freedom and what is a true freedom? In sixteenth century, the whole concept of freedom was constantly changed. Changes occurred when the concept of slavery began to shake foundations of very core of humanity. The westerners began to seek the freedom of human beings from the jaws of slavery. From the 16th to 18th century, world saw considerable change: the beginning of modern era- a period when people began to see themselves free, free from autocracy, dictatorship and even more freedom from slavery. His mental attitude as observed was, â€Å"A reasonable man is always happy if he has what is necessary for him according to his condition [his place in the social order], that is to say, if he has the protection of the laws, and can live as his father lived before him: so that one of the essential things to the good of a nation is being governed in one constant and uniform manner. † (Rempel, Online edition) According to an ordinary man of the eighteenth century, his freedom lies in the will to live according to norms of the society and follow what is traditionally inherited for him. But literature and philosophical writers saw the new dawn of day, as there was a spontaneous over flow of significant thoughts of freedom emerging from their literary works. In the backdrop of this scenario, philosophers undertook social outlook of man in defining freedom. What is an essence of freedom in the eyes of philosophers in itself involves various paradoxes. Immanuel Kant, a product of eighteenth century looked at the freedom from various perspectives but he visualized these perspectives from the individual’s inner self: how human beings himself adjust to his actions from the angle of his preconceived notions. For Kant, freedom is â€Å"the power of self determination, and as absolute self activity. †(Heidegger, 16) In the general sense as according to Kant, freedom is an activity that arises from within human beings and takes a spontaneous movement. In other words, it implies that freedom does not mean any dictates of law from any society or surrounding or environment established by human’s themselves because Kantian said, â€Å"The human will is†¦[free] be cause sensibility does not necessitate its action. There is a man a power of self determination, independent of any coercion through sensuous impulses. †(Heidegger, 17) If we ask a question, is there a general characterization of freedom? Then the answer is no as we cannot put freedom under any category, because even Kant said that no one can prove freedom as something actual or something in a real sense. We all are confined into the domains of moral laws to fundamentally actualize our freedom. All the types of freedom man presupposes like the spontaneity of the understanding, autonomy of reason, free play of faculties in judgments of taste and the political freedom to think for oneself, run on the basis of the moral laws. We ensure and follow the freedom on the basis of this morality. For Kant, both the freedom and morality are same. A person follows his free will on basis of the morality. In the other words, freedom implies independence of any wish based on conditions. Kant’s concept of morality shows deep contradiction to what is known today as compatibilist theories on freedom. These theories try to combine determinism and freedom. You can follow your own terms in doing what you feel determined by your own inner nature that in turn is determined by the moral duty that you feel you have. If we feel that we have certain moral duty on us, then we also feel ourselves free to obey these moral duties. John Locke, in his The Second Treatise of Civil Government, maintains moral duty arises when we consider duty for others. It is, â€Å"respect for the autonomy of others, which means allowing the free exercise of the innocent, competent will of others in regard to their own interests. † (Ross, Online Edition) Kant formulated moral law on the ground of involving duty towards one self and towards others. This conception of human nature dates back to St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. When we see in our practical life and look around our world, since centuries what we have been following are certain laws or moral codes and we have been taught our freedom is all based on the dictum of these moral laws. Here lies the most paradox situation. If we follow societies’ moral codes, then where will be our freedom as the true freedom implies when we have all the rights to do any thing under this blue sky but moral laws restrain us in performing our own free will and if Kant says freedom entails in following our own moral laws, is itself questionable. But it is also true that man is a social animal and is dependent on others for every of his needs and desires. This intrinsic nature of human beings resulted in the formation of societies and civilizations, where every one man is dependent on every other person for the fulfillment of his needs. If each and every person follows his own free thoughts, there will be only chaos therefore what must need to be followed are the moral duties and within these moral duties all our lives are dependent on. What is more significant for the Kant is that we are rational human beings. But being human being as a rational is also a disputable matter when it comes to homosexuality and sodomy. When we go entirely by Kant’s views, we cannot take into consideration homosexuals and the question arises: is there anything rational that moves in contradiction to these practices? Even if we choose ourselves things we want to do, we cannot in our endeavor do so without considering its causes. When we think in practical terms, moral laws do not actualize us to activate free will. If we take up the spontaneity of understanding by Kant, it is spontaneous movement of our thoughts and these three thoughts originate from the faculties of mind that can arose from the possibilities of sense, imagination and appreciation. (Savre, 163) He further developed the view that â€Å"Understanding is nothing but the unity of appreciation in relation to the synthesis of imagination†. (Savre, 164) In understanding of any action, Kant’s basic assumption lies in the power of logic thinking, in other words reasoning. The reasoning can also take many forms. Reason is a sort of systematically following of laws and principles and is a source of morality and feeling of our consciousness towards freedom. Reason for Kant is both logical as well as magnificent way to express freedom. When we look at every aspect from logical viewpoint and notion, it paves the way for certain conclusions and as transcendental faculty; it makes us go into the inner depth of our mind and to analyze things through the power of intuition. Kant gave very concrete differentiation between reason and understanding. He said that understanding is concerned with finitude whereas reason with infinite. Understanding is something that we consider something concrete and with understanding, there is no scope for, as said by Kant, synthetic cognition from conceptions that is why it is finitude. Understanding simply means to grasp what is shown to us and in our environment where as reason is a flow of thoughts. We can also say that understanding is the faculty of rules whereas reason is the faculty of principles. We may generalize that reason is closer to freedom than understanding as we are not bound by any rules though both are the different sides of same coin. It is our spontaneous understanding of one aspect that leads to reasoning. Freedom also lies in our judgment of other objects and things around us according to Kant are the free play of faculties in judgments of taste. For e. g. Let us take up beauty. We all have universal appeal for beauty. Others regard beauty as a subjective thing considered being as private preference but for Kant beauty is very objective and universal. Beauty is not just physical feature but it is the way we react towards that beautiful object. We are judging ourselves in our judgment of object and this involves our feeling towards the object but with universal claim. This individual judgment should be free from any restriction or any moral constraint and they are in turn symbol of moral freedom. As no one else except individual person is involved in the feeling and judgment of taste, it’s an individual autonomy. This free play is in a state between imagination and understanding. You understand the object and it is your freedom and free play of judgment that dictates you that the object is beautiful. The main difference between free play of judgment and other types of judgment is based on its core principles. This type of freedom is enshrined within you and takes place in same situations and same circumstances in every human being. In short Kant stated that, â€Å"Free play of judgments of taste can have the quantity of universality and the modality of necessity while retaining the quality of independence from direct moral interest and relation to merely subjective, cognitive interests rather than objective, practical ones†. (Guyer, Online Edition) As the democracy as form of government has emerged in several places, man has all the freedom of the political thinking. Kant held the view that every one has a freedom to deliver his political thoughts and enter into any social contract in political sphere. Kant separates the political rights with political thoughts from what we call morals. These are the most important kinds of freedom focused by Kant, but there are many different aspects of freedom that Kant ignored. Kant also postulated what is known as Science of Right followed and pursued by Jurists or jurisconsultus. Jurists or juriconsuluts have practical knowledge of legislations and laws enshrined in the subject whereas, as said by Kant, the rights and laws when looked from theoretical perspective come under the category pure science of right. He further said that, â€Å"The science of right thus designates the philosophical and systematic knowledge of the principles of natural right. And it is from this science that the immutable principles of all positive legislation must be derived by practical jurists and lawgivers. †(Kant, Online Edition) The science of right also enshrines within itself freedom: this freedom entails freedom on account of his being human, independent of any binding and he is justly right to attain this freedom, and which according to Kant is unimpeachable. Inherent within the man is also the right of common action-all the activities that bring the men together without infringing each other’s rights. Humans have right to convey their thoughts, narrate anything to other or promise truthfully or falsely and honestly or dishonestly and on the other hand it is right of others whether they accept it or reject their messages or actions. In all these aspects of freedom for Kant, humans express the best is the freedom of the free play of the faculties in judgments of taste as Guyer in â€Å"Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness† says, â€Å"We are entitled to our own happiness only if we exercise freedom, freely chosen actions. † (Guyer, 124) In faculties’ of judgment, it is we who are decision makers and make interpretations on basis of our own reasons. In other types of freedom still we are bound by one law or other but here too there is a certain essence of moral law that plays which is universal. We cannot interpret to anybody anything, we have certain moral and ethical duties on how we have to address others and interpret other things. This kind of human freedom is quite plausible and satisfying. According to Guyer, it is only this freedom that induces us to follow moral laws because we are all human beings and are social animals and our humanity requires us to respect others, which is a theory of respect and it in-turn involves good will. This faculty of the freedom and fair play of judgment is part of the nature. But as Kant says there is a great gulf between the â€Å"realm of the concept of nature† and the â€Å"concept of freedom†. (Guyer, 27) He further said that â€Å"the concept of freedom determines nothing in regard to the theoretical cognition of nature; the concept of nature likewise determines nothing in regard to the practical laws of freedom. † (Guyer, 27) This faculty of judgment is a middle-way between the concept of nature and freedom which makes it possible to create a link between what is purposeful natural and what is purposeful theoretical. It makes us move from the law-engulfed world of freedom towards what is purely and in true sense and spirit natural. (Guyer, 27) Kant’s critique of teleological judgment has raised the question to what extent is it legitimate to think of nature in teleological terms, in other words, in terms of ends, goals and purposes. After assuming all the possibilities and views of Newtonian science and other teleological judgments, he said that if study of organism is a part of natural science then all the products viewed by nature should not be considered as artifacts but as natural products. He further stated that still they should not be considered merely as essential forces of matter but should be considered in teleological terms. Anything what is produced naturally or designed have an end, as Kant stated, â€Å"It is required that its parts altogether reciprocally produced one another, as far as both their form and combination is concerned, and thus produce a whole out of their own casuality. † (Ginsborg, 5) He said all the natural objects are considered to have a natural end, and the entire end must be â€Å"cause and effect of itself. † (Ginsborg, 5) For e. g. Trees are free beings that reproduce its species and the parts of trees stand depended and are in relation to each other, leaves perform the function of taking care of tree whereas tree in turn produces leaves, but this concept is different than watch. Watch does follow first two conditions but does not follow the third. It is not possible for the wheel in the watch to produce another wheel, and still less one watch does not produce other watches, and when we have to compare it is not possible for a watch to repair itself or to replace the removed parts. But Kant said that â€Å"An organized being is thus not a mere machine, because that has solely moving force [bewegende Kraft]; rather it possesses formative force, and indeed of a kind which it communicates to kinds of matter [Materien] which not have it (it organizes them), thus a self-propagating formative force, which cannot be explained through the capacity for movement (mechanism) alone. † (Ginsborg, 5) From these points it is true that nature is viewed teleologically, and there are free beings like watch, which are not natural but mechanical and can be considered beyond nature as man invented it but its conduct is quite natural. WORKS CITED Carus, Titus Lucretius Humphries, Rolfe. â€Å"The Way Things are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus† Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1968. Ginsborg, Hannah. â€Å"Kants biological teleology and its philosophical significance† Available: http://209. 85. 175. 104/search? q=cache:-DckacXj2cQJ:https://itunes. berkeley. edu/file/10/Kants_Biological_Teleology. pdf+Kant%27s+biological+teleology+and+its+philosophical+significancehl=enct=clnkcd=1gl=in, June 17, 2008 Guyer, Paul, Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Guyer, Paul. â€Å"Kant and the Experience of Freedom: Essays on Aesthetics and Morality†. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publisher, 1993. Guyer, Paul. â€Å"Kant, Immanuel† In E. Craig (Ed. ), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Internet (2004). Available: http://www. rep. routledge. com/article/DB047SECT12, June 17, 2008. Heidegger, Martin. â€Å"The essence of human freedom: An Introduction to Philosophy†. London New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Kant, Immanuel. â€Å"THE SCIENCE OF RIGHT†. (Translated by W. Hastie). Internet. Available: http://www. 4literature. net/Immanuel_Kant/Science_of_Right/, June 17, 2008 Laehn, Thomas. Liberty, Law, and the Historicity of Man in Ancient Rome Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL, Apr 12, 2007 (Internet). Available: http://www. allacademic.com/meta/p197401_index. html, June 15, 2008 Rempel, Gerherd. â€Å"18th Century Social Order:Peasants and Aristos†. (Internet) Available: http://mars. wnec. edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/peasantsaristos. html, June 15, 2008 Ross, Kelley L. â€Å"The Fallacies of Egoism and Altruism, and the Fundamental Principle of Morality† Internet (2007) Available: http://www. friesian. com/moral-1. htm, June 17, 2008. Svare, Helge. â€Å"Body and Practice in Kant†. Netherlands: Springer, 2006.

Ballad of Birmingham by Dudley Randall Essay -- Analysis Ballad Birmin

Ballad of Birmingham by Dudley Randall In 'Ballad of Birmingham,' Dudley Randall illustrates a conflict between a child who wishes to march for civil rights and a mother who wishes only to protect her child. Much of this poem is read as dialogue between a mother and a child, a style which gives it an intimate tone and provides insight to the feelings of the characters. Throughout the poem the child is eager to go into Birmingham and march for freedom with the people there. The mother, on the other hand, is very adamant that the child should not go because it is dangerous. It is obvious that the child is concerned about the events surrounding the march and wants to be part of the movement. The child expresses these feelings in a way the appears mature and cognizant of the surrounding world, expressing a desire to support the civil rights movement rather than to ?go out and play.? The desire to no longer be seen as a child and have her voice heard by those being marched against and by her mother (who can also be seen as an oppressive form of authority in this poem) is expressed by the first few lines. The opinion of the child is much like that of all young people who want to fight for their freedom. The mother, however, refuses to acknowledge the child as anything but a child is a major conflict in this poem. Because she refers to her as ?child? and calls her ?baby,? it is clear that the mother does not take the child?s pleas seriously. The mother is certain that she kn...

Differences Between the Early English Settlers and Native Americans Essay

The indigenous people of North America and Europe are both very different cultures with very different beliefs and ideas. As the Europeans began to colonize North America, these differences between these cultures really impacted the events of this time. The most important difference is the ideas on land use and ownership. Other important differences include religion and the ideas of gender roles. The biggest difference between of the Native Americans and the European immigrants is the issue of land use and ownership. Native Americans believed that land was sacred, and that nature needed to be cared for. They also did not value land ownership, all of the tribes land and belongings were shared. The idea of ownership here was not commonly used. On the other end of the spectrum, the Europeans had beliefs very different from the Native Americans. One of the main reasons the Europeans came to the New World in the first place was to become wealthy! To the Europeans at the time, land ownership meant freedom, wealth and a higher social status. Land was passed down from generation to generation. Because of this, the Europeans and the Native Americans ideology on land use and ownership created quite a culture clash that we still see remnants of today. Another difference between the Native American culture and the Europeans was the religion of these two cultures. Europeans were predominantly Christian, while the natives believed in numerous spirits and Gods. The indigenous people in North America had separate spirits for corn, the sun and things of that nature. While Christians are monotheists. The Europeans thought that the natives were savages for worshipping wooden figurines and carvings. The Europeans tried to convert as many natives as possible, especially the Spanish. Because of these differences in religion, the Europeans and the Native Americans had a difficult time really seeing eye to eye. The third difference between the in indigenous people of North America and the Europeans is the matter of gender roles. The native women in these tribes held high positions, many making important decisions for the tribe. The family tree would also follow the females side, as opposed to the family line following the males in the European cultures. To the Europeans, females gave birth and did chores in the home. They were not nearly as powerful as some women in native tribes. When the Europeans noticed how strong the women were along with the men, they fought the natives into submission. In conclusion, it is plain to see that there are so many differences between the Native American culture and that of the Europeans. A few examples of differences is the ideas on land use and ownership, religion and gender roles. The most impactful difference was the ideas each culture had on land use and ownership. These differences were very influential on the events that occurred during this time, and we still see some of these differences impact us today.

Conflict, Man Vs. Society - 1335 Words

Conflict In a story the conflict moves the plot making it one of the most important features. There are four types of conflict, man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. society, and man vs. himself. In the short story â€Å"The Necklace† the conflict would be described as man vs. himself, or man vs. society. The first idea that supports that statement would be when the author introduces the main character, Mathilde . He tells of how she is taunted about her shabby apartment for its dingy walls, worn-out furniture, and ugly drapes. This is not only an external conflict of man vs. society, but it fuels the internal conflict. Mathilde thinks she deserves a better life than what she has with more riches and luxuries because of her beauty and charm. She is also resentful of her husband not being any higher class This is an internal conflict because Mathilde is not satisfied with her life and cannot accept how it is. This conflict giving the readers an explanation of Mathilde and the story’s first problem. The second idea supporting the conflict being man vs. himself or man vs. society, is when Mathilde s husband invites her to a ball. He thought it would make her delighted, but instead she is sad everyone will show up beautifully dressed, while she does not even have an appropriate g own. This conflict is a mixture of man vs. man, and man vs. society, because even though she is doubting herself of elegancy, she is being persuaded by the fact of everyone else being dressedShow MoreRelatedAnalysis of four types of conflict in John Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath, man versus man, man versus nature, man versus society, and man versus himself.1463 Words   |  6 Pageswith conflict. The family experiences all of the four major types of conflicts: man vs. himself, man vs. society, man vs. nature, and man vs. man. In the case of The Grapes of Wrath, man represents the Joad family as a single unit. They experience conflict within the family itself, with the society they are coming from as well as the one they are going to, and with nature and the elements. The man vs. man conflict is usually just a more specific example of one of the other areas of conflict. TheRead MoreConflict Can Not Survive Without Your Participation863 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Conflict cannot survive without your participation,† uttered a renowned author by the name of Wayne Dyer. Dyer implies that conflict can only continue if you keep yourself in the situation. This remark identifies the foundation of the plot in the short story â€Å"By Any Other Name,† written by Santha Rama Rau, where conflicts arrived to the main characters when they attended their new Anglo-Indian school due to their mother’s ill state. They encounter the headmistress for the Anglo-Indian school, whoRead MoreRendition Of A Single Day1318 Words   |  6 PagesIn One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Alexander Solzhenitsyn portrays the fictional rendition of a single day’s conflicts for a Zek within a Stalinist labor camp. Conflict aids the novel by allowing the reader to better understand the endeavors the prisoners experience. To express the conditions within the gulags, Solzhenitsyn shows how Ivan survives his agonizing daily tasks. From working through frigid temperatures to trudging through the surroundings of snow and ice, Ivan and the other prisonersRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game And Porphyrias Lover Analysis848 Words   |  4 Pagesin no way is that normal. The authors use obsession to show man vs. man, man vs. nature and man vs. society. Browning and Connell use conflict to convey that trusting someone may lead to a negative outcome, that can show ones true intentions. The authors use man vs. man to show obsession. In the most dangerous game Rainsford and General Zaroff are in a hunt. Ransford is the game and the general is the hunter. This is a man vs. man conflict because two people are against each other. â€Å"‘My dear fellowRead MoreConflict In Anglo-Saxon And Medieval Literature1476 Words   |  6 PagesConflict in both Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature reflect the culture of the people and the time they are living in. Both of their literature heavily reflects the culture of knighthood and courtly love in the stories: â€Å"The Wanderer,† â€Å"Beowulf,† â€Å"The Nun’s Priest’s Tale,† â€Å"Sir Orfeo,† and â€Å"Lanval.† Conflict in these stories is not only used to provide reference of the culture but as well to drive the plot, provide tension and excitement, and to develop the characters in the story. Such conflictsRead MoreA New Edition Of A Textbook Should Not Be Weighed Down By Subpar Literature904 Words   |  4 Pagesshould be kept, and what should be removed starts with the two stories of A Good Man is Hard to Find and Why I Live at the P.O. The first, a twisted tale of a family’s vacation. The second, being a boring tale of a family’s favoritism of one child over another. The expectation of this paper is to convince the editor as to why A Good Man is Hard to Find should be kept, rather than, Why I Live at the P.O. A Good Man is Hard to Find and Why I Live at the P.O. both have a storyline that follows twoRead MoreConflict of Opposing Forces in Of Mice and Men Essay673 Words   |  3 PagesConflict is a struggle between opposing forces. There can be multiple conflicts in a story. This is the case in Of Mice and Men. In chapters three and four, there are man vs. man, man vs. self, and man vs. society conflicts. As George and Lennie interact with the workers on the ranch, sometimes conflicts arise between them. Man vs. man is a type of conflict in which two or more characters are pitted against each other. Candy, an old man on the ranch, has a conflict with Carlson in chapter threeRead MoreConflicts Of Literature : The Foundation Of The World1425 Words   |  6 PagesConflicts in Literature: To a God Unknown The foundation of the world has been constructed by numerous influences over time with one of the most popular being the Bible. Known as the world s best-selling book, the Bible has influenced many sectors of society including religion, history, language and lifestyles. Despite the book’s evident influences on society throughout history, the studying and teaching of this spiritual book has significantly decreased generation by generation. JohnRead MoreThe Crucible879 Words   |  4 Pagesinteresting themes were man vs. society, man vs. man, and man vs. self-internal. For instance, the theme man vs. society was present when Abigail and the other girls were found dancing. In act I, Parris asked Abigail to tell the truth and confess that they were dancing, she responded â€Å"we did dance, uncle† (Miller p.138). Abigail and the girls were afraid to confess because they would later have to face what the people in town would be commentating about them. In their society dancing was not permittedRead MoreThe Running Dream Character Analysis1165 Words   |  5 PagesMakaya Fofana Conflict in The Running Dream The Running Dream by Wendelin Van Draanen is an example of literature in which the protagonist faces a considerable amount of conflict in different forms. Not only does the protagonist, Jessica Carlisie, face conflict, but also the characters who were there to support her, such as her father and Rosa (Jessica’s friend), battled conflict of their own. Jessica Carlisie was an unfortunate victim of a bus crash on her way home from a track meet. As