Reforms that spurred from Luther and the ideas of the Radical Reformation generated discussions about true religion and how to form its particular structure. Many believe the works of Kant and Schleiermacher to contrast, moreover that Schleiermacher’s work is a response to Kant’s. However, I believe there is no opposing argument as each scholar merely mimics the other because both are extremely concerned with the ignorance and immaturity of humankind and their willingness to believe higher models of society.
Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment (1784)” involves the immaturity of humankind by believing exactly what their “guardians” – higher, authoritative figures – tell them to believe. He understands that “laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men…gladly remain in lifelong immaturity,” and concludes that there is only one way for each person to gain back his or her individuality. He believes that individuals need to question scripture and decipher the meanings for themselves and therefore have their own opinions and beliefs based on what they logically and morally think is right. Although it may seem we would naturally sense corruption in something we were told, it has a much more manipulative way of sneaking into our beliefs when we trust those who tell us to believe it. An example of this is the rise of Hitler, a leader Germany believed to be strong-willed and dedicated to the people, and the devastation he caused during his dictatorship with the rise of the Nazi youth. As a part of the Reformation, Kant had to develop a method of thinking, the “enlightenment,” to prevent worldly corruption because he knew of the dangers that originate from the vulnerability from a loss of individuality and, like Martin Luther, saw this danger materializing within the Catholic Church.
Schleiermacher echoes this same concept in “Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers” when he states to his audience of “cultured despisers:” “Why have you not penetrated deeper to find the kernel of this shell? I am astonished at your voluntary ignorance, ye easy going inquirers, and at the all too quiet satisfaction with which you linger by the first thing presented to you” (133). He believes that morals and the metaphysical should not be the basis around which to structure a religion; instead, a religion should be organized by the overwhelming greatness of what you can’t understand. Although he focuses more on the individual feeling and experience of the divine power in the entirety of his works, Schleiermacher is still concerned about those who blindly believe and is urging them to be reasonable enough to follow only their own accounts and experiences with God, as Kant does also. As a result, both Kant and Schleiermacher agree that faith and religion should depend less (if at all) on clergy and governance and more on the individual beliefs.
Although Schleiermacher believe he opposes Kant, his idea of religion concentrating around one’s personal experience with the divine is also linked to Kant’s theory of morality and reason because religion is more or less a moral code for its followers. Kant emphasizes straightforward, written moral code within the logistics of scripture, whereas Schleiermacher emphasizes the emotional union with God. Schleiermacher’s theory may be a less obvious moral code, however, from my own personal experience and outlook on any religion – not just Christianity – individuals with experiences of the infinite and divine perfection strive to live a virtuous life in order to become closer to the God they are so closely intertwined in.
Essentially, both scholars, as a part of the Reformation, are emphasizing the measures every person must take in order to retain their individuality; however, they fail to realize that experience and reason are equal in importance, and both are implemented to become entirely enlightened.
Bibliography
Kant, Immanuel, and Ted Humphrey. Perpetual peace, and other essays on politics, history, and morals . Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1983.
Placher, William C.. "Chapter 6: The Nineteenth Century." In Readings in the history of Christian theology . Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1988. 130-136.
No comments:
Post a Comment