Philosophy Final Exam
How does Kant describe the sublimity of man's vocation in light of God?
" . . . no idea more elevates and inspires enthusiasm in the human mind than that of pure moral conviction, which revers duty above all else, struggles with life's countless evils, even its most seductive temptations, and nonetheless conquers all (for we may right assume that man can do so). That man is aware that he can do this because he ought to reveals deep tendencies towards the divine that allow him to feel a scared awe regarding the greatness and sublimity of his true vocation." Kant holds that our ability to follow the moral law, made possible through our rational freedom, is the source and summit of our dignity. It makes us like divine beings, because we give ourselves the moral law (it flows from our rational freedom). If people become more aware of our dignity as able to follow the moral law, it will inspire us to fulfill our duty. We will become more willing and ready to fulfill the demands of the law if we are more attuned to our dignity, as we will be inspired to live in accordance with our dignity.
What is enlightenment, according to Kant and how does he explain his definition?
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! "Have courage to use your own understanding" - that is the motto of the enlightment."
What is the general law? How does he describe the healthy person or people?
"Every living thing can become healthy, strong, and fruitful only within a horizon; if it is incapable of drawing a horizon around itself or, on the other hand, too selfish to restrict its vision to the limits of a horizon drawn by another, it will wither away feebly or overhastily to its early demise. Cheerfulness, clear conscience, the carefree deed, faith in the future, all this depends, in the case of an individual as well as of a people, on there being a line which distinguishes what is clear and in full view from the dark and unilluminable; it depends on one's being able to forget at the right time as well as to remember at the right time; on discerning with strong instinctual feelings when there is need to experience historically and when unhistorically. Precisely this is the proposition the reader is invited to consider: the unhistorical and the historical are equally necessary for the health of an individual, a people, and a culture." Animals exist always within a little horizon that allows them to grow and exist happily. They are not concerned with the future or the past. Humans oftentimes fail to remain within a horizon because they are caught up in the past. It is a sign of strength to be able to exclude aspects of the past from one's horizon of existence and to transform aspects of the past so that they can nourish one. One can think of this horizon as the focusing or concentration of one's energies. In order to grow, one must eliminate what holds one back and sufficiently master the material that one deals with. You can apply this to your own lives fairly easily. In order to excel in some area, you must limit the horizon of your focus so as to maximize one's capacity to accomplish the task at hand. If bad memories or experiences are interfering with your development, Nietzsche maintains that you must forget or transform them.
3rd thesis: How does, according to Kant, nature intend for the human species to develop?
"Nature has willed that man, entirely by himself, produce everything that goes beyond the mechanical organization of his animal existence and partake in no other happiness or perfection than what he himself, independently of instinct, can secure through his own reason." Man must work for his development through effort and reason. Other animals develop instinctually. We can recall Rousseau's speculations here: man through freedom and perfectibility had to develop abilities other animals had naturally - acquiring clothing, climbing trees, swimming, etc. Kant takes the implications of perfectibility and leads them to their limit: everything in civilization is brought forth through man's effort, and this is intended by nature.
5th thesis: What is the greatest problem whose resolution is the greatest task nature compels man to pursue? How does Kant describe a civil society established through right?
"The greatest problem for the human species, whose solution nature compels it to seek, is to achieve a universal civil society administered in accord with the right." In order for the human species to develop all of its capacities to their fullest potential, it is necessary for there to be political conditions through which the rights of each person are protected. For Kant, right means that one's freedom is not violated by another. To act in accordance with right means to act in ways that are in harmony with the freedom of all others. However, as we know, people oftentimes violate the freedom of others (violence, abuse, theft, lying, etc.). Therefore, it is necessary for political conditions to ensure that everyone's right is protected. This is accomplished by giving the political authorities the power to enforce laws that protect rights. In this political situation, competition between individuals can take less injurious forms as it will be forbidden to violate the freedom of others. Surely, people can compete with one another without violating each other's freedom.
4th thesis: What is the law Kant claims is the means used by nature to bring about the development of man's capacities and how does he describe it, especially concerning man's tendency towards society and towards isolation?
"The means that nature uses to bring about the development of all of man's capacities is the antagonism among them in society, as far as in the end this antagonism is the cause of law-governed order in society. In this context, I understand antagonism to mean men's unsocial sociability, i.e., their tendency to enter society, combined, however, with a thoroughgoing resistance that constantly threatens to sunder this society." Kant goes on to say the tendency to enter society is built into human nature (contrary to Rousseau, who sees primitive man as solitary) and that man is fulfilled only in the context of society. However, man also has a selfish tendency to isolate himself from his associates and to enter into antagonistic relations with them. Man wants everything to go his way rather than according to the wishes of others. The antagonism that arises in company with other humans is the driving force of history insofar as it disrupts equilibrium and compels men to seek a relief in some way. Men are compelled to compete with one another (which leads to various forms of progress that otherwise would not occur) and to negotiate with one another (which leads to various states and compromises, enabling political stability).
9th thesis: what role does a philosophical interpretation of history serve and what justification does it have? What is the justification of nature, or providence, Kant speaks of? What would make us despair in the face of creation?
A philosophical interpretation of history enables us to identify a guiding thread that renders history intelligible as a continually developing progression. Rather than seeing history as a random series of event without any coherent development, a philosophical history identifies the fundamental idea that illuminates history: namely, that nature is working through the human species to bring about a just political condition among and within all nations so that the human species can fulfill all the seeds of its potential. This allows us to provide a justification for nature, or providence (God's creative wisdom), and redeems nature in our eyes. If the human species did not have an purpose, we would be led to despair: why is the human species, which is the highest development of nature, without any purpose? Therefore, a philosophical history saves us from despairing over the meaningless of history by showing the inherent purpose of history.
What is the 1st thesis and what does Kant claim follows if we reject it?
All of a creature's natural capacities are destined to develop. If we reject this thesis, then the creatures in nature do not follow intelligible, ordered laws but are the products of chance. Kant references teleology, according to which all naturally generated things have a purpose. Something that is purposeless is a contradiction. Thus, the human species does not change randomly, but develops according to its built-in teleological potentiality.
How does he describe animals?
Animals are happily absorbed in their own little spheres of existence. They are not concerned about the future or the past, but simply dwell in the present. They are obliviously content, since they are not afflicted by worry or regret. They eat, roam around, sleep, and their desires are satisfied. Nietzsche says that humans envy animals and desire to have the oblivious contentment that animals have.
What does Kant say about the possibility of a people agreeing to end permanently all discussion on an issue?
For Kant, this is a violation of human dignity, "whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress." The progress he refers to is the progress of enlightenment, which is accomplished through the free discussion of scholars, exercising public freedom. It is conceivable that for a limited time, for certain reasons, discourse could be suspended among certain people, not counting those working as scholars. However, it is absurd to assert that suspending open discourse is good. To renounce the pursuit of enlightenment for oneself or for others, is to "trample man's divine rights underfoot." A wise ruler understands that he must not interfere with his subjects pursuing freely the searching for what counts as human flourishing. The destiny of the human race is to increase enlightenment and moral improvement.
What does Kant suggest history shows us concerning human history?
History appears to show us that there is a general trend or arc emerging from the course of human affairs. In a way similar to how weather patterns exhibit common and predictable modes of development, the human species appears to exhibit over time gradual and regular development of all its capacities.
What is man afflicted by?
Human beings are afflicted by the awareness of the future and the memory of the past. They are unable to dwell in the present, enjoying life. Rather, they are always entangled in things that have happened or things that might happen. They do not have the power to forget the past and dwell happily in the present. The past, in particular, is a burden and man is enslaved to it.
7th thesis: What is the additional problem beyond securing a society governed by right involving multiple societies? What does nature strive to bring about between nations and how are wars involved?
In addition to securing conditions of justice and right within an individual society between citizens, it is necessary to achieve justice and right between individual societies. Kant makes an analogy between the antagonism that occurs among individuals and the antagonism that occurs among societies and states. In a similar way to how the antagonism among individuals leads to a more just political state (since individuals want their lives and freedom protected, they agree to accept laws constraining everyone's freedom), so too are states driven by antagonism to work out treaties and alliances amongst themselves for the sake of securing order and peace. It is better to live in harmony than in conflict, both within societies and among societies. Kant says that wars are the means nature uses to disrupt current political conditions in order to bring about new, more stable, and more just conditions. Wars are the most intolerable occurrences people endure, and they compel people to seek to avoid them however possible. The E.U. was formed after the two world wars in the 20th century, mainly to put an end to wars. Kant envisions a united federation of societies that is governed by international law and secures peace and order. Kant anticipated the United Nations.
Can we ever entirely be sure that we have pure motives? What does morality on Kant's conception demand of our efforts?
It is impossible to be certain concerning the purity of one's motivations for actions. We cannot convince ourselves that our motives in fulfilling our duty were entirely pure. There are too many elements to consider, many of which are obscure (feelings, inclinations, beliefs, etc.) However, Kant maintains that we must strive to fulfill our duty as purely as possible. We should strive to eliminate any self-interested considerations from our pursuit of duty and fulfill the law purely out of respect for duty. We must not be discouraged by the impurity of our motives, but always aspire to purify our motives in pursuit of the moral law.
What question does Kant pose? How does he relate the primitive state of man to the state obtaining between nations?
Kant asks a series of questions leading to this question: Is it truly rational to assume that nature is purposive in its parts but purposeless as a whole? He repeats the central question of the essay: can we find in history a rational purpose? Is it the case that individual species have a purpose, but the human species, which is the highest development in nature, is lacking a purpose? Kant clearly maintains that we must see nature as having a purpose. Prior to the establishment of society, primitive man endured a state of peril and conflict. One can think of Rousseau's account here. The conflict and antagonism spurred men to enter and remain in society, which secures rights, allowing for order and peace. Similarly, individual nations are like primitive savages against one another in so far as they are always in conflict or tension. The amount of resources that nations expend (time, money, life, peace, etc.) to prepare for and to engage in war is tremendous. Until a federation of nations governed by international law is in place, developed societies exists in a kind of primitive state among themselves.
8th thesis: How does Kant relate the freedoms of individuals to the strength of a nation and therefore, how does he justify the promotion of freedom by rulers?
Kant claims that a society that suppresses the freedom of its citizens sets itself up for failure in its competition with other nations. A nation that encourages the freedom of its citizens enhances its strength and ensures that it can engage with other relations fruitfully. It is therefore in the interest of a ruler to promote the freedom of his or her citizens if he or she wishes to avoid being conquered or oppressed by another country.
Can we be motivated by considerations other than our happiness? How does duty motivate us to action?
Kant considers an objection to his philosophy that goes as follows: whenever we act, we are motivated (motivation: the cause, or inspiration, of our actions; we do not act unless motivated by something) by the desire to reach a greater state of happiness. Everything we do is motivated by the desire for what we think is good, and therefore all we do is motivated by the desire for happiness. Kant rejects that all of our actions are motivated by the desire for happiness. He maintains that we can be motivated by an awareness of our duty. He holds that we have a moral sense that is attuned to considerations of duty. Since we are rational agents, we experience the demands of the moral law. The moral law awakens respect and awe in us, as we understand our vocation as human beings endowed with rational freedom. A person can be motivated to action by consideration of the moral law, without any concern for one's happiness.
What is the difference between being moral and being cultivated? How does Kant famously describe the goods of civilization that exist without moral good?
Kant distinguishes being moral from being cultivated. It is possible to acquire the myriad skills or tastes that arise from civilization (appreciating art, understanding science, enjoying the fruits of society such as fine foods and drinks, social manners, etc.) while still being a morally corrupt or morally deficient person. For Kant, it is far more important to become morally good than to become merely civilized without moral goodness. Moral goodness alone makes civilization good. Kant famously writes, "All good that is not grafted onto a morally-good character is nothing but illusion and glittering misery."
What does Kant say about the theory of duty?
Kant distinguishes the theory of duty as unique. It is different from theories that develop on the basis of experience and experiment (chemical engineering, etc.) and it is different from theories that are developed through pure thinking (mathematics, etc.), which do not correspond with experience (there are no perfect circles in the physical universe, etc.). The theory of duty is derived entirely from rationality (independent of perceptual experience) and directly applies to our lives. For Kant, moral duty is the highest theoretical inquiry and practical duty. It provides us with the bridge between our minds and the universe and it is the ultimate source of our dignity. Kant rejects any claims to base morality off of experience or experiment. He is passionately concerned to defend the purity of moral theory and its practical efficacy in the world.
What metaphor does Kant employ to illustrate his point about the difficulty of achieving this goal?
Kant here uses the famous imagery of warped wood to characterize humanity. The reason it is so difficult to reach the just political constitution is because humanity is corrupted. One cannot make anything straight with something that is warped. Since humans are unjust and selfish by nature it is very difficult to reach the point where they all voluntarily participate in a just political world. Our society is far from just according to Kant's criteria.
How does the metaphor Kant use in this section illustrate his point?
Kant illustrates his point that within just political contexts humans will more fully reach their potential by considering a forest. When trees grow wildly and disorderly, they interfere with one another and none of them is able to reach its fullest height. When the trees are evenly spaced, each with equal access to nutrients and sunshine, they will flourish more completely. It is similar with human beings in society: when the rights of each are violated, then everyone is held back; when the rights of each are protected, then everyone can flourish more completely.
Kant says freedom is the only thing necessary for Enlightenment. What kind of freedom is he speaking of and what does he contrast it with?
Kant maintains that freedom alone is necessary to ensure Enlightenment. He observes that only slowly can a society achieve enlightenment; oftentimes prejudices will be implanted which are hard to outroot. Kant distinguishes two kinds of freedom: Public and Private freedom. He is writing in 1784. This essay won a public essay contest answering the question, What is Enlightenment? At this time in history, it is still common for individuals to be prosecuted for publishing controversial material. Similar to Descartes and Rousseau, Kant must take precautions. However, it still seems that his distinction is more important than simply a way of protecting himself. He distinguishes private from public freedom. Public freedom is what is needed to ensure enlightenment. It is the freedom an individual has to publish his ideas as a scholar to be read by the global community; for Kant, an individual must be allowed to enter the role of a scholar and present his ideas publically. However, an individual's private freedom can be restricted. Private freedom, as Kant here defines it, is the freedom an individual has in carrying out the tasks assigned him in a public office i.e., a policeman, a clergyman, a soldier, etc. When serving in such a public role, an individual is obligated to follow the orders given him by those in authority. He is acting under the authority of those in power and must fulfill their commands. To act contrary would involve violating the obligations of the role. If an individual does not believe in the truth or legitimacy of an order, he must either carry it out nonetheless or resign his position. It is important to note that Kant says that a person who is serving in a public position, must still be allowed to publish his ideas as a scholar. He can enter the role of a scholar in his free time. While working as a scholar, he is free to discuss and criticize the views he must act in accordance with while he is serving a public role. While a scholar, an individual is free to be mature (think freely). While a public official, an individual does not have such freedom (and is therefore immature).
What does Kant say about our motivations from a moral standpoint?
Kant maintains that we must strive to purify our motivations as far as possible from all considerations of our self-interest and happiness. For Kant, happiness and duty are completely separate concepts. When we seek our happiness, we are not fulfilling our duty, because we are acting out of our own self-interest. Duty demands that we act in a way that transcends our individual desires and inclinations; duty demands that we act in a way that any rational agent ought to act in the same context. For Kant, acting according to duty is acting according to the law that we give ourselves in light of our rational nature. Since we are rational beings, we are able to give ourselves a moral law that is binding on all of us. Kant calls this law the categorical imperative. One way he formulates this law is as follows: always act in a way that is harmonious with the freedom of all other persons. Our rationality and freedom is the source of our inviolable dignity, in Kant's eyes, and it is the ultimate value underlying his ethics. Duty flows from our rational freedom, whereas the desire for happiness flows from our embodied existence. We must sharply distinguish our duty from our desire from happiness and seek to avoid mingling them. For Kant, the goal is to become worthy of happiness, rather than to seek happiness directly. We are worthy of happiness when we are morally good. It is important to observe that Kant does not see the pursuit of happiness as forbidden, but that it is not morally praiseworthy; there is nothing wrong, for Kant, with pursuing happiness insofar as it is not contrary to moral duty.
What are the reasons why so many remain in immaturity?
Kant mentions laziness and cowardice as the reasons for why people remain in immaturity and then proceeds to describe their condition. Individuals become accustomed to and comfortable with being told how to live and how to think. It is easier if they can rely on others to undertake the labor of thinking. Further, the majority of persons are conditioned to believe that thinking is dangerous and that they should not venture to think without the guidance of an authority to tell them what and how to think. They are like domesticated animals that must wait for the farm equipment before being willing to walk. Since they are so unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, the majority of persons are unable to do it. They have never developed the ability to think and are afraid and unwilling to do so.
How does Kant describe the relation between theory and practice at the outset of the essay? How does he respond to the critics who say theory is of no use to practice?
Kant presents theories and practices as belonging together. The theory provides the principles and rules which are applied in the practice. A practice is the application of theoretical understanding in some area. In order to apply theoretical principles in practice, one must have the judgment needed to know when principles apply and how to apply them. There are plenty of people who understand the theory but who lack judgment. Similarly, there are plenty of people who lack adequate theoretical understanding. Kant claims that someone who believes that theory is irrelevant to practice does not understand the role of theory. All practical activity requires some theoretical understanding. Explicitly articulated theory brings to clarity and systematic organization what is presupposed in any activity. The theory of most domains of inquiry and activity are developed through reflection on experience and experiment. An inadequate theory simply needs more theory to become practically efficacious.
Is it easier to understand the demands of duty than what will lead to happiness? What example does Kant give to contrast duty from happiness?
Kant says it is easier to understand the demands of duty than what will lead to happiness. We cannot be certain that some course of action will lead to happiness because many variables are outside of our control. Happiness is contingent on factors outside of our control. Further, there are a multitude of possible paths to reach happiness and no clear path towards securing it (for Kant). However, duty is immediately simply and clear. Everyone can understand the demands of duty without any ambiguity (according to Kant). Look on pages 69-70 to see the example he presents in detail.
What does Kant say about the current state of the world in regards to enlightenment?
Kant says that he is living in an 'age of enlightenment' rather than an 'enlightened age'. His age is still in the process of becoming enlightened. He praises the current ruler of the Prussian empire he is a citizen of: Frederick the Great. This ruler is renowned for the remarkable tolerance of his reign. Kant reiterates the point that it as long as subjects are obedient to the ruler in their public offices, they should be allowed unlimited freedom to think and to publish their ideas publically. Freedom of thought does not lead to social disorder; it rather strengthens a society and contributes to the promotion of the destiny of the human species. He observes that religious freedom is the most important topic for which enlightenment is needed. A government, Kant observes, ought to shepherd the emergence of the kernel central to humanity, the "inclination and vocation to free thinking." Gradually, human beings will arrive at a state befitting their dignity.
Why does he say Rousseau was not far from the truth in his assessment of human civilization?
Kant sees truth in Rousseau's description of society in so far as the current conditions of civilization (including all previous periods of time) are characterized partly, if not mostly, by myriad kinds of injustice. Since humanity must pass through such stages of conflict, it is at least tempting to believe that it would be better to have always remained in the primitive state Rousseau describes.
What must man remain in if he is to know happiness? How does Nietzsche describe it?
Man must remain in the present if he is to be happy. Nietzsche describes this view very poetically. He claims that whoever is unable to dwell god-like on the point of the present moment has never experienced true happiness. "Whoever cannot settle on the threshold of the moment forgetful of the whole past, whoever is incapable of standing on a point like a goddess of victory without vertigo or fear, will never know what happiness is. . ." Nietzsche proceeds to claim that an inability to forget the past is detrimental to living things, as it becomes burdensome and weakening.
How does he describe justice and judging?
Modern man deceives himself into believing that he is the most just person in history because he has access to endless information about the past. He thinks he can pass judgment on all previous cultures and persons. Since he knows some facts about things of the past, he thinks he is in a position to judge them. However, justice and judging are extremely difficult. Nietzsche claims justice is the rarest virtue. It is extremely difficult to pass judgment on someone or something. One must have access to all of the relevant truth, know how to evaluate the truth, and then pass judgment (either condemning or approving). The exercise of justice is very different from the gathering of information characteristic of the idly curious modern man. It requires tremendous insight and courage.
What does Kant say natures seems to have aimed it for the human species rather than its well-being?
Nature seems, according to Kant, to aim not at our happiness or well-being, but rather at the promotion of our self-esteem. Nature seems to want us to be worthy of happiness by earning it through our efforts. Other animals are given contentment by nature, but man alone must earn it and become worthy of it through his efforts.
What is his final comment in chapter 2 concerning the 3 kinds of history?
Nietzsche claims that the different ways of relating to history should be adopted by different kinds of people. Each kind of history is fitting for a certain kind of person. If a person pursues a kind of history that is not fitting for him, it is like a plant transplanted to the wrong kind of soil. A person can only grow in the context that is suitable to him or her.
What kind of person is he opposed against? How does Nietzsche describe him? What does the most desire?
Nietzsche contrasts this person with the individuals who views the great things of the past as spectacles. They are tourists who superficially seek distraction and sensation. These people are disgusting to the monumental man. They are pathetic and weak. It is these individuals who resist the attempts of the monumental to achieve greatness. Their dullness and comfortable conformity is threatened by the pursuit of greatness, so they conspire to smother it. Their sole concern is to live comfortably.
How does he present objectivity at the end of this chapter (6)?
Nietzsche describes objectivity in this chapter as a way of being neutered. One loses one's creative potential when neutered. Nietzsche describes objectivity as the draining of one's personality. When one aspires for objectivity in this way, one aspires to extinguish all of one's subjective influence (memories, culture, feelings, beliefs, values, etc.) in order to evaluate the object as purely as possible. Nietzsche thinks this task is inherently impossible. One can never evaluate a subject from a completely unbiased position (one must always take some interpretive stand in understanding anything whatsoever). The attempt to be objective is simply one kind of interpretation, which Nietzsche is presenting as a neutered or emasculated interpretation. He writes: "nothing can affect them any longer; should something good and right happen, as deed, as poetry, as music: at once those hollowed out by education will look beyond the work and inquire after the history of the author." He is claiming that the objective person does not know how to appreciate anything.
What are the 3 ways Nietzsche says history belongs to man?
Nietzsche identifies the 3 ways as follows: the monumental belongs to the man who is active and striving; the antiquarian belongs to the man who preserves and admires; the critical belongs to the man who is suffering and is in need of liberation.
What factor determines whether man can endure history or for that matter experience in general? Can everyone endure history?
Nietzsche maintains that the plastic power of an individual or a people is what determines whether and how they can endure history. He describes this power as follows: "I mean the power distinctively to grow out of itself, transforming and assimilating everything past and alien, to heal wounds, replace what is lost and reshape broken forms out of itself." As I emphasized in class, the plastic power of an individual or a people is what allows the person to master and transform the past so that it becomes a resource that fuels one's creative potential as an individual. Nietzsche holds that not everyone can endure history. There are people who are destroyed over a single traumatic experience. Some people can never find a way to master the past so that they are no longer enslaved to it. Nietzsche thinks that human beings are far from equal. Some are strong and rare while the vast majority of people are weaker.
How is objectivity related to art and opposed to justice in this chapter? Why does he quote Schiller again? What must the objective historian aim for? What often masquerades as objectivity?
Nietzsche presents objectivity in this section as akin to the artist's creative activity. When the artist is seized by inspiration, he enters into a state of intensified reverie and seriousness. The work of art forms itself in the imagination of the artist and he becomes able to create. Similarly, when the historian produces a work of history, he is inspired to give the information at his disposal at specific form and shape and direction that it does not have on its own. He creatively interprets the story that becomes the historical work of art. The historian is an artist who creates. Consider a work of history: it is arranged in a certain form, with chapters, an introduction, and a conclusion. The historian chose to emphasize certain things, include certain things, and exclude certain things. The historian must strive to present his narrative in a way that is compelling, highlighting themes that are worth remembering. It is more important to tell a compelling story than to adhere to the cold facts. This is why objectivity is opposed to justice: justice requires coldly considering all of the evidence and delivering a sober judgment; objectivity as practiced by the historian demands that the historian presents the story of history in a creatively compelling way, as a work of art. Nietzsche cites Schiller, who writes: "one appearance after the other begins to withdraw from blind approximation, from lawless freedom, and as a fit member joins the ranks of a coherent whole - which, of course, only exists in his imagination." The historian looks upon the evidence of history and creatively interprets it through his imaginative powers.
Describe the antiquarian approach to history.
Nietzsche presents the antiquarian approach to history as consisting in preserving and revering history. The antiquarian sees himself as rooted in a tradition that extends into the distant past. His identity is steeped in this tradition. He loves the rituals, the beliefs, the practices, the people, etc. He strives to protect and to defend the tradition he belongs to. Nietzsche describes this person as like a tree content with its roots: "the contentment of a tree with its roots, the happiness of knowing oneself not to be wholly arbitrary and accidental, but rather as growing out of a past as its heir, flower and fruit and so to be exculpated, even justified, in one's existence." The antiquarian is a type of person whose life is best lived by preserving tradition and living in accordance with it. Nietzsche thinks this person should preserve his tradition and live in accordance with it. His life will flourish only insofar as he remains faithful to his tradition.
Describe the critical approach to history.
Nietzsche presents the critical historian as interrogating and condemning the past. He looks for the slightest trace of error, injustice, oversight, etc. and condemns the past. His goal is to dismantle and destroy traditions. He approaches the past with prejudiced skepticism, knowing in advance that the past will fall before his critical scrutiny. The purpose of the critical historian is to destroy the past in order to open up new possibilities for creativity. The goal is not simply to destroy, but to destroy in order to build anew. It is always a dangerous endeavor to dismantle traditions, as we rely on them to give shape and meaning to our lives. The destruction of traditions opens up an abyss of meaninglessness that must be filled if our lives are to continue fruitfully. Therefore, the critical historian is always directed towards creating anew.
What is the significance of the opening quote and how does Nietzsche relate it to history?
Nietzsche quotes Goethe who says that he abhors knowledge that is not quickening and enlivening. Knowledge that is burdensome or draining is abhorred; in contrast, knowledge that enlivens and increases one's energy is desirable. This view is central to Nietzsche's essay: he is going to explore how education, particularly historical education, contributes or detracts from the vitality of human beings.
How does the Nietzsche describe contemporary artists being judged and treated?
Nietzsche sees the treatment of contemporary artists as violent. The majority of persons, who hold power, are beholden to a specific standard of taste which is drawn from the past. They do not trust anything which has not been tested by time. They are incapable of appreciating the greatness of contemporary works. They are convinced that greatness already exists and are resistant to the possibility that new works of greatness might emerge. They seek to destroy contemporary art. This resistance is ultimately their hatred and resentment towards the mighty and great who live among them. Since they are weak and pathetic, they take revenge on the great by refusing to recognize them.
What is the distinction between the inner and the outer that Nietzsche observes?
Nietzsche thinks that modern man is filled with endless information that is irrelevant for his life. He has become a walking encyclopedia, filled with content yet without any capacity to use the content in a meaningful way.
How is art and illusion related to this creative instinct and atmosphere and how is historical analysis opposed to it? What kind of people does excessive analysis shape us to become?
Nietzsche writes, "Every living thing needs to be surrounded by an atmosphere, a mysterious circle of mist: if one robs it of this veil, if one condemns a religion, an art, a genius to orbit as a star without an atmosphere then one should not wonder about its rapidly becoming withered, hard and barren." He continues, "But every people, even every man, who wants to become ripe needs such an enveloping madness, such a protective and veiling cloud." Artistic creativity happens within a focused horizon. The artist must concentrate his energies and exclude all distractions to bring forth the work of art. Similarly, human beings must creatively limit the horizon of their awareness if they are to allow their creative potential to thrive. A person is a potential work of art, in Nietzsche's view, and must nurture his or her creative potential by preserving and intensifying the horizon within which development takes place. Recall the discussion of the horizon in chapter 1. The idea of a horizon as necessary for development is at the core of Nietzsche's view. Excessive historical analysis dissects this horizon and dissipates our energies. We lose touch with our unique creative potential by focusing a multitude of trivial facts that are irrelevant to our lives. What are we going to do with all of this worthless and useless information? Nietzsche famously maintains that fiction and untruth are necessary for the development of living things. Living things need to believe in illusions in order to ensure their development. To give a basic example: one must believe in the possibility of performing well in order to succeed. This belief is oftentimes very simply and biased, not based on a comprehensive assessment of all of the variables. It is somewhat illusory, but still essential for life. Life thrives off of illusion. This is a very radical and important philosophical claim.
What is the proposition Nietzsche proposes and how does he say historical education affects weaker persons?
Nietzsche writes: "And so my proposition may be taken and understood: only strong personalities can endure history; the weak are completely extinguished by it." Not everyone is capable of receiving, mastering, and integrating what is learned through the study of history. You can recall the series of metaphors I talked about taken from Nietzsche's other work (the camel, the lion, and the child). The camel goes out into the desert to see how much it can endure, to see how strong it is. Similarly, one approaches history to see how strong one is. One seeks to determine how much one can understand, master, integrate, transform, etc. Many people are weakened and diminished by the study of history, because they cannot understand, master, integrate, and transform it. It becomes burdensome and worthless. Further, it weakens one's personality because one no longer trusts one's own unique creative instinct. Since one is exposed to so many different ways of life and cultures, one thinks that it is pointless to develop the uniqueness of one's own instinct (instinctual creativity is the driving force behind all culture, for Nietzsche). One becomes a barren encyclopedia of other peoples and times and no longer develops oneself.
What is the italicized proposition in this chapter? Why is this the case?
Nietzsche writes: "Only from the standpoint of the highest strength of the present may you interpret the past: only in the highest exertion of your noblest qualities will you discern what is worthy of being known and preserved, what is great in the past. Like by like! Otherwise you will draw the past to yourselves. Do not believe any historical writing if it does not issue from the head of the rarest minds; but you will always notice the quality of mind of such writing when it is required to assert something general or to repeat something generally known: the genuine historian must have the strength to recast the well known into something never heard before and to proclaim the general so simply and profoundly that one overlooks its simplicity because of its profundity and its profundity because of its simplicity." If one lacks the strength to interpret the past, one will reduce it to one's own trivial understanding and fail to access what is most noble and profound and worth preserving.
What do later generations get to experience that earlier generations don't and how are earlier generations responsible for this?
Only the most recent generations benefit from the advances of civilization. Kant says this will always appear strange: why do earlier epochs and peoples have to suffer so much, while we reap the benefits of their labors? We can think of human rights, technological advances, medicine, and the multitude of things that make life more enjoyable, comfortable, and secure. Earlier generations were plagued with plagues, wars, slavery, and so on. Of course, future generations will be even further advanced then we are in some respects (technology, for instance).
How is Rousseau's discussion of the development of the species seemingly alluded to and how does Kant's analysis of fundamentally differ?
Rousseau sees the antagonism of humans in society as leading to a multitude of evils, especially vanity (egotistical concern to be praised) and ambition (wanting to surpass or even dominate others). Rousseau sees how a multitude of things develop from society and competition, but he sees the changes wrought by society as ultimately detrimental to human nature and happiness. Kant, on the other hand, sees nature working through the antagonism of humans in society. Kant believes the perfectibility of human nature ought to reach its fulfillment through history and the antagonism we undergo is necessary for this. Kant actually praises nature and nature's God for shaking us out of our complacency and spurring us to engage in competition and struggle with one another.
What is the sole reason according to which national leaders ought to be remembered and how can philosophers enable them to be remembered?
Rulers will only be worthy of remembrance if they contribute to the development of the goal of history. Rulers who interfere with the development of the human species through history will be forgotten or remembered with disdain. Kant is here showing how enlightenment can contribute to political progress: if rulers become convinced that their legacy is dependent on promoting the goal of history, then they will be more reasonable and open to promoting the goal of history in order to secure their self-interest. It is in the self-interest of rulers to advance enlightenment.
How does he compare modern man to the Romans and what point does he make with Schiller?
The Romans conquered a large portion of the world consisting of many different cultures, peoples, religions, ways of life, etc. The Romans encompassed multitudes of differences within their empire. Yet, they could not integrate all of these differences. The differences and plurality ultimately weakened the Roman Empire and they were conquered. Modern man is similarly overwhelmed by a multitude of ideas and possibilities. Since modern man studies world history, he is exposed to myriad countries, cultures, events, persons, etc. He becomes like an encyclopedia, as Nietzsche commented earlier. He does not know what to do with all of this information and knowledge. Modern man becomes weakened, decadent, dissipated. He no longer maintains a strong core identity. Nietzsche cites Schiller as follows: "Whoever wants to understand, calculate, comprehend, in a moment where with profoundly sustained emotion he ought to hold fast the unintelligible as the sublime, may be called rational, but only in the sense in which Schiller speaks of the reason of reasonable men: he fails to see something which is yet seen by the child, he fails to hear something which is yet heard by the child; this something is exactly the most important: because he does understand this his understanding is more childish than the child and simpler than simplicity. . ." Nietzsche is basically saying that modern man has lost the capacity to appreciate the profundity of reality. Modern man thinks he is able to comprehend everything, but instead simply has a superficial, shallow grasp of things. He has lost the wonder and awe of the child. This is a pitiable condition according to Nietzsche.
6th thesis: What is the hardest and the last problem to be solved by man, and why? What does every human need? Why and how is this to be obtained?
The attainment of political conditions governed by right is the hardest and last task to be obtained. Kant claims that every person needs a master above him or her who is able to impose the order of law through force, because everyone selfishly seeks to make him or herself an exception to the law; everyone wants the security that comes from having his or her rights protected, but not everyone wishes to submit to the constraints on his or her freedom that law requires. Therefore, a political ruler is needed to keep everyone in check. However, the political ruler or rulers will also need someone to hold them accountable, because they too are humans. The emergence of rulers who are just enough to uphold the political order is hard to imagine. Kant says there are three conditions that must be met for this goal to be attained: (1) an adequate understanding of a just political constitution; (2) wisdom gained from experience throughout history; and (3) the good will to accept the just political constitution.
How does the freedom for enlightenment promise the advancement of the species?
The freedom for enlightenment (refer to Kant's essay on enlightenment) facilitates a people's progress in understanding truth. For Kant this implies that an enlightened people will arrive at an understanding of politics and history that points towards a united federation of nations governed by international law. Only when this state is reached, will it be possible for the human species to reach its full potential, as the freedom of each person will not be violated and he or she will be free to develop his or her potential.
What risk does Nietzsche thinks affects the antiquarian approach to history?
The risk is that the antiquarian will no longer be able to appreciate the difference between what is admirable and worth preserving in tradition from what is base and ought to be discarded. The risk is that the antiquarian will exalt anything from the past insofar as it is from the past, irrespective of whether it is admirable and worthy of exaltation. The degraded antiquarian is satisfied with any trivia from the past. Traditions are only worth preserving if they contribute to the flourishing of living beings.
What does the historical sense destroy if it is unconstrained? What do all living things need to become ripe?
The historical sense "destroys illusions and robs existing things of their atmosphere in which alone they can live." Every living thing exists within a horizon that is sufficient for its creative potential. Plants and animals exist within their own spheres and become damaged if their spheres are disrupted (think of animals in zoos). Similarly, human beings need focused horizons if they are to grow to their full potential. Nietzsche thinks that we need to believe in certain illusions that enable us to focus and concentrate our powers. We need to limit what we consciously consider if we are to thrive. We also need to master and creatively transform what we experience in order to turn it into fuel for the ongoing development of our lives. Nietzsche maintains that if we are too consumed with history we dissipate and scatter our energies. Our potential development as unique beings is undermined, as we become repositories for what other people and other cultures have done. We must allow our own culture and personalities to develop and this involves treating the past very selectively and with prejudice: shaping it to suit our needs. Nietzsche argues that excessive historical concern deprives us of the power to allow our creative instinct to guide our lives. Instead of letting our own internal energies direct the course of our lives we turn to the past and lose sight of our own unique potentiality. We excavate ourselves of our own potential and instead fill ourselves with the exhausted potential of dead people.
Between what two poles does Kant characterize the progression of human endeavors?
The human species develops neither according to random, chaos (as might be assumed since everyone seems to be concerned with his or her own business) nor in an entirely rational way according to which everyone agreed on the paths of development to be undertaken, without any conflict (as might happen with some kind of perfect creatures).
2nd thesis: How does Kant say the capacities of the human species are developed? How is the capacity of reason distinctive so as to ground the kind of development Kant describes?
The human species reaches its fulfillment not in the life of the individual, but rather in the species as a whole. No individual exhausts the potentiality of the human species. An individual squirrel essentially exhausts the potentiality belonging to squirrels. An individual monkey can learn all of the skills possible for it as a monkey. However, the human species is infinitely richer. This is because of our rationality - the specific difference of our species is our rationality. Kant says that reason knows no limits to its projects. One can consider the different potentialities belonging to the musician, the painter, the scientist, the athlete, etc. These are only a few of the myriad possibilities available to the human species. An individual human can only develop one or a few possibilities. Therefore, only through the species as a whole can we realize the fullness of our potentiality.
What contrast does Kant make between the metaphysical reality of freedom and the appearances of freedom in history?
The metaphysical reality of freedom is for Kant not measurable through empirical science or experienceable through sense experience. The essence of the freedom of our wills is that our exercises of freedom are not subject to the laws that govern nature; otherwise, freedom would be an illusion. However, insofar as our freedom gives rise to actions that are expressed in the physical universe, the appearances of human freedom are subject to the laws of nature. When I freely move my hand, the movement is governed by the laws belonging to my nervous system, gravity, etc. The decision to move my hand, however, is freely accomplished, without compulsion from external laws.
How does he describe the monumental man? Why does he turn to history? What is his commandment? What will live on after him?
The monumental man is more active and powerful than his peers. He needs to look to history to find role models or peers with whom he can find guidance and companionship. Nietzsche references Schiller and Goethe, who both looked to the Greeks in order to find persons to admire. The contemporary world does not offer people of greatness to admire. His concern is to achieve greatness and thereby become famous. His commandment is to ensure that the greatness able to ennoble or magnify humanity's spirit must always be present. Such people find justification for life in the example of great-souled individuals who have achieved great things. This individual is not afraid to risk his life in order to achieve greatness; even though this person will perish, his "work, a deed, a rare inspiration, a creation: it will live because posterity cannot do without it."
How does the monumental man look at history in order to be inspired? How does he treat the causal nexus through which events occur? How does history suffer?
The monumental man is not concerned about arriving at an accurate grasp of the causes and circumstances through which events occurred. He is only concerned with the events or effects themselves. The events or effects are the source of inspiration and awe. The monumental man disregards scholarly caution and ruthlessly focuses on what can serve his goals. He overlooks the differences that distinguish a previous time from his own and assures himself that the example of the past can be imitated in his own life. History therefore suffers damage: "very great portions of the past are forgotten or despised, and flow aware like a grey uninterrupted flood, and only single embellished facts stand out like islands." This individual is able to master history to serve his aims and to forget what is useless or antithetical.
What does the monumental man gain from looking to history?
The monumental man is saved from despair by looking at history because it shows him that it is possible to achieve greatness, despite the evidence from his mediocre peers. It inspires and motivates him in difficult times to persevere, because his goal is seen as possible.
How does war drain a country's powers? How does the interrelatedness of each country encourage the promotion of stability among them and why does each country seek to ensure stability within other countries? What does this interrelatedness point towards as a final state?
When a country is excessively concerned with war, many of resources are drained (lives, money, time, peace, etc.). These resources, obviously, would be better directed towards education and health and culture, etc. It is in the interest of each country to work towards the abolition of wars. Since each country is interrelated through trade, travel, alliances, etc. (increasingly nowadays, of course), other countries are afflicted and suffer when one country is afflicted by civil or international war. Other countries are motivated to influence the country ravaged by war, because it is in their best interest to help stabilize other countries with who it is in relation. The increasing interrelatedness of countries leads to the establishment of "a universal cosmopolitan state, the womb in which all of the human species' original capacities will be developed." When harmony is reached between nations and within nations, everyone can develop his or her potential and advance the fulfillment of the human species.
Why is Nietzsche concerned about seeing history as a science?
When history is seen as a science, it aspires to total comprehension. Whether the scientific examination of history is valuable for us as living human beings is not considered. Instead, it is believed that the scientific examination of history is intrinsically valuable, that life ought to serve the science of history. Living beings become subservient to the past and forget that they are existing in the present, with creative potential for the future.