Undeniable principles can be expressed succinctly because no argument is necessary. Francis Bacon seemed to recognize this when he stated, “Knowledge is power,” as did Spider Man creator Stan Lee, at arguably the other end of the literary spectrum, when Peter Parker’s uncle reminded the accidental superhero that “[w]ith great power comes great responsibility. ” These axioms merge in Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment? and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to caution their readers about the care with which knowledge should be exercised; however, the overriding theme of each work also serves as a counterbalance to the other. While Kant primarily presents a wake-up call to the public to overcome their fear, complacency and blind obedience in order to obtain enlightenment, Shelley reveals, through her fictitious characters and their intellectual and emotional journeys, the dangers inherent in the unchecked struggle for knowledge, while acknowledging its power and potential.
Kant’s characterization of knowledge (what he refers to as “enlightenment”) as “man’s release from self-incurred tutelage” (Kant 105), is representative of the period of enlightenment in which he lived and wrote. It was a time during which the public began to break the shackles of bewilderment that tied them to the nobility. Kant first focuses on the enlightenment of society as he analyzes the causes of tutelage and then proceeds to suggest that the public should think autonomously and be “treated in accordance with their dignity,” all within reason and the confines of a functioning society (Kant 109).
He blames tutelage on laziness and cowardice. Rather than seeking to develop their minds and heighten their ability, the public was submissive. They were willing to comply with and accept the beliefs of others, as it proved to be less taxing on their innocent minds and avoided exposing them to failure and its accompanying embarrassment and intimidation. For Kant, the public’s cowardice and laziness are the reasons “why it [was] so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians” (Kant 105). The character flaws were the building blocks of serfdom.
As Kant noted, “After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone” (Kant 105). He recognizes the public’s hesitancy to expand and apply their knowledge, generalizing this conception as the unwillingness to take chances with uncertainty, stating, “examples of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials” (Kant 105).
The nobility accomplished this manipulation by emphasizing the comforts of the present and instilling doubt and worry about an unknown future. Kant ultimately concludes that the laziness, cowardice, and suppression evident in society led to an age during which citizens fell into a state of complacency and allowed blind obedience to evolve. Following his discussion of the foundations of tutelage, Kant presents the blueprint for enlightenment, with the preeminent component being freedom.
His support of freedom of expression and diversity are evident when he states, “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men” (Kant 106). He argues that when a man is allowed to implement his reason and express his views without judgement or punishment he will be more willing to volunteer ideas free from fear. However, he also touches on the importance of responsibility and loyalty to the community concerning free expression, noting that “the private use of reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly indering the progress of enlightenment” (Kant 106).
As an example, Kant offers that an individual, as a scholar, can publicly express his objections to the perceived injustice of taxes, but he cannot refuse to pay them as a citizen. Similarly, a pastor is bound by society’s constructs to preach the doctrines of the church that he serves, while retaining the freedom to communicate to the public at large his thoughts on problematic religious dogma or potential institutional improvements (Kant 107).
Kant also recognizes the role of government in the public’s enlightenment. In reference to the monarchy, he states, “For his law giving authority rests on his uniting the general public will in his own” (Kant 107). He indicates that in order for a monarch to be successful during a period of enlightenment, he must first be enlightened. Without such awareness and understanding, the monarch will be unwilling and unable to permit the public to think freely, as he will consider all conflicting perspectives to be threatening and disobedient.
According to Kant, the monarch should establish statutes that comply with the desires of the public, ensuring that the leadership acts a representation of the people and encourages rather than intimidates them. Although Kant recognizes the role of the throne in the nonage of the public, he continues to hold the public accountable for their own complacency and fear.
In what could be considered a telling foreshadowing of modern day America, Kant urges patience and thoughtfulness in the pursuit of knowledge by the public, writing, “Perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform of ways of thinking. Rather new prejudices will serve, as well as old ones, to harness the great unthinking masses” (Kant 106). We would be wise to remember Kant’s declaration that enlightenment is personal. It is not supplanting the guidance of one guardian with the guidance of others.
To use Kant’s words, such would be “an absurdity which amounts to the eternalization of absurdities” (Kant 107). Like Kant, Shelley offers her own guidance about the pursuit of knowledge, although it is not nearly as heartening. In Frankenstein, she depicts the search for “dangerous knowledge” through three major characters: Victor, Walton, and the creature. The drive of Victor and Walton to know the unknown and achieve the unachievable is arguably the cause of their downfalls, although Walton ultimately saves himself through his consideration of the fates of Victor and his creature.
Against his father’s wishes, Victor Frankenstein explores the realm of science, choosing an area of very little mastery, as he “ardently desired the acquisition of knowledge” (Shelley 28). His father chastises him not to waste his time reading about his passions, referring to the books as “sad trash” (Shelley 23); however, Victor continues to secretly unearth (literally and figuratively) the answers to death and the “elixir of life” (Shelley 23), ultimately going further than any man before him ever had. He “explore[d] unknown powers” and “unfold[ed] to the world the deepest mysteries of creation” (Shelley 34).
His obsessive pursuit of the dangerous knowledge necessary to perform an act of God (the ultimate Creator) results in a monster that he cannot control and grows to hate. Victor soon realizes what he has done, what he has become, and where his pursuit of knowledge has lead him. His actions cause the destruction of everything he has ever loved and valued, as the monster admits to having “murdered the lovely helpless, strangled the innocent as they slept, and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing” (Shelley 190), leaving Victor and the monster alone, together, and driving him to his eventual death.
Shelley’s presentation of knowledge as dangerous in Frankenstein provides a striking contrast to Kant’s proposal that the pursuit of knowledge is inherently honorable and paramount to dignified human existence. Shelley’s illustration of the pursuit for knowledge as dangerous extends to the journey of the creature, as well. Victor’s creation goes to great lengths to acquire knowledge and interact with people, and these experiences only further increase his desire to learn.
He observes what is entailed n being human and expends his energy attempting to assimilate, as he “makes use of the same instructions” given to a stranger as she “endeavored to learn their language” and came to “admire virtue and good feelings and love gentle manners and amiable qualities” (Shelley 95). The underlying motivation for the creature’s search for knowledge is his hope for acceptance. His focus is emotional, not scientific, but the process is painful and fails when he is neglected and attacked by society for his hideous appearance. Ironically.
Victor’s newborn. cobbled-together creature comes to realize the disadvantages of knowledge before his master, stating, “I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me; I tried to dispel them, but sorrow only increased with knowledge” (Shelley 96). Had he remained in the “native wood,” for which he now longed, he would have never known what it meant or felt like to be hungry, thirsty, or mournful (Shelly 96). He would not have developed that capability to understand the pain of abandonment or rejection.
However, having expanded his mind and acquired wisdom, he now possesses the capacity to perceive and suffer. As a result, he felt compelled to seek revenge, becoming violent and destroying the lives of many people. Again, the theme of dangerous knowledge presented by Shelley challenges the encouragement of the search for knowledge espoused so strongly by Kant. The creature’s quest for knowledge led him to discover damaging and hurtful information that he did not have the capacity to process, resulting in his and others’ destruction.
Kant might encourage the monster to move past the obstacles and uncertainties, disregard the perceived failures, and continue to search for knowledge; however, the newly developing mind of the creature (like the “minors” to which Kant refers) does not yet recognize that there are numerous approaches aside from conceding and destruction. Shelley acknowledges the vulnerabilities inherent in the enlightenment process that Kant overlooks. Robert Walton is yet another character in Frankenstein who is in the process of pursuing knowledge that could prove to be dangerous; however, he is saved by a realization of a different sort.
He desires to surpass all human explorations and reach the North Pole, which at the time seemed just as impossible as Dr. Frankenstein’s goal of creating life from death. He is unsure of where his ambitions and travels may take him, as he states “I shall satiate my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before visited, and may tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of man” (Shelley 2). Walton takes strong hold of these views and continues his pursuit, until he saves Victor Frankenstein from the frigid conditions of the ice and hears his story.
After finding himself stuck at sea, Walton realizes the consequences of Frankenstein’s actions and the potential consequences of his own. He decides to turn around and end his voyage there, stating, “Alas! Yes; I cannot lead them unwillingly to danger, and I must return” (Shelly 184). He does this because he has learned, through Frankenstein’s journey, that there is danger in the obsessive pursuit of knowledge. By finally sharing his own closely guarded secret knowledge and the resulting consequences, Victor saved Walton and his crew.
Although Kant’s intellectual battle cry may seem at odds with Shelley’s cautionary tale, it is not impossible to reconcile them. Both authors understand the thirst for knowledge and both acknowledge that it cannot be completely exercised without consideration of societal constructs and obligations. The difference lies primarily in their approaches: Kant galvanizes his public to head steady toward the light, where freedom most certainly waits, while Shelley warns them to be wary of what the darkness may hold.
