Last Friday, Humanities Core hosted the first Friday Forum of our new cycle: a presentation and conversation entitled “What is Enlightenment?” by two of our resident philosophers and seminar leaders, Valentina Ricci and Daniel Siakel. As many students in the Tuesday/Thursday seminars were unable to attend the event and the discussion time was limited, Dr. Siakel has graciously provided a quick redux of the event and posed some questions in hopes of continuing the conversation here in the comment section. The Powerpoint slides for the presentation are available here.
The Friday Forum concerning Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” consists of three phases, each of which means to model one mode of philosophical methodology:
(1) understanding another person’s position;
(2) critiquing that position; and
(3) dialoguing about questions that arise in relation to the position or relevant critiques.
The audiences’ questions and comments raise crucial clarifications and complications.
One of these is that, while philosophers aim to understand, this is consistent with there being circumstances in which acting, rather than inquiring, is paramount—in response to racist or sexist discourses, for example.
Another is that, when charitably interpreted, one can employ Kant’s conception of enlightenment to critique Kant (the man) himself and thereby underscore the explanatory power of Kant’s conception, despite Kant’s racism and sexism. If becoming enlightened involves liberating oneself from superstition and prejudice, then Kant himself was not enlightened, according the standards of the position he introduces; for his articulations are rife with extreme prejudice against women and persons of color.
Let’s continue the conversation.
- What questions arose as you read through Kant’s text and watched my and Valentina’s lecture? Do you find’s Kant’s conception of enlightenment compelling? Does an alternative view seem preferable? Why or why not?
- Do you see traces of Kant’s conception in contemporary discourse(s)? Is ours an enlightened age, an age of enlightenment, or neither? Why?
- What strikes you as being distinctive about Kant’s writing? What strikes you as being distinctive about philosophical methodology? What is your sense of how the disciplinary approach of philosophy compares with others?
We welcome all questions, comments, and criticisms that may arise.
Valentina Ricci received a M.A. and a PhD from the University of Padua (Italy), where she focused on German idealism and specifically on the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. She published articles on Hegel’s psychology and on the Phenomenology of Spirit, and co-edited a volume on the notion of recollection in Hegel’s philosophy. After moving to UC Irvine for her second Ph.D., she started working on social and political philosophy as well, and wrote her second dissertation on the ontology and ethics of violence. Valentina has strong interests in feminist philosophy and critical race theory, hence her emphasis on the themes of gender and race in this lecture.
Dan Siakel received his bachelor’s degree (with honors) and first Master’s degree from the University of Chicago, then a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from UCI, all in the discipline of philosophy. His research focuses on issues in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, early modern philosophy, the history of 20th-century philosophy, and, more recently, Shambhala Buddhism and Meditation. Dan’s pedagogical interests have found expression in his capacities as a Senior Pedagogical Fellow for UCI’s Center for Engaged instruction and more recently as a Pedagogical Fellow for the Andrew W. Mellon Teaching Institute.