Lonelygirl15 Forum Index Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

OoD vs Resistance
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> FanFic and LG15 Character Interaction
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
New voice of reason
Lonely Fan


Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 153

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Erica,

well, she will certainly not be able to say that she was is if she was brain-washed.

Nevertheless, what makes me feel not very trusty that she is not is that she has not answered my thread I opened in the Bree-Chat-section...

Anyway, I would like to receive a video of Bree within the HoO when she is NOT in such a state that you call "spiritual extacy".

Enlightenment is not about extacy. It is about getting clear with oneself. And it certainly has nothing to do with magick or strane ghosts or spirits. Have YOU ever read "What is enlightenment?" by E. Kant?Wink
(The essay I recommended Bree).

Yours
New Voice of reason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New voice of reason wrote:
Enlightenment is not about extacy. It is about getting clear with oneself. And it certainly has nothing to do with magick or strane ghosts or spirits. Have YOU ever read "What is enlightenment?" by E. Kant?Wink


Yours
New Voice of reason


Is this the essay you mean? If so then yes I have read it. Also I agree with some of Kant's points but not all. As for Bree at the moment she is far from my mind. I have bigger things to worry about than her. I can't make her answer you.

Erica

Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Muthes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Muth dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.

Faulheit und Feigheit sind die Ursachen, warum ein so großer Theil der Menschen, nachdem sie die Natur längst von fremder Leitung frei gesprochen [482≡] (naturaliter maiorennes), dennoch gerne Zeitlebens unmündig bleiben; und warum es Anderen so leicht wird, sich zu deren Vormündern aufzuwerfen. Es ist so bequem, unmündig zu sein. Habe ich ein Buch, das für mich Verstand hat, einen Seelsorger, der für mich Gewissen hat, einen Arzt der für mich die Diät beurtheilt, u. s. w. so brauche ich mich ja nicht selbst zu bemühen. Ich habe nicht nöthig zu denken, wenn ich nur bezahlen kann; andere werden das verdrießliche Geschäft schon für mich übernehmen. Daß der bei weitem größte Theil der Menschen (darunter das ganze schöne Geschlecht) den Schritt zur Mündigkeit, außer dem daß er beschwerlich ist, auch für sehr gefährlich halte: dafür sorgen schon jene Vormünder, die die Oberaufsicht über sie gütigst auf sich genommen haben. Nachdem sie ihr Hausvieh zuerst dumm gemacht haben, und sorgfältig verhüteten, daß diese ruhigen Geschöpfe ja keinen Schritt außer dem Gängelwagen, darin sie sie einsperreten, wagen durften; so zeigen sie ihnen nachher die Gefahr, die ihnen drohet, wenn sie es versuchen allein zu gehen. Nun ist diese Gefahr zwar eben so groß nicht, denn sie würden durch einigemahl Fallen wohl endlich gehen lernen; allein ein Beispiel von der Art macht doch schüchtern, und schrekt gemeiniglich von allen ferneren Versuchen ab.

Es ist also für jeden einzelnen Menschen schwer, sich aus der ihm beinahe zur Natur gewordenen Unmündigkeit [483≡] herauszuarbeiten. Er hat sie sogar lieb gewonnen, und ist vor der Hand wirklich unfähig, sich seines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen, weil man ihn niemals den Versuch davon machen ließ. Satzungen und Formeln, diese mechanischen Werkzeuge eines vernünftigen Gebrauchs oder vielmehr Mißbrauchs seiner Naturgaben, sind die Fußschellen einer immerwährenden Unmündigkeit. Wer sie auch abwürfe, würde dennoch auch über den schmalesten Graben einen nur unsicheren Sprung thun, weil er zu dergleichen freier Bewegung nicht gewöhnt ist. Daher giebt es nur Wenige, denen es gelungen ist, durch eigene Bearbeitung ihres Geistes sich aus der Unmündigkeit heraus zu wikkeln, und dennoch einen sicheren Gang zu thun.

Daß aber ein Publikum sich selbst aufkläre, ist eher möglich; ja es ist, wenn man ihm nur Freiheit läßt, beinahe unausbleiblich. Denn da werden sich immer einige Selbstdenkende, sogar unter den eingesetzten Vormündern des großen Haufens, finden, welche, nachdem sie das Joch der Unmündigkeit selbst abgeworfen haben, den Geist einer vernünftigen Schätzung des eigenen Werths und des Berufs jedes Menschen selbst zu denken um sich verbreiten werden. Besonders ist hiebei: daß das Publikum, welches zuvor von ihnen unter dieses Joch gebracht worden, sie hernach selbst zwingt darunter zu bleiben, wenn es von einigen seiner Vormünder, die selbst aller Aufklärung unfähig sind, dazu aufgewiegelt [484≡] worden; so schädlich ist es Vorurtheile zu pflanzen, weil sie sich zuletzt an denen selbst rächen, die, oder deren Vorgänger, ihre Urheber gewesen sind. Daher kann ein Publikum nur langsam zur Aufklärung gelangen. Durch eine Revolution wird vielleicht wohl ein Abfall von persönlichem Despotism und gewinnsüchtiger oder herrschsüchtiger Bedrückung, aber niemals wahre Reform der Denkungsart zu Stande kommen; sondern neue Vorurtheile werden, eben sowohl als die alten, zum Leitbande des gedankenlosen großen Haufens dienen.

Zu dieser Aufklärung aber wird nichts erfordert als Freiheit; und zwar die unschädlichste unter allem, was nur Freiheit heißen mag, nämlich die: von seiner Vernunft in allen Stükken öffentlichen Gebrauch zu machen. Nun höre ich aber von allen Seiten rufen: räsonnirt nicht! Der Offizier sagt: räsonnirt nicht, sondern exercirt! Der Finanzrath: räsonnirt nicht, sondern bezahlt! Der Geistliche: räsonnirt nicht, sondern glaubt! (Nur ein einziger Herr in der Welt sagt: räsonnirt, so viel ihr wollt, und worüber ihr wollt; aber gehorcht!) Hier ist überall Einschränkung der Freiheit. Welche Einschränkung aber ist der Aufklärung hinderlich? welche nicht, sondern ihr wohl gar beförderlich? – Ich antworte: der öffentliche Gebrauch seiner Vernunft muß jederzeit frei sein, und der allein kann Aufklärung unter Menschen zu [485≡] Stande bringen; der Privatgebrauch derselben aber darf öfters sehr enge eingeschränkt sein, ohne doch darum den Fortschritt der Aufklärung sonderlich zu hindern. Ich verstehe aber unter dem öffentlichen Gebrauche seiner eigenen Vernunft denjenigen, den jemand als Gelehrter von ihr vor dem ganzen Publikum der Leserwelt macht. Den Privatgebrauch nenne ich denjenigen, den er in einem gewissen ihm anvertrauten bürgerlichen Posten, oder Amte, von seiner Vernunft machen darf. Nun ist zu manchen Geschäften, die in das Interesse des gemeinen Wesens laufen, ein gewisser Mechanism nothwendig, vermittelst dessen einige Glieder des gemeinen Wesens sich bloß passiv verhalten müssen, um durch eine künstliche Einhelligkeit von der Regierung zu öffentlichen Zwekken gerichtet, oder wenigstens von der Zerstörung dieser Zwekke abgehalten zu werden. Hier ist es nun freilich nicht erlaubt, zu räsonniren; sondern man muß gehorchen. So fern sich aber dieser Theil der Maschine zugleich als Glied eines ganzen gemeinen Wesens, ja sogar der Weltbürgergesellschaft ansieht, mithin in der Qualität eines Gelehrten, der sich an ein Publikum im eigentlichen Verstande durch Schriften wendet; kann er allerdings räsonniren, ohne daß dadurch die Geschäfte leiden, zu denen er zum Theile als passives Glied angesetzt ist. So würde es sehr verderblich sein, wenn ein Offizier, dem von seinen Oberen etwas anbefohlen wird, im Dienste [486≡] über die Zwekmäßigkeit oder Nützlichkeit dieses Befehls laut vernünfteln wollte; er muß gehorchen. Es kann ihm aber billigermaßen nicht verwehrt werden, als Gelehrter, über die Fehler im Kriegesdienste Anmerkungen zu machen, und diese seinem Publikum zur Beurtheilung vorzulegen. Der Bürger kann sich nicht weigern, die ihm auferlegten Abgaben zu leisten; sogar kann ein vorwitziger Tadel solcher Auflagen, wenn sie von ihm geleistet werden sollen, als ein Skandal (das allgemeine Widersetzlichkeiten veranlassen könnte) bestraft werden. Eben derselbe handelt demohngeachtet der Pflicht eines Bürgers nicht entgegen, wenn er, als Gelehrter, wider die Unschicklichkeit oder auch Ungerechtigkeit solcher Ausschreibungen öffentlich seine Gedanken äußert. Eben so ist ein Geistlicher verbunden, seinen Katechismusschülern und seiner Gemeine nach dem Symbol der Kirche, der er dient, seinen Vortrag zu thun; denn er ist auf diese Bedingung angenommen worden. Aber als Gelehrter hat er volle Freiheit, ja sogar den Beruf dazu, alle seine sorgfältig geprüften und wohlmeinenden Gedanken über das Fehlerhafte in jenem Symbol und Vorschläge wegen besserer Einrichtung des Religions- und Kirchenwesens, dem Publikum mitzutheilen. Es ist hiebei auch nichts, was dem Gewissen zur Last gelegt werden könnte. Denn, was er zu Folge seines Amts, als Geschäftträger der Kirche, lehrt, das stellt er als etwas vor, in Ansehung [487≡] dessen er nicht freie Gewalt hat nach eigenem Gutdünken zu lehren, sondern das er nach Vorschrift und im Namen eines andern vorzutragen angestellt ist. Er wird sagen: unsere Kirche lehrt dieses oder jenes; das sind die Beweisgründe, deren sie sich bedient. Er zieht alsdann allen praktischen Nutzen für seine Gemeinde aus Satzungen, die er selbst nicht mit voller Ueberzeugung unterschreiben würde, zu deren Vortrag er sich gleichwohl anheischig machen kann, weil es doch nicht ganz unmöglich ist, daß darin Wahrheit verborgen läge, auf alle Fälle aber wenigstens doch nichts der innern Religion widersprechendes darin angetroffen wird. Denn glaubte er das letztere darin zu finden, so würde er sein Amt mit Gewissen nicht verwalten können; er müßte es niederlegen. Der Gebrauch also, den ein angestellter Lehrer von seiner Vernunft vor seiner Gemeinde macht, ist bloß ein Privatgebrauch; weil diese immer nur eine häusliche, obzwar noch so große, Versammlung ist; und in Ansehung dessen ist er, als Priester, nicht frei, und darf es auch nicht sein, weil er einen fremden Auftrag ausrichtet. Dagegen als Gelehrter, der durch Schriften zum eigentlichen Publikum, nämlich der Welt, spricht, mithin der Geistliche im öffentlichen Gebrauche seiner Vernunft, genießt einer uneingeschränkten Freiheit, sich seiner eigenen Vernunft zu bedienen und in seiner eigenen Person zu sprechen. Denn daß die Vormünder des Volks [488≡] (in geistlichen Dingen) selbst wieder unmündig sein sollen, ist eine Ungereimtheit, die auf Verewigung der Ungereimtheiten hinausläuft.

Aber sollte nicht eine Gesellschaft von Geistlichen, etwa eine Kirchenversammlung, oder eine ehrwürdige Klassis (wie sie sich unter den Holländern selbst nennt) berechtigt sein, sich eidlich unter einander auf ein gewisses unveränderliches Symbol zu verpflichten, um so eine unaufhörliche Obervormundschaft über jedes ihrer Glieder und vermittelst ihrer über das Volk zu führen, und diese so gar zu verewigen? Ich sage: das ist ganz unmöglich. Ein solcher Kontrakt, der auf immer alle weitere Aufklärung vom Menschengeschlechte abzuhalten geschlossen würde, ist schlechterdings null und nichtig; und sollte er auch durch die oberste Gewalt, durch Reichstäge und die feierlichsten Friedensschlüsse bestätigt sein. Ein Zeitalter kann sich nicht verbünden und darauf verschwören, das folgende in einen Zustand zu setzen, darin es ihm unmöglich werden muß, seine (vornehmlich so sehr angelegentliche) Erkenntnisse zu erweitern, von Irrthümern zu reinigen, und überhaupt in der Aufklärung weiter zu schreiten. Das wäre ein Verbrechen wider die menschliche Natur, deren ursprüngliche Bestimmung gerade in diesem Fortschreiten besteht; und die Nachkommen sind also vollkommen dazu berechtigt, jene Beschlüsse, als unbefugter und frevelhafter Weise genommen, zu verwerfen. Der Probierstein [489≡] alles dessen, was über ein Volk als Gesetz beschlossen werden kann, liegt in der Frage: ob ein Volk sich selbst wohl ein solches Gesetz auferlegen könnte? Nun wäre dieses wohl, gleichsam in der Erwartung eines bessern, auf eine bestimmte kurze Zeit möglich, um eine gewisse Ordnung einzuführen; indem man es zugleich jedem der Bürger, vornehmlich dem Geistlichen, frei ließe, in der Qualität eines Gelehrten öffentlich, d. i. durch Schriften, über das Fehlerhafte der dermaligen Einrichtung seine Anmerkungen zu machen, indessen die eingeführte Ordnung noch immer fortdauerte, bis die Einsicht in die Beschaffenheit dieser Sachen öffentlich so weit gekommen und bewähret worden, daß sie durch Vereinigung ihrer Stimmen (wenn gleich nicht aller) einen Vorschlag vor den Thron bringen könnte, um diejenigen Gemeinden in Schutz zu nehmen, die sich etwa nach ihren Begriffen der besseren Einsicht zu einer veränderten Religionseinrichtung geeinigt hätten, ohne doch diejenigen zu hindern, die es beim Alten wollten bewenden lassen. Aber auf eine beharrliche, von Niemanden öffentlich zu bezweifelnde Religionsverfassung, auch nur binnen der Lebensdauer eines Menschen, sich zu einigen, und dadurch einen Zeitraum in dem Fortgange der Menschheit zur Verbesserung gleichsam zu vernichten, und fruchtlos, dadurch aber wohl gar der Nachkommenschaft nachtheilig, zu machen, ist schlechterdings unerlaubt. Ein Mensch kann zwar für seine Person, [490≡] und auch alsdann nur auf einige Zeit, in dem was ihm zu wissen obliegt die Aufklärung aufschieben; aber auf sie Verzicht zu thun, es sei für seine Person, mehr aber noch für die Nachkommenschaft, heißt die heiligen Rechte der Menschheit verletzen und mit Füßen treten. Was aber nicht einmal ein Volk über sich selbst beschließen darf, das darf noch weniger ein Monarch über das Volk beschließen; denn sein gesetzgebendes Ansehen beruht eben darauf, daß er den gesammten Volkswillen in dem seinigen vereinigt. Wenn er nur darauf sieht, daß alle wahre oder vermeinte Verbesserung mit der bürgerlichen Ordnung zusammen bestehe; so kann er seine Unterthanen übrigens nur selbst machen lassen, was sie um ihres Seelenheils willen zu thun nöthig finden; das geht ihn nichts an, wohl aber zu verhüten, daß nicht einer den andern gewaltthätig hindere, an der Bestimmung und Beförderung desselben nach allem seinen Vermögen zu arbeiten. Es thut selbst seiner Majestät Abbruch, wenn er sich hierin mischt, indem er die Schriften, wodurch seine Unterthanen ihre Einsichten ins Reine zu bringen suchen, seiner Regierungsaufsicht würdigt, sowohl wenn er dieses aus eigener höchstern Einsicht thut, wo er sich dem Vorwurfe aussetzt: Caesar non est supra Grammaticos, als auch und noch weit mehr, wenn er seine oberste Gewalt so weit erniedrigt, den geistlichen Despotism einiger Tyrannen [491≡] in seinem Staate gegen seine übrigen Unterthanen zu unterstützen.

Wenn denn nun gefragt wird: Leben wir jetzt in einem aufgeklärten Zeitalter? so ist die Antwort: Nein, aber wohl in einem Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Daß die Menschen, wie die Sachen jetzt stehen, im Ganzen genommen, schon im Stande wären, oder darin auch nur gesetzt werden könnten, in Religionsdingen sich ihres eigenen Verstandes ohne Leitung eines Andern sicher und gut zu bedienen, daran fehlt noch sehr viel. Allein, daß jetzt ihnen doch das Feld geöffnet wird, sich dahin frei zu bearbeiten, und die Hindernisse der allgemeinen Aufklärung, oder des Ausganges aus ihrer selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit, allmälig weniger werden, davon haben wir doch deutliche Anzeigen. In diesem Betracht ist dieses Zeitalter das Zeitalter der Aufklärung, oder das Jahrhundert Friederichs.

Ein Fürst, der es seiner nicht unwürdig findet, zu sagen: daß er es für Pflicht halte, in Religionsdingen den Menschen nichts vorzuschreiben, sondern ihnen darin volle Freiheit zu lassen, der also selbst den hochmüthigen Namen der Toleranz von sich ablehnt: ist selbst aufgeklärt, und verdient von der dankbaren Welt und Nachwelt als derjenige gepriesen zu werden, der zuerst das menschliche Geschlecht der Unmündigkeit, wenigstens von Seiten der Regierung, entschlug, und Jedem frei ließ, sich [492≡] in allem, was Gewissensangelegenheit ist, seiner eigenen Vernunft zu bedienen. Unter ihm dürfen verehrungswürdige Geistliche, unbeschadet ihrer Amtspflicht, ihre vom angenommenen Symbol hier oder da abweichenden Urtheile und Einsichten, in der Qualität der Gelehrten, frei und öffentlich der[1] Welt zur Prüfung darlegen; noch mehr aber jeder andere, der durch keine Amtspflicht eingeschränkt ist. Dieser Geist der Freiheit breitet sich auch außerhalb aus, selbst da, wo er mit äußeren Hindernissen einer sich selbst mißverstehenden Regierung zu ringen hat. Denn es leuchtet dieser doch ein Beispiel vor, daß bei Freiheit, für die öffentliche Ruhe und Einigkeit des gemeinen Wesens nicht das mindeste zu besorgen sei. Die Menschen arbeiten sich von selbst nach und nach aus der Rohigkeit heraus, wenn man nur nicht absichtlich künstelt, um sie darin zu erhalten.

Ich habe den Hauptpunkt der Aufklärung, die des Ausganges der Menschen aus ihrer selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit, vorzüglich in Religionssachen gesetzt: weil in Ansehung der Künste und Wissenschaften unsere Beherrscher kein Interesse haben, den Vormund über ihre Unterthanen zu spielen; überdem auch jene Unmündigkeit, so wie die schädlichste, also auch die entehrendste unter allen ist. Aber die Denkungsart eines Staatsoberhaupts, der die erstere begünstigt, geht noch weiter, und sieht ein: daß selbst in Ansehung seiner Gesetzgebung [493≡] es ohne Gefahr sei, seinen Unterthanen zu erlauben, von ihrer eigenen Vernunft öffentlichen Gebrauch zu machen, und ihre Gedanken über eine bessere Abfassung derselben, sogar mit einer freimüthigen Kritik der schon gegebenen, der Welt öffentlich vorzulegen; davon wir ein glänzendes Beispiel haben, wodurch noch kein Monarch demjenigen vorging, welchen wir verehren.

Aber auch nur derjenige, der, selbst aufgeklärt, sich nicht vor Schatten fürchtet, zugleich aber ein wohldisciplinirtes zahlreiches Heer zum Bürgen der öffentlichen Ruhe zur Hand hat, – kann das sagen, was ein Freistaat nicht wagen darf: räsonnirt so viel ihr wollt, und worüber ihr wollt; nur gehorcht! So zeigt sich hier ein befremdlicher nicht erwarteter Gang menschlicher Dinge; so wie auch sonst, wenn man ihn im Großen betrachtet, darin fast alles paradox ist. Ein größerer Grad bürgerlicher Freiheit scheint der Freiheit des Geistes des Volks vortheilhaft, und setzt ihr doch unübersteigliche Schranken; ein Grad weniger von jener verschaft hingegen diesem Raum, sich nach allem seinen Vermögen auszubreiten. Wenn denn die Natur unter dieser harten Hülle den Keim, für den sie am zärtlichsten sorgt, nämlich den Hang und Beruf zum freien Denken, ausgewikkelt hat; so wirkt dieser allmählig zurück auf die Sinnesart des Volks (wodurch dieses der Freiheit zu handeln [494≡] nach und nach fähiger wird), und endlich auch sogar auf die Grundsätze der Regierung, die es ihr selbst zuträglich findet, den Menschen, der nun mehr als Maschine ist, seiner Würde gemäß zu behandeln.

I. Kant.

Königsberg in Preußen, den 30. Septemb. 1784.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wh_pirate
Enthusiastic Fan


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Arizona

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, that was just way too long to even try to attempt to sit here and read all that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wh_pirate wrote:
Yeah, that was just way too long to even try to attempt to sit here and read all that.


It's a good read.

Erica
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
New voice of reason
Lonely Fan


Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 153

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In that field, Erica,

we do agree.

Nevertheless, don`t forget that not all people are able to speak foreign languages. And this was German. German has a very hard grammar. Not everyone can deal with that.

I mean, if you are interested in philosophy, you MUST learn foreign languages to be able to read things in the original - but, well, we cannot all think that all who are here are interested in philosophy, can we?

I will therefore try to find a translation - I don`t know if my English is good enough to make one. I can try to give some of the core thoughts, though, as good as I can; I mean, translating philosophical texts is one of the most difficult things to do. Only lyricas are harder to tranlslate.


The core thoughts are:

1. It is important to think for yourself and not to let a religion think for you. Sometimes, people (in those days) were not used to that.

2. It is comfortable to make someone else think for you because you can stay lazy and don`t have to ask questions; you can believe what others tell you.

3. Thinking for yourself makes you dangerous for the upper class which consisted to a very large part in the days of Kant of the military or the church. Therefore, both institutions and even some officials have an interest in keeping you from thinking for yourself.

4. The most important thing to be able to get enlightenment (which means to think for yourself) is the freedom to do so. This is often not given. Many institutions aks you not to ask questions, but just to obey, such as the state, the church or the military.

5. The more freedom the individual has, the furthe enlightenment can go. A state or a representative of a state that gives the people who live in it a lot of freedom, particularly when it comes to religion, therefore promotes enlightenment.

Bree is in need of enlightenment. I guess at the moment, she is not really able to think for herself. I would love her to strive for her own freedom for a while, in order to get really clear with what she wants and what she doesn`t want. I believe that she is manipulated at the moment and kept from free thought by brain-washing in the name of her religion. Therefore, I thought, with a very bright mind that Bree has, such an essay might be helpful for her.Wink

Yours
New voice of reason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drew Avery
Suspiciously Absent


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EricaCrowley wrote:
wh_pirate wrote:
Yeah, that was just way too long to even try to attempt to sit here and read all that.


It's a good read.

Erica


It is so good, it should be translated to english here so that the people here who would like to read it will be capable.

Trying to be strangely cryptic about Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?' Erica wrote:
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! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.

Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.

Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him. Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community, a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying such ends. Here one certainly must not argue, instead one must obey. However, insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole, or even of the world community, and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar, in the proper sense of that term, he can most certainly argue, without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible. Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order. He must obey. But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service, or from placing them before the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, impertinent criticism of such levies, when they should be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (since it can lead to widespread insubordination). But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes. Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters. Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience. What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights; rather, he offers it under the direction and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses." He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.

But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void, even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and criminal. The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question: Can a people impose such a law on itself? Now it might be possible, in anticipation of a better state of affairs, to introduce a provisional order for a specific, short time, all the while giving all citizens, especially clergy, in their role as scholars, the freedom to comment publicly, i.e., in writing, on the present institution's shortcomings. The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined (if not unanimous) voices of the populace could propose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered religious institutions, but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However, it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question, for so do-ing would deny, render fruitless, and make detrimental to succeeding generations an era in man's progress toward improvement. A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being, which is not his affair. However, he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being. It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters, since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance. This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach, "Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as, indeed even more, when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.

If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.

A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.

I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e., man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity, first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects' guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all. But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. We have before us a shining example, with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.

But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows, yet who likewise has a well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee public peace, can say what no republic may dare, namely: "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!" Here as elsewhere, when things are considered in broad perspective, a strange, unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself, one in which almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity.

I. Kant
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Drew. That was wonderful of you to translate that. Why do you say I was being "strangely cryptic about Kant's 'What is Enlightenment"? I think it was my dear friend Voice who recommended it.

Cheers,
Erica
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BrightSilence
Devoted Fan


Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 619
Location: the Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OoD wrote:
BrightSilence wrote:
OoD wrote:
Spencer,

If you help Jonas or Daniel in their efforts to alter Bree’s DNA; then, you will be considered an enemy of the Order of Denderah and the Hymn of One. Unless you wish to meet the same fate as your father then you will have not contact with either Jonas or Daniel.

Victor, O.o.D.
This right here is why you people should be behind bars. You are threatening a mans life... Are you insane.

Anyway, Spencer, most of us will welcome you with open arms here. Don't be afraid off the threats of some minority, we are with much more Wink


Think of what happened in your own nation to people like Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn when they failed to heed the warning of a religious “minority”. If good men like that can fall to the uncivilized then evil men can fall before the Throne of Illumination. Your advice is without a realization of reality.

Victor, O.o.D.
So I guess that news went around the globe. Yes they got killed. And yes it was both by some insane lunatic. Only they weren't both killed in name of a religion. Pim Fortuin got killed by an average Joe actually. He had a wife a job and believed a bit to much of what the media told him. There were messages all around of Pim Fortuin being the downfall of the dutch government. All very much exagurated ofcourse, but this man was so convinced it would be the end of all that he had to kill him. He worked alone in this and he was no muslim. Pim might have been bashing the islam for some time but the hit didn't come from 'them'.

As for Theo van Gogh, he had a column in wich he bashed the islam constantly. He even went as far as calling them 'geitenneukers' (Yes, thats 'goat-fuckers'). And every week again there was some smartass remark on them. This murder was religion based, but he wasn't killed for helping someone else out. He was killed for publicly humiliating what a lot of people believe.

Spencer did no such thing, and won't do that either. Nothing gives you the right to kill people, but just passing along information in order to help people help out one of their best friends. How is that a crime?

And to finish this. My message was not an attack on your religion this time, it was personal. You were the one threatening someone. Not warning, but threatening. That means you are the extremist lunatic and YOU should be behind bars together with everyone else who thinks that way. Next to the killers of Theo and Pim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrightSilence wrote:
OoD wrote:
BrightSilence wrote:
OoD wrote:
Spencer,

If you help Jonas or Daniel in their efforts to alter Bree’s DNA; then, you will be considered an enemy of the Order of Denderah and the Hymn of One. Unless you wish to meet the same fate as your father then you will have not contact with either Jonas or Daniel.

Victor, O.o.D.
This right here is why you people should be behind bars. You are threatening a mans life... Are you insane.

Anyway, Spencer, most of us will welcome you with open arms here. Don't be afraid off the threats of some minority, we are with much more Wink


Think of what happened in your own nation to people like Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn when they failed to heed the warning of a religious “minority”. If good men like that can fall to the uncivilized then evil men can fall before the Throne of Illumination. Your advice is without a realization of reality.

Victor, O.o.D.
So I guess that news went around the globe. Yes they got killed. And yes it was both by some insane lunatic. Only they weren't both killed in name of a religion. Pim Fortuin got killed by an average Joe actually. He had a wife a job and believed a bit to much of what the media told him. There were messages all around of Pim Fortuin being the downfall of the dutch government. All very much exagurated ofcourse, but this man was so convinced it would be the end of all that he had to kill him. He worked alone in this and he was no muslim. Pim might have been bashing the islam for some time but the hit didn't come from 'them'.

As for Theo van Gogh, he had a column in wich he bashed the islam constantly. He even went as far as calling them 'geitenneukers' (Yes, thats 'goat-fuckers'). And every week again there was some smartass remark on them. This murder was religion based, but he wasn't killed for helping someone else out. He was killed for publicly humiliating what a lot of people believe.

Spencer did no such thing, and won't do that either. Nothing gives you the right to kill people, but just passing along information in order to help people help out one of their best friends. How is that a crime?

And to finish this. My message was not an attack on your religion this time, it was personal. You were the one threatening someone. Not warning, but threatening. That means you are the extremist lunatic and YOU should be behind bars together with everyone else who thinks that way. Next to the killers of Theo and Pim.


Victor would never hurt Spencer. Spencer is not a danger to anyone.
Also Theo and Pim were brave men that were killed for their beliefs, things like that shouldn't happen in a place like Holland. Holland is one of the greatest nations on earth. Their deaths were a black eye on Holland.

Erica
_________________
http://youtube.com/acrowleyorder
http://www.acrowleyorder.bebo.com
http://www.myspace.com/acrowleyorder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BrightSilence
Devoted Fan


Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 619
Location: the Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure were. I'm actually a bit embarrased that someone from across the globes knows the story's well enough to mention both full names and connect them to my beloved country this way.

On a sidenote, one week before Pim was shot, my brother returned from 2 weeks in Spain. He asked me if he missed anything while he was gone, I joked that Pim Fortuin was killed. Not even one week later when he called me to tell me it really happend this time I didn't believe me. Until one of my friends got a call aswell. I stil remember where I was... In Utrecht near the trainstation making my way to a McDonalds to eat after we went to Six Flags. Funny how those things stick. Guess it stuck with Victor aswell.

Maybe I'm misjudging him, but his style seems so agressive. I didn't like the way he said things. If it was not a threat I take back my words, but I would advise Victor to be more carefull in what he says and how he says it.

And again, if it's just a small minority that is responsible for the deaths in the past, I won't judge you as a whole, but the individuals responsible. They way these actions arent actively rejected by your comminited and sometimes even defended just strikes me as a bit odd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrightSilence

I believe Victor has used the term geitenneukers to describe them also. As an educated person I am sure that you are very familiar with what happened between the O.o.T. and the armies of Islam. The O.o.T. still holds quite a grudge.

You have no reason to be embarrassed by what happened to Pim or Theo. It wasn’t the fault of the Dutch people. I met Pim once in The Hague at a party held at the Peace Palace. He was a very nice man. He and Victor had a lot in common if you know what I mean. I just adore everything about Holland.
_________________
http://youtube.com/acrowleyorder
http://www.acrowleyorder.bebo.com
http://www.myspace.com/acrowleyorder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drew Avery
Suspiciously Absent


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EricaCrowley wrote:
Thank you Drew. That was wonderful of you to translate that. Why do you say I was being "strangely cryptic about Kant's 'What is Enlightenment"? I think it was my dear friend Voice who recommended it.

Cheers,
Erica


Thank you for clearing that up, Erica.

Are you familiar with Plato's "Allegory of the Cave?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drew Avery wrote:
EricaCrowley wrote:
Thank you Drew. That was wonderful of you to translate that. Why do you say I was being "strangely cryptic about Kant's 'What is Enlightenment"? I think it was my dear friend Voice who recommended it.

Cheers,
Erica


Thank you for clearing that up, Erica.

Are you familiar with Plato's "Allegory of the Cave?"


My friend our society is a cave and Jonas and Daniel are like the prisoners in Plato’s cave. Their reality is based on the shadows that Bree created for them and they have refused to look into the light. In fact they fear the light.

There are many paths to enlightenment but true enlightenment in the physical world come from an understanding society through illumination. Becoming or being born into the select few who have received the gift of illumination is a great burden. Once a person understands the true reality of society, the last thing they want to do is burden the prisoners with the truth. This is where Plato was wrong; of course the world was a simpler place in his time. Once freed from the shadows the prisoner do not run back to free the others and bring them into illumination. This is of course just from my own observation of the world and of the people who truly understand how it works. The majority of people are slaves to a reality which has been created for them and very few would want to continue living is they knew the truth.

Erica
_________________
http://youtube.com/acrowleyorder
http://www.acrowleyorder.bebo.com
http://www.myspace.com/acrowleyorder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broken Kid
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 5276

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

*Moving this thread to the fanfiction character discussion area, since it is primarily focused around the acrowleyorder characters.*
_________________
President of the Owen Fan Club
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EricaCrowley
Lonely Fan


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broken Kid wrote:
*Moving this thread to the fanfiction character discussion area, since it is primarily focused around the acrowleyorder characters.*


Thank you.
_________________
http://youtube.com/acrowleyorder
http://www.acrowleyorder.bebo.com
http://www.myspace.com/acrowleyorder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> FanFic and LG15 Character Interaction All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP