- المشاركات
- 39
- مستوى التفاعل
- 2
- النقاط
- 6
Foucault and Philosophical Modernity
Michel Foucault places significant importance on Kant's text "What is Enlightenment?". Not only has he referred to it several times, but he also considers it a unique text, as it is the first philosophical work to pose the question of the present: What is happening now? What is this now that defines the moment in which I am writing? For Foucault, this is a question that had not advanced in the history of philosophy.
It is true that references to the present, the contemporary, the historical situation, and the garments (which could be of importance to philosophical thought) are not new in the history of philosophy. It is well-known that Descartes, in the first section of his "Discourse on the Method," narrates his journey and the decisions he made regarding both his own life and philosophy, considering the historical, cognitive, and scientific situation of his time. However, we do not find the same type of question that Kant answers, one that relates to the present he belongs to. Descartes, who is considered the father of modern philosophy, limits his return to his historical present to examining what might define his answers to this or that question, and he was not concerned with the question: What in this present signifies something for true philosophical thought?
It may be useful to recall two things here: The first is that the answer appeared in 1784 in the "Berlin Journal," and this is significant. Aside from the fact that a philosophical text being published in newspapers and journals was not a common practice, the posing of the question in this way suggests its urgency, or we could say that it was one of those issues that "imposed itself."
What confirms this, and this is the second point, is that Kant was not the one who raised this question. Rather, it was a question that appeared in the margins of an article written by R.H. Probstante in the December 1783 issue of the same journal, and Mendelssohn had preceded him with an answer in the previous month.
Although Kant's text was published in a book titled "Philosophy of History," Foucault did not consider this text to be answering the question: Where are we heading, and what role do the Enlightenments play in determining the future? What is the nature of this future? Is it an ascent, progress, and movement toward the better, or is it a decline and regression? Kant's text is not an analysis of a historical moment as a phase in a general historical process. It does not engage in teleological historical thinking. It is, first and foremost, an answer to the question: What is Enlightenment for us, who live this present? What is Enlightenment in terms of our present, and not in terms of what might result from it in the future? This text does not belong to "philosophy of history"; rather, it establishes a new field of inquiry—an "ontology of the present," or, we could say, it directs philosophical research toward a new path, another path, the path of modernity.
Defining Enlightenment as "man's emergence from the immaturity he imposes upon himself, which is the inability to use his understanding without guidance from another," defining Enlightenment as a departure from guardianship, and acknowledging human autonomy and self-independence, is an affirmation that humanity has become an independent subject, an acknowledgment of the birth of humanity in relation to itself, the birth of man as an active subject.
Thus, it is not about analyzing the present in relation to the past and the future, nor is Enlightenment viewed here as a historical movement. Instead, it is considered a new way of defining the relationship between humans and time, the relationship between humans and themselves, and it represents the birth of "philosophical modernity."
Michel Foucault places significant importance on Kant's text "What is Enlightenment?". Not only has he referred to it several times, but he also considers it a unique text, as it is the first philosophical work to pose the question of the present: What is happening now? What is this now that defines the moment in which I am writing? For Foucault, this is a question that had not advanced in the history of philosophy.
It is true that references to the present, the contemporary, the historical situation, and the garments (which could be of importance to philosophical thought) are not new in the history of philosophy. It is well-known that Descartes, in the first section of his "Discourse on the Method," narrates his journey and the decisions he made regarding both his own life and philosophy, considering the historical, cognitive, and scientific situation of his time. However, we do not find the same type of question that Kant answers, one that relates to the present he belongs to. Descartes, who is considered the father of modern philosophy, limits his return to his historical present to examining what might define his answers to this or that question, and he was not concerned with the question: What in this present signifies something for true philosophical thought?
It may be useful to recall two things here: The first is that the answer appeared in 1784 in the "Berlin Journal," and this is significant. Aside from the fact that a philosophical text being published in newspapers and journals was not a common practice, the posing of the question in this way suggests its urgency, or we could say that it was one of those issues that "imposed itself."
What confirms this, and this is the second point, is that Kant was not the one who raised this question. Rather, it was a question that appeared in the margins of an article written by R.H. Probstante in the December 1783 issue of the same journal, and Mendelssohn had preceded him with an answer in the previous month.
Although Kant's text was published in a book titled "Philosophy of History," Foucault did not consider this text to be answering the question: Where are we heading, and what role do the Enlightenments play in determining the future? What is the nature of this future? Is it an ascent, progress, and movement toward the better, or is it a decline and regression? Kant's text is not an analysis of a historical moment as a phase in a general historical process. It does not engage in teleological historical thinking. It is, first and foremost, an answer to the question: What is Enlightenment for us, who live this present? What is Enlightenment in terms of our present, and not in terms of what might result from it in the future? This text does not belong to "philosophy of history"; rather, it establishes a new field of inquiry—an "ontology of the present," or, we could say, it directs philosophical research toward a new path, another path, the path of modernity.
Defining Enlightenment as "man's emergence from the immaturity he imposes upon himself, which is the inability to use his understanding without guidance from another," defining Enlightenment as a departure from guardianship, and acknowledging human autonomy and self-independence, is an affirmation that humanity has become an independent subject, an acknowledgment of the birth of humanity in relation to itself, the birth of man as an active subject.
Thus, it is not about analyzing the present in relation to the past and the future, nor is Enlightenment viewed here as a historical movement. Instead, it is considered a new way of defining the relationship between humans and time, the relationship between humans and themselves, and it represents the birth of "philosophical modernity."
