معنای فرهنگ در اندیشة روسو و کانت

Rousseau believed that culture, especially the culture of his time, was corrupt and artificial and argued that humans are naturally good and free, but society and civilization have corrupted them and led to inequality and injustice. From the point of view of Rousseau as well as Kant, the main problem in modern Enlightenment criticism is the problems raised by Enlightenment narratives about the instrumental nature of reason, based on which the purpose of reason is determined by passions or sentiments. Both philosophers believe that as long as the progress of reason is not under the control of an effective conception of its end, t_he realm of culture will suffer from lack of freedom and luxury.In this article, we show that by studying Rousseau's works, Kant discovers a narrative of how culture arises from nature and at the same time interacts with nature. Kant believes that according to Rousseau's description of these human phenomena, the difficulties of human life should be analyzed and reason should be reformed as the key to the creation of culture. In fact, Kant, inspired by Rousseau, tries to find out the self-contradictory characteristics of human reason and resolve them to reach a higher culture.
Keywords: Kant, Rousseau, Culture, Reason
 
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Rousseau is one of the first critics of modern Western thought who recognized deep alienation in the process of human civilization and tried to find out the roots of this alienation. According to him, this alienation can be seen in the form of the general alienation of man from his own origin, i.e. nature, and any attempt to overcome the distinction between nature and culture leads man to his own destruction. According to him, social and political reforms will be necessary to return man to a good natural state and freedom and to create a society based on solidarity, equality and general will. Culture in its current form is corrupt and has a negative impact on society; Culture encourages people to be greedy and selfish and encourages them to put their own interests above the interests of society. This selfishness is the root of many problems in society, including poverty, crime and war.
In this article, we try to explain how Kant faced Rousseau's works in the mid-1760s. Kant seems to offer a specific account of the Rousseauian contrast between nature and culture and raises various questions such as: How should culture develop in order to expand the capacities of mankind as a moral species? Is it possible to end the internal conflict between man as a moral species and a natural species in this way, and are the crises of modern reason caused by the conflict between man as a cultural being and man as a natural being?
Also, we discuss the critique of instrumental reason in the works of Kant and Rousseau and see if this critique and distinction between critical reason and instrumental reason can provide an answer to the nature-society tension. It seems that the critique of culture that begins in Rousseau's works, is directed to the foundations of all civilizations in Kant and, as a result, the place of reason itself. We try to answer the question whether Kant's critical project sees its final perfection in the knowledge of the super-sensible realm or wants to emphasize the practical progress of humanity towards a perfect culture.
 
Methodology
In this research, according to the subject and objectives, the descriptive method has been used.
 
Discussion
Kant and Rousseau see culture as a source of artifice and an obstacle to what is best for humanity. It is difficult to determine which one is more critical. Rousseau felt the effects of a culture of snobbery and realized that it did not make people happier or more virtuous. If man would limit himself to the normal needs of nature, hypocrisy, stupidity and malice would never be formed. These traits arise when a person seeks more than what he really needs, i.e. prestige, honor, wealth and power. That is, the pursuit of perfection is the source of his misery. Kant opposed the social claims of the aristocracy and denied the authenticity of the apparent advantages of the upper classes, believing that these advantages were more due to what the rich enjoyed than what they actually did for mankind. Even charity work was criticized because it was more or less an advantage brought about by the injustice of the government. Kant reminds us that we owe it not to the rich and noble, but to the laboring and productive classes, that is, those who make culture possible but do not have the opportunity to benefit from it. Of course, Kant criticizes some aspects of Emile. For example, the idea of ​​a teacher who dedicates himself for years to the education of a child is unrealistic and impossible to apply in the school environment. However, the conclusion is clear: it is by educating a society of free and equal citizens in the position of rational legislation that the seemingly irreconcilable gap between nature and civil society can be overcome. As Kant states, Rousseau's principles of education for man and citizen are what enable culture to overcome its unresolved conflict with nature.
It should be known that culture, by itself, is not the ultimate goal of mankind. Culture simply involves the development of all human capacities that enable a person to achieve any goal (good, bad, or morally neutral). Therefore, a kind of mediator between culture and ethics is needed, which Kant explains by describing the Noumenal freedom and the moral mission of mankind. Therefore, theoretical self-discipline can be interpreted as a kind of mediator between two areas, that is, between culture and ethics.
 
Conclusion
According to Rousseau, mankind, through its remarkable advances in reason and culture, has acquired qualities that are brilliant, but at the same time spread corruption and disrupt the natural order. Therefore, mankind has left the circle of humanity and has become nothing, and has created a vacuum that spreads its corruption to the adjacent parts of nature. Kant's focused encounter with Rousseau's writings in the early and mid-1760s provides a basis for the formation of critical philosophy. Rousseau brought Kant to the true concept of the function of theoretical reflection in human life and that the only dignity of reflection is related to its role in the defense of human rights. Among all the influencers on Kant, Rousseau is the one who has the most influence on the complete explanation of the end of reason and the inner form of reason in practical and theoretical applications. Rousseau's work, which on the surface appears to be mainly a cultural critique of modern civilization, deals at a deeper level with the foundations of all civilization and, consequently, with the place of reason itself.