From what is Enlightenment? Michael Focault

     In this essay, Foucault is talking about what is modern philosophy? At first, to define modern, he brings back the ideas f some philosophers.
(1) Plato: For Plato, present is a historical event, it is distinct from others due to some dramatic events. He wanted to separate present from past and future.
(2) St. Augustine: Present is the heralding of future, it is more related to future, present paves way to future. It is not the distinctive historical era.
(3) Vico: He is not agree with plato and Augustine, for him, it is a transition towards the downing of the new world. For him, present it related to past and future always in connection.
(4) Kant: Present is exit, emergence, a way out from the past. Present is all intentional exit from self-incurved tutelage. His notion of present is enlightenment .
     By talking the ideas of present by great scholars focault further goes to comment Kant. Kant thinks that Such man is modern man who can change his private and public self. But Focault says how can a man shift himself since he is always in some constraint?, How can a man assume two personalities? It seems quite contradiction. Kant says that enlightenment is obedience and it is freedom also. He further says that we have to be cog in a machine while making private use of reason and at times we have to do in accordance with the freedom of conscience. He Kant seems to have violated the freedom of conscience defined in 16th and 17th century by proposing dualistic roles.
     The distinction he introduces is between the private and public use of reason but he adds at once that reason must be free in its public use, and must be submissive in its private use which is quite opposite of what is ordinarily called freedom of conscience. Unlike Kant, who sees enlightenment as a way of man’s immaturity, Focault argues that in the present day man has not reached maturity and perhaps never will. For him, maturity consists in not only a heroic but also what he calls on ironic stance towards one’s present situation. Ironic in its recognition of the contingency of the present which it heroizes and in its desire to transfigure the present through the practice of a liberty that simultaneously respects the reality and heroic signifies-boldy facing up to the collapse of the old order.
For Focault modernity is an attitude or ethos but before him it was calendar-based period. He says it is not an era nor it is an event. It is an ethos, attitude breaking with tradition. Modernity is something which comes in feeling. It’s a feeling of novelty and newness. It is going on the verge of something ultimate, I is a phenomenon which comes form within. What is the relationship between modernism and enlightenment is the age of critique, age of attitude and modernity is also an attitude but not calendar-based era. Hence, enlightenment and modernity are closely related to one another. Enlightenment is still continuing in the form of modernity which means modernity is a continuity or enlightenment as an attitude. Therefore, enlightenment is not dead, it is still functioning. Enlightenment can be examined in two ways-negatively and positively.
1. Negative function: There are two functions to this ethos.
a. To negate the blackmailing of enlightenment and think of those elements that make people autonomous. Enlightenment has nothing to do with supporting and opposing. Hence, Focault says, “Stop blackmailing”.
b. To avoid the confusion between humanism and enlightenment: In the western world, enlightenment and humanism are taken synonymously but these are two different terms. Enlightenment is something related to the socio-economic transformation, mental transformation and it includes types or political institution, forms of knowledge, technological mutation and so many others whereas humanism is related to man only enlightenment sees man in terms of society, law and religion. Enlightenment is broad term and its related to total socio-economic, socio political-cultural, scientific discoveries, autonomous existence and transformation of thought etc.
2. Positive Function: Enlightenment is limit attitude. It believes that historically we are imposed certain limits, do’s and don’ts, rules and regulation. Enlightenment as a limited attitude examines these attitude. It sands in the frontier, broaderline and sees the possibilities of going beyond these limits. WE should develop positive attitude or enlightenment as a limit. We should examine whether the limits imposed to us are negative or positive and if necessary cross the limit. By examining negative and positive functions we want autonomous existence (freedom) but the state comes to challenge it with its power in different names. In the western world, people have been struggling for freedom since long but their attempt always comes under the network of power. So, human struggle for freedom is in stake. The power carries as a problem and when the state power controls, the homogeneity or systematicity or generality are produced, so Focault doubts whether we reach to the mature state or enlightenment or not. Kant believes that enlightenment brings us into the mature state but for Focault due to pervasive mature of power whether man can reach to it or not, it is doubtful.

Friedrich Nietzsche “The Use and Abuse of History” deals with the dynamics of remembering and forgetting, which Nietzsche sees as the exclusive characteristic of human animal. Unlike the beast, human beings have to come to grips with the problem of leaving to forget an action, which presupposes the prior ability to remember. Whether he wants it or not, man has history. Read More...

Immanuel Kant The enlightenment, an intellectual movement in eighteenth century Europe celebrated human reason and scientific thought as the instrument of liberation from the superstition and ignorance inherited from the past. The period believed that man, at his best, was a reasonable creature committed to a reasonable activity of understanding the world, the creation of a reasonable creator. Read More...

Mikhail Bakhtin Bakhtin says that traditional stylistics and philosophy of language failed to read novelistic genre since they did not understand the artistic uniqueness of novelistic discourse. Their basic focus is on poetic language, individuality of language, image, symbol, epic style, they do not give spacious room to extra-linguistic affairs. They are habituated to learn single language ness not observing its carnivalesque feature. Read More...