This is a dump of the philosophy essay I just finished and submitted. I feel like I could have edited it forever, because the topic was a bit hard to understand concretely. Still, there are some moments of brilliance in here (if I do say so myself) and some dull recounts of texts (which I do say so myself). If you're up to conquering a wall of text, be my guest, but after going through it so many times, I can understand shying away. I'm a bit tired of it myself!
In the words of Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, Part 1). Whether the truth lies to that extreme can certainly be questioned, but the intent and meaning is clear: living a life of delusion can be compared to death itself, and release from it may be worth any cost. In some ways this is precisely correct, such as in Huxley’s Brave New World, where the masses (hardly to be called “people”) are divided into classes and programmed to enjoy their position. This shell of a life is strongly related to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which is one of the earliest, simplest, and most powerful examples of this illusion in literature. Along similar lines, Kant's interpretation of the enlightenment delves into the ways in which society can be arranged to fulfill it. Finally, Bloom’s discussion of Tocqueville’s experience in the United States brings the discussion to the familiar turf of American life. In find the strongest and more pervasive form of illusion to be religion, though these texts focus more on aspects of consumer society (Huxley), education (Kant and Bloom), and politics (Tocqueville). The intent behind the illusion I find to rarely be the product of an active, evil "agent", but rather as a byproduct and expansion of hedonistic human wants and needs. Finally, I again see enlightenment as worth practically any cost; in my view, the lives in Huxley's dystopia, for example, are hardly meaningful. I, however, find it possible to free a society from these shackles, unlike Huxley or Plato. No one text is superior to another in all cases in describing this deception, so each must be examined for its strengths and weaknesses.
Plato's cave is likely the best example to begin describing the differing views on the collective idea of "enlightenment". He visualizes an underground lair where people inside are exposed to shadows on a wall from a fire behind them. Eventually, the people acclimate themselves to believe these shadows are all that exist in the world. At some point, an individual is set free and leaves, becoming momentarily blinded by the sunlight of the outside. From here, many "enlightened" individuals choose to live in this state, possibly with other escapees. Some, however, return into the cave, seeing it for what it is, and attempt to help others. In attempting to assist, however, an enlightened individual will find it difficult to convince the cave-dwellers of their narrow mind. Instead, he will fail the test of the meaningless science of shadows and possibly be put to death: "Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to lose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death" (Allegory of the Cave, 3).
I find Plato's allegory to be quite accurate, if pessimistic. The illusion manifests itself as the fire projecting shadows on the wall, but the intent is unclear. Was there an active agent producing the fire? Who released the prisoner? These are open-ended questions, but as a basic example, they leave room for interpretation. I find that a lack of an evil, subduing agent makes the story more plausible. Additionally, active agents would likely attempt to intercept an enlightened individual's attempt at freeing the prisoners. In Plato's story, however, this does not occur, leading to two options, each of which I find lends itself well to certain forms of illusion. First would be that the cave, fire, and shackles are a somewhat natural occurrence, existing normally alongside the life of a human being. This form is analogous to the limitations of our five senses, for example, possibly excluding us from experiencing an aspect of the world. The second would be that the people themselves forced the cave situation upon them, likely accidentally. I find this fits nicely with the adoption and passing down of religious texts or the consumer society. Plato clearly has a negative view on how an attempt at enlightenment would proceed, which is nowhere. He provides little context in which it is plausible.
Immanuel Kant provides another simple basis to view the enlightenment, with a slightly more positive outlook. Instead of creating a vivid image, however, Kant provides several keywords and phrases to guide his interpretation. He defines enlightenment as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage" (On History, 3). "Self-incurred" here implies that the masses police themselves to a degree. He views the opposite of enlightenment as focusing on "statutes and formulas", comparable to the science of the shadows from Plato. Differing from him, however, is the inclusion of "guardians", who protect the status quo and instruct the masses of these statutes and formulas. Finally, there exist "scholars", considered the enlightened ones, who both participate in the superficial education in mainstream society but also engage in intellectual debates amongst other scholars, possibly in the public eye.
Kant's views reflect a more practical view of society and knowledge. Illusion takes the form of statutes and formulas taught by the guardians. It represents a blind application of facts for profit or production, rather than any higher understanding. The intent seems to be a combination of power and control, especially when Kant references princes and clergymen. As for the ability for society to be free, he is more optimistic than most. Kant acknowledges that individual freedom from self-incurred tutelage is extremely difficult. In this situation, the first step is by far the hardest. As scholars grow in number and visibility, though, the likelihood of enlightenment vastly increases. Masses can learn to liberate themselves with scholars' help, all the while maintaining positions as guardians. This is what makes Kant's argument the practical one: he realizes the necessity for both elements in society. The world can hardly function without work but is quite bleak without thought. With contemplation of the equations you are using, however, new, positive meaning stems from your labor.
After reviewing two simple examples of illusion vs. enlightenment, Brave New World reigns in a complicated, cohesive, and not altogether impossible view of a future devoid of free thought. Huxley envisions a society in which people are born into classes and programmed to enjoy their lives: "all conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny" (Brave New World, 16). Soma, sex, and expensive sports all contribute to this control, as well, making it a successful subversive rule instead of a totalitarian one. The worship of Ford is equally as telling of this illusion, amplifying the value of efficiency over any kind of emotion or freedom. The climax of the book revolves around a discussion between two enlightened individuals, one of whom supports the world illusion (Mustapha Mond) while the other is against it (John the Savage). Huxley attempts to show that a society of happy slaves in Brave New World is impossible to change at this stage and that the best option is to adopt Mustapha Mond's position to ensure the well-being of the masses.
Mustapha Mond's role in Brave New World is a "light" version of Kant's scholars: he plays the role of a guardian as a World Controller that still engages in intellectual debate (though not publicly). Evidence for the difficulty of escape from this society can be seen when John attempts to restrict the Deltas' soma, saying "I'll make you be free whether you want to or not" (216). The Deltas are so steeped in their delusion that they hardly consider John's statement. And sadly, much like Plato's example, those who attempt to help the masses or cave-dwellers eventually die. In this case, however, it is John's suicide (or self-punishment), rather than a punishment from society directly. In some sense, however, it still is the society that frustrates him to his end, just not forcefully (in parallel with the rest of the novel). If any such attempt of freedom was actually successful, it is quite likely that much of the population would collapse: much like a machine with oil removed, it eventually would stop working completely. I do not think it would be irreversible damage, however. Much of the criticism of an enlightened Brave New World regards the "Cyprus Experiment", where a group of Alphas were delegated to run a society. Lower-level jobs were still required from the entirely homogenous Alphas, meaning that many were left unsatisfied by their position, eventually leading to chaos. I find that starting this experiment with bottled, cloned Alphas is the first fault. An enlightened society would likely understand the value of diversity in human beings over the hollow shells of Alphas, Betas, etc. With this in mind, the society could properly structure itself around the abilities, wants, and needs of its people in a freer, more natural sense.
Bloom's opinions and writings on Tocqueville conclude the four examples. In vividly describing the benefits of the university and higher education as a place for philosophical musings, he sets the stage for some issues that strike quite close to our reality. In his view, even as public opinion sways from one way to another on issues of historical context and scientific merit, the university ignores this, maintaining tradition for its value to critical thinking. Bloom then tells of Tocqueville, who travelled to the United States in the 1830s and provided many insights into the average American's mind. He found that, while each man viewed himself and individual, most had the same frame of mind. He cites the difficulties of having all men created equal, saying "although every man in democracy thinks himself individually the equal of every other man, this makes it difficult to resist the collectivity of equal men" (The Closing of the American Mind, 247). Being an aristocrat himself, Tocqueville believes a higher class is necessary to do the thinking for others, who simply do not have the time. These thoughts could be philosophical, political, religious, or artistic in nature; much of which would not be appreciated by the population in Tocqueville's mind. Without these elite, however, guidance is filled by the malleable public opinion, which he views as dangerous.
Both Bloom and Tocqueville have excellent points with which I partially agree and disagree. It is likely quite true that the superficial items of importance in our country today (sports, cars, clothes, money) represent and illusion hiding real, important concerns. Idle speculation is seen as wasted time that could be better spent consuming or producing. Even during elections when great decisions must be made, complicated issues are simplified to the trivially mundane and the yes/no or Left/Right. I do not, however, view the intent as a unified, conscious effort. Tocqueville states that "the most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities" (249). His views closely mirror Huxley's, and my response is to recall my second possibility of Plato's cave intent: the accidental or self-imprisonment. As for an escape from this illusion, the most obvious solution to Tocqueville is to reinstate the aristocracy and remove purely democratic rule. Instead of looking to celebrities, the people would hopefully respect the aristocratic elite's position on issues. Also, hopefully, the elite will actually provide valuable knowledge, morals, and artistic appreciation and talent to make this structure work as intended. In my mind, such a warping of the American mindset would be a task wrought with difficulties, but not nearly as difficult as fixing the Brave New World. The benefits are a stable society focused on supposedly higher goals, but I must wonder if this would simply turn out to be the "Ireland Experiment" in BNW, where those given more leisure time spent it doped on drugs, defeating this entire purpose. On Bloom's side, a return to the traditional university ideals would be a successful (and not altogether difficult) venture, changing young people's mind not only to build things, but to think independently. I would assume, in Bloom's mind, that this slow dissemination of freethinking individuals ("scholars?") would permeate and improve society over time.
Popular media can probably be found to be soliciting a certain agenda, but just what that agenda is and how it came about can be a complicated issue. I find it unlikely that a few masterminds (BNW) control what people see and, therefore, want. More probable, in my opinion, are many companies, groups, and officials working for their own ends, but colluding on methodology for what appears to be a cohesive whole. Certain techniques clearly work for advertising products, such as repetition, and they are adopted, traded, and copied for other purposes. Simplification of messages appeals to voters and can similarly work for commercial or religious matters. Products themselves appeal to inner sensibilities to encourage purchases, again replicated with religious guilt, for example. So in all likelihood, these illusionary structures built themselves up, tied to one another and potentially aware of the ongoing processes, but to say they are all in a secret partnership is a stretch in my mind.
Combining these many methods of describing illusion, intent, and freedom from them, I find Plato and Kant provide a significant basis for more specific and broader examples. Plato's visualization of the situation excellent introduces the concept and wisely removes intent. Kant provides important diction that solidifies the concepts, alongside adding the intent in the form of the "guardians." Huxley's interpretation is a powerful prediction of the future that seems harder to escape than it may be. Bloom and Tocqueville describe more of the present-day concerns, choosing to rely on the university or aristocracy for guidance. I feel we can afford enlightenment in all of these cases, and that the costs are at worst accurate and at best overestimated. As for which account is best, each has both merits worth understanding and flaws worth examining.
As a final note, in synthesizing these various interpretations of freedom from illusion to enlightenment, I find the actual description of "enlightenment" extremely lacking. What is it, really, and what makes it so special? With Huxley in mind, I can see how enlightenment provides more meaning to life than mass production of materials to epitomize overall happiness. Simply maximizing the carrying capacity of humans in order to create the optimal amount of worldly pleasures does not truly constitute humanity or life in any worthwhile sense. The endless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, while being closely tied to improvements to quality of life, is of a higher importance than its byproduct in these philosopher's minds. Today, the Internet makes access to information the easiest it has been in history. But what makes learning "for learning's sake" (specifically not for improving the quality of life) so important? Does it not give the same emotional high and sense of pride that buying a new car would? Who is to say that understanding the culture of a distant land is superior to knowing statistics for the players of your favorite sports team?
There really isn't an easy answer to this question. The best reason I feel enlightenment should be valued goes back to the original line from Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." While I don't take it to that extreme, I recognize that human beings exist apart from other species based on their utilization of tools, knowledge, and technology. The understanding of the world around us, including philosophical study (I consider religious examination to be a red herring), is largely the reason we exist in this capacity today. To halt the progress of discovery is to pause the continuation and development of denizens of the world. Why is the enlightenment important? Because to prohibit enlightenment is to remove humanity from humans, and preventing this is worth virtually any cost.
