Key Differences Between Kant And Foucault

There are key differences between Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment” and Michel Foucault’s “What is Enlightenment”. Kant and Foucault were both philosophers that wrote about their thoughts on Enlightenment, but Foucault was able to write and critique Kant’s work because he lived during a later time period. Enlightenment, in Kant’s eyes, is centered around man’s escape from immaturity while Foucault believed it to be a pluralized pool of historical reason. Additionally, Foucault thought that Enlightenment should be accepted rather than an ongoing obligation and process of exiting immaturity. Both styles of writing, however, focus on humanity’s use of reasoning. Even though Kant and Foucault’s views on Enlightenment differ greatly, it is

Kant ultimately argued that humans are the cause of their own immaturity, resulting in each individual being in control of changing themselves or not. By relying on others to do tasks and jobs for one’s own self, it halts one’s ability to mature into reasoning on their own. Kant stated, “laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men nevertheless glady remain immature for life” (1). This immaturity is what Kant believed should be left behind. Individuals should exit from their immaturity to a balance between obedience and reason. This becomes a slow phenomenon toward achieving Enlightenment. Foucault, on the other hand, believed that individuals should take a more positive approach toward historically investigating Enlightenment (Seppä 3). Rather than seeking to exit a state of immaturity, Foucault believed individuals should accept enlightenment for what it

When one is privately using their reasoning, they are part of a system. For example, someone in the military would be considered as using their private reasoning because they are responsible for doing that job and obeying rules. Foucault highlighted Kant’s view, “Humanity will reach maturity when it is no longer required to obey, but when men are told: ‘Obey and you will be able to reason as much as you like’” (Foucault 3). To escape immaturity, there must be space for reasoning while being obedient. On the other hand, when an individual is reasoning for oneself, not for the system or job they are a part of, it is public. Kant emphasized individuality and how one’s self is the only thing that can help one escape and begin reasoning universally and alone. Foucault believed individual autonomy should be achieved, but not based on a universal common reason (Seppä 4). Rather, reason and critique should be pluralized in order to achieve success through a more individualized approach. A universal common reason does not fit everyone and most likely would not be