When Kant woke up from his dogmatic slumber he wrote one of the most important and controversial books of Philosophy. He spent ten years writing it, and another three making a second, revised, edition of the Book. The Critique of Pure Reason (CPR from now on) gave us an insight into the revolution of epistemology, akin to Copernicus’s revolution in astronomy: Knowledge would not only come from the outside, but as a synthesis of both Reason and Experience. It would be made possible thanks to a priori categories which would determine all of the possible judgements and experiences we may have of the world. This work would wake and shake German philosophers for the next century, and keep philosophy students up at night for a few hundred years more.

This might sound like the beginning of an essay to most of you, and it is. It is not, however, an essay on the CPR, but rather a defense of Philosophy as a discipline, as a way of life, and as a source of valuable knowledge (not just fun facts). With this essay I hope to explain why I personally believe that we live in a society that has given us a double edged sword, or rather a barrel of them. These swords seemed like good solutions to the problems of yesterday, and they might be a bit rusty; they need polishing. When Kant famously proclaims “Sapere Aude!” in his essay on the Enlightenment, he unleashed a curse and a salvation. He told us to think for ourselves, and not to hold on to old dogmas. He begged us to stop being lazy, to stop being cowards. He begs us to dare to think for ourselves and to revoke the yoke of nonage (one’s inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance). This is made evident through the myriads of people that just bleakly bleat the words of another’s book, essay, teachings, statements, opinions. Kant says that this is acceptable if you are able to later point out holes, contradictions or errors, or to build upon the other’s work. Bear with this bleating for now.

Kant’s message is misleading if misinterpreted. I could, for example, say that Kant is pleading for us to break free of education from others, to distinguish one’s opinion from that of others simply because it is another’s opinion, and not one’s own. A second interpretation, which is my own, is that Kant encourages us to study these old dogmas, but not to cling to them. To respect another’s opinion because it is not my own, but not cling to that other opinion. Simply put, Sapere Aude means that creating as well as receiving information and opinions are equally important. That we may learn from others’ mistakes, so that others may learn from ours. I am not a kantian scholar (evident by the means through which I publish this essay), and I am surely not hoping to proclaim my interpretations as absolute truths. 

So Dare to use your understanding, not your mere opinions. Here is where I draw a line in my interpretation. Kant does not seem to tell us to accept or examine every single opinion that is put before us, and we may expect the same; not every opinion is valuable knowledge. Why? Who decides what is valuable and what not? I dare to say that this criteria cannot be arbitrary, and that it somehow should tie in with Kant’s exposition of knowledge in the CPR. But isn’t this whole development of thought already arbitrary? Subjective? I can’t say for certain, because Kant does intend to set down the ground rules for a unified approach to knowledge through a universal (human) capacity to reason, but isn’t this also dogmatic? I can only make these questions because my opinions on this subject are rather determined by a later but similar approach to epistemology. This approach, however, I hope can help others see a little bit of meaning in what I am about to say below.

Yesterday I made a mistake. I judged a group of people because I knew a partial account of a story which I believed to be true. This mistake is an easy one to make, it is a mistake that I have made before, and vowed to never make it again. After I calmed down, I asked for a second interpretation of the story; I went to another source on a parallel, if not opposite, side of the story. I was told a very different version of the story which helped me realize that a series of misunderstandings were the whole source of the problem. It made me furious to realize that I did not look for a full version of the story before making judgements. I had placed my friend’s account above the search for truth, not because I believed her, but because I trusted that her account was a true account. I wanted to believe her, so I trusted her account. The difference might not be clear so let me make a brief explanation for it.

When I want to believe something, I look for reasons to believe that something. In this case, my reason for believing her was only that I trusted her. Descartes would have slapped me full across the cheek because trust is the one thing that makes believing so dangerous. We must be doubtful even when the information comes from a reliable source, until either enough information is accrued, or the source is found to be reliable. therefore I needed more reasons to trust my friend, and the only thing that made her trustworthy was that she hadn’t lied to me yet. 

So now I’ve decided to put myself before the situation, not so that I may benefit from others’ suffering, rather to learn as much as possible from this mistake, and hopefully help others to avoid making it. At the end of the day, this is the only thing that I can do to improve the situation that plagues Models of United Nations in Colombia; To prefer neutrality and better understanding of a situation before rash acting, to think before I act, as Mr. Covey would have put it, and Kant before him. To never forget that we are all humans, and to never forget that we all deserve to be seen, heard, and helped, no matter how radical we are, without this open mindedness being a necessary and sufficient condition for inconsistency (which I hope will be a theme for another day).

It's not a matter of whether the stubborn person is right or not, nor a question of whether the one arguing is right or not, but rather the fact that when facing stubborn people, it is impossible to reach consensus. So I can't help wondering as a fledgling Philosopher, if Stubborn people are worth the trouble they cause. From a moral standpoint, a Stubborn person hasn't done anything wrong until their stubbornness directly causes an action that affects, or attacks in any way the question of Human Dignity.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume Stubborn people are harmless. While isolated, they can be ignored, and even we can afford the luxury to condescend them for the reason that they are using their mental capacities to abhor change. That's fine too, I mean, as not all change is good. However, when a stubborn person is given the chance to grow up in rhetoric, or even in an Isolated ideological viewpoint during their studies, they are more likely to be a hinderance as they will consider the truth to be spoken from every single one of their words, more so if the subject has deified the ideology in question.

En masse, Stubborn people with similar ideas are a problem to Democracy. Why? They are less likely to change their vote for someone that does not belong to the political affiliation they have inherited, even if said Candidate has excellent ideas backed by excellent theories and excellent arguments. mix it with Religion, and we get the Spanish Inquisition. So why aren't stubborn people considered more dangerous than communists? 

I make this comparison (no offense, I love commies) because it has been a common belief in the West that Communism is bad because it uproots the ideals of Democracy. Stubborn people may have the freedom to express themselves, but so do communists! In Colombia, a supporter of communism that enters the political sphere is rejected for alleged Guerrilla ties. However, far-right Nationalists who have clear links with paramilitary groups are allowed to run and win for President twice in a row. The point is, Stubborn people help to hinder the chances of theoretically good administrations of coming to power, and thus undermining the spirit of Democracy where an intelligent vote must be made.

And this leads me to my next point, the Responsibility that every right we have taken for granted has. We have the right to express ourselves freely, but we have the responsibility of not using our freedom to hinder the community where each of us belongs. This however is a problem, because most Stubborn people don't see themselves as a Hinderance, but rather as "I'm Always Right", so technically they're not abusing their rights. This attitude however, is irresponsible, because they are not allowing others to develop and explain their ideas, because even if presented with facts, a stubborn person will most likely not change their point of view, and stay with their ideologies until they die. Which is also not bad, until these people come to power.

Democracy's essence involves discussion, albeit intelligent and informed, with many traces of the Illustration's views of man as a highly rational character. When a stubborn person comes to power,they will do everything in their hands to stop anyone that disagrees with them, and may never reach consensus. Sticking to one's beliefs is cool and all, but when it comes to matters that involve the state, and human society, it is important for there to be a consensus between that debate should generate. However, stubborn people often hinder the development of such debate as often their beliefs are founded precisely on beliefs, and those are the hardest forms of opinion that can be changed, for a person believes only that which it wants to.

On the other hand, such stubborn people may enlighten others and encourage them to stay away from discussions with these folk and strive to achieve kantian Enlightenment (the liberation of fear of thinking by oneself). Personally, this is my case. I try to stay away from stubborn people because it is difficult to advance in any kind of relationship with them as they always want things their way. As a result, I have chosen to study philosophy as, contrary to popular belief, it is quite useful to expand one's vision of the world and it also increases tolerance of different ideas. Not only that, but I will be able to receive information critically and not just swallow everything that is thrown at me.