In his text, What is
Enlightenment?, Immanuel Kant expresses his feelings and obligations to the
act of freedom of speech by providing his readers with examples of who, when,
where, and how one is to properly express his feelings and opinions in society. Although he illustrates great examples
throughout this text, the one example that he seems to be of emphasis is this relationship
between the freedoms of speech for Ministers. In his text he questions the idea of
unalterable doctrines when he states, “But should a society of ministers, say a
Church Council…have the right to commit itself by oath to certain unalterable
doctrines, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members…?” (Kant). Shouldn’t people be allowed to express their
freedom of religion or any other act of freedom without the penalties set forth
by doctrines? To some extreme, there
will have to be repercussions for one’s actions, but to punish them for not
directly “preaching” the written rule is taking it to the extreme, which is
why, to some extent, I believe that individuals should have the right to
express their feelings to any audience that they choose. But at the same time, the one preaching will
have to live with the consequences if he/she preaches to the wrong crowd.I understand what Kant is trying to relay to his readers about how the doctrines set forth by the Church Council, for the minister to preach to his congregation, should provide a positive message for those listening and should remain unalterable in the name of Christ. However, what Christ has provided should be the lessons and messages that ought to be presented in the church, which is a point Kant favors in this particular text and is a point that, when choosing to argue, is non-negotiable to the Christian Followers of this time and possibly during his time. Being raised in a Christian household and basically a Christian nation, it is hard to argue against the beliefs, morals, and views of Christ considering that I, personally, wasn’t around during his physical existence and I wasn’t raised in a “pure” Christian society. I am being raised within a society that thrives on opinions and drinks from the same cup of questioning authority. There is no need to question that existence or rules set forth by the unalterable doctrines if you weren’t personally involved in creating them.
On the other side of things, if I did choose to argue against Kant’s views and say that I believe that a minister has the right to preach to his congregation about whatever his heart or mind questions—the power of love, the relationship between politics and religion, is the existence of Christ real, etc.—I wouldn’t be able to provide a valid argument because I was not alive during his time period (late 1700s) and I didn’t experience the same experiences that he did, which may have caused him to think this way. I do not have the necessary information or method in making a valid argument. If this were an argument of war, I would probably find myself surrendering to the beliefs of Kant: I would lose in heartbeat. I would be proven wrong because of what I know versus what he knew.
I want to be able to follow in the beliefs of Kant, but I have this feeling that we will be doing more arguing than compromising when it comes to his views of freedom of speech and my views of freedom of speech. We were born in different time periods and were raised on different morals and values. There is no way that I will be right when arguing with him during his life and there is no way that he can be right if we were to argue in the present time. Either way, by losing and being proven wrong or by simply walking away from this argument, I will only come away with more knowledge rather than a victory. To some extent, questioning Kant is like questioning the doctrines of freedom of speech--in order to be proven right one must be involved in the current times and get involved in the progressing situation before one can question the written rules of the established law. So now you can ask yourself, why is freedom of speech so universal and why is one always wrong in an argument centered around freedom of speech? Why, Kant? Why?
Kant, Immanuel. Immanuel Kant: What is Enlightenment?, 1784 (n.d.): n. pag. Allmen de Berln.
Web. 11 Dec. 2014
