seeks reasons for one's beliefs, opens them to correction by others, and recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of one's reasons" (169). In contrast, the "minimalist Enlightenment" (hereafter, MinE) is more modest: it is concerned with " how one holds one's views, not what views one holds" and requires only that "one holds one's belief as a result of thinking responsibly for oneself, rather than as dogma. The former, which Fleischacker dubs "maximum enlightenment" (hereafter, Ma圎), is antagonistic towards most forms of religious belief, convinced of the beneficence of science, and suspicious of tradition. Samuel Fleischacker argues that Immanuel Kant's discussion of the question "What is Enlightenment?" provides " both the notion of enlightenment that has been criticized for its arrogant aspiration to replace all traditional ways of life with liberal individualism and a much more open, flexible ideal that can help us resist our arrogant aspirations" (1).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |