Compare And Contrast The Enlightenment: Rousseau, Kant, Emer ✓ Solved

Compare And Contrast The Enlightenment Rousseau Kant Emerson

Compare and contrast the Enlightenment (Rousseau, Kant, Emerson) with the Post-Enlightenment (Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Freud, Woolf, Achebe) theory of personhood. What, at base, is the human person in terms of its essential facilities and activities? Next, provide an argument that links your authors’ competing views of selfhood to their views about political association. That is, given what we are, how do they think we should govern and be governed? Finally, explain with argumentation what a ‘happy’ person would be in both eras, given the conditions of those forms of political association.

Paper For Above Instructions

The Enlightenment period, significantly impacting Western thought, is characterized by an emphasis on reason, individualism, and skepticism of traditional authority. Key figures from this epoch, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, offered distinct perspectives on the nature of personhood that defined the essence of what it means to be human. In markedly different ways, they articulated the core faculties, activities, and the political structures that ought to govern society. Through contrasting this framework with that emerging from the Post-Enlightenment through thinkers like Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Virginia Woolf, and Chinua Achebe, we can delineate a more complex understanding of selfhood and its implications for governance and happiness.

The Enlightenment Perspective

Rousseau posited that humans are born innocent and that society corrupts this intrinsic goodness. He emphasized the importance of community and collective will, asserting that true freedom is found in the alignment with the general will. In Rousseau's view, personhood is intrinsically tied to a communal identity, where individuals discover their true selves through social agreements.

Kant, on the other hand, viewed the human person as fundamentally rational and autonomous, capable of moral reasoning. He introduced the concept of categorical imperatives, suggesting that ethical actions derive from rational principles rather than consequences. For Kant, the essence of personhood lies in the capacity for reason and moral law, implying that individuals possess inherent dignity and the responsibility to govern themselves through reason.

Emerson, representing American Transcendentalism, emphasized individuality and the innate goodness of people and nature. He believed that self-reliance and personal intuition are essential to understanding oneself and the world. Emerson's vision of personhood celebrates the sublime experiences of individual consciousness, suggesting that fulfillment comes from personal insight and direct engagement with the universe.

The Post-Enlightenment Perspective

In stark contrast, the Post-Enlightenment thinkers provided a more fragmented and critical approach to personhood. Dostoyevsky's exploration of the human psyche revealed the depths of moral ambiguity, suggesting that individual identity is shaped by suffering and existential struggle. His characters often embody a conflict between rationality and irrational impulses, showcasing the complexities of human nature beyond Enlightenment rationalism.

Nietzsche famously proclaimed the "death of God," arguing for the re-evaluation of values and the creation of one's identity through power and will. He contested the Enlightenment's optimistic portrayal of reason, presenting a view of personhood that is deeply rooted in instinct and the will to power. Nietzsche’s perspective suggests that individuals must transcend traditional moralities to forge their identities.

Freud introduced psychoanalysis, positing that unconscious desires significantly influence behavior. He argued that human identity is replete with conflicts, shaped by both innate drives and social constraints. For Freud, the person is an amalgamation of conscious and unconscious elements, presenting a view of selfhood that challenges the Enlightenment's coherent and rational identity.

Virginia Woolf, meanwhile, focused on the fluidity of identity, particularly in her exploration of gender and consciousness. Through her stream-of-consciousness technique, Woolf depicted the complexities of selfhood, contending that identity is not fixed but rather a dynamic interplay of experiences and perceptions, thus rejecting the static notions of Enlightenment personhood.

Chinua Achebe, addressing colonialism’s impact on identity, provided a perspective where personhood is shaped by cultural narratives and histories. His work underscores the importance of understanding identity through the lens of cultural heritage and the socio-political context, indicating that personhood is constructed within broader societal frameworks.

Governance and Political Association

The differing views of selfhood among these philosophers lead to varying conclusions about governance. Rousseau advocated for a democratic political association based on the general will, proposing that governance should reflect the collective interests of the community. He believed that the social contract is the foundation of legitimate authority, where individuals commit to a collective good for the sake of freedom.

Kant’s emphasis on autonomy suggests a political structure rooted in democratic principles where individuals are treated as ends in themselves. He would argue for a legal framework that protects individual rights and freedoms, thereby allowing rational citizens to participate in self-governance, thus aligning the moral imperative with political action.

Emerson’s ideas lead to a vision of governance that values personal freedom and self-expression, prioritizing individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. He would likely support governance that fosters creativity and individuality, advocating for less institutional constraint on personal development.

In contrast, Post-Enlightenment thinkers present a more complex relationship with governance. Dostoyevsky might view political structures with suspicion, focusing on the darker aspects of human nature and advocating for a nuanced understanding of morality in governance. Nietzsche would reject traditional forms of governance outright, advocating for a new order that emphasizes strength and individual leadership, potentially leading to autocratic structures under strong leaders.

Freud’s exploration of human psychology might suggest that governance should consider the unconscious motivations of individuals, advocating for a political system that acknowledges human complexity. Woolf’s fluid perspective on identity would lead to support for inclusive and representative governance that accommodates diverse experiences and voices. Achebe would argue for a political understanding that recognizes the historical and cultural contexts of individuals, advocating for a governance model that respects indigenous narratives and identities.

The Concept of a ‘Happy’ Person

In the Enlightenment framework, a ‘happy’ person is one who realizes their potential through reason, social contracts, and individual self-expression. Rousseau would argue that happiness is found in the collective and shared experiences within a just society. Kant would define a happy person as one who lives morally and is seen as dignified by others through their adherence to universal moral laws. Emerson would see happiness as a result of self-reliance and deep personal insights.

Conversely, the Post-Enlightenment perspective complicates this notion. A happy person, for Dostoyevsky, might exist in acceptance of suffering, finding meaning in existential struggles. Nietzsche’s happy individual creates their values, embracing life’s chaos and affirming their will to power. Freud’s concept introduces happiness as a reconciliation of inner conflicts, while Woolf would argue for a subjective experience of happiness shaped by awareness of one's identity in society. Achebe might define happiness in terms of cultural resonance and community connections.

Conclusion

In sum, the contrasting theories of personhood from the Enlightenment to the Post-Enlightenment reveal a rich landscape of human understanding, each with significant implications for governance and the nature of happiness. The Enlightenment champions reason, individualism, and collective good, while the Post-Enlightenment exposes the complexities and struggles inherent in human identity, offering a multi-faceted view of what it means to be truly human.

References

• Achebe, C. (1994). Things Fall Apart. Anchor Books.
• Dostoyevsky, F. (1997). Crime and Punishment. Penguin Classics.
• Emerson, R. W. (1995). Self-Reliance and Other Essays. Dover Publications.
• Freud, S. (2009). The Ego and the Id. Standard Edition, Vol. 19. Vintage.
• Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press.
• Nietzsche, F. (2006). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Penguin Classics.
• Woolf, V. (2005). To the Lighthouse. Harcourt.
• Hampson, R. (1990). The Enlightenment. New York: HarperCollins.
• Outram, D. (2013). The Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press.
• Rosen, S. (2016). The Philosophy of the Enlightenment: The Contemporary Crisis. Princeton University Press.