Sept. 30, 2021
Private and public use of reason
Kant (1724-1804) established the difference between public and private reason. This means, to simplify, that we can criticise anything from a public point of view, as citizens with the right to express our opinion freely. However, as private citizens we must be more careful. For example, a soldier can publicly express the opinion that military laws are unjust. However, as a private citizen, as a soldier, he is obligated to obey these laws. This is an Enlightenment idea that was intended to save the right to defend one's own thoughts beyond the power of institutions.
However, it has a problem that could not be imagined in the 18th century. Some companies are so powerful that they can reach millions of people when they express their opinion on certain issues. So Facebook or Twitter, if they censor certain political ideas, are within their legitimate right to express their opinion publicly, but are they not infringing their private duty to be, simply, a platform that puts people in contact with each other?
Private and public use of reason
Kant (1724-1804) established the difference between public and private reason.
This means, to simplify, that we can criticise anything from a public point of view, as citizens with the right to express our opinion freely.
However, as private citizens we must be more careful.
For example, a soldier can publicly express the opinion that laws concerning the military laws are unjust.
However, as a private citizen, as a soldier, he is obligated to obey these laws.
"Private citizen" actually means the opposite of what you're trying to say; the private citizen does not hold a particular position within the government (or its extensions, such as the military). More generally, according to Wikipedia, "A private citizen is someone who does not have an official or professional role in a given situation. The same person may be a private citizen in one role, and an official in another."
This is an Enlightenment-era idea that was intended to savechampion the right to defend one's own thoughts beyondfree from the power of institutions.
However, it has a problem that could not be imagined in the 18th century.
Some companies are so powerful that they can reach millions of people when they express their opinion on certain issues.
So, Facebook or Twitter, if they censor certain political ideas, are within their legitimate right to express their opinion publicly, but are they not infringing their private duty to be, simply, a platform that puts people in contact with each other?
Who has established this as their duty? I'd say that, as private "citizens," they have no undue mandate to act one way or the other, barring any regulatory laws.
Feedback
Nice writing!
Oct. 2, 2021
Thank you very much for your corrections and comments. They are alwasys stimulatings and insightful.
|
Private and public use of reason This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Kant (1724-1804) established the difference between public and private reason. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
This means, to simplify, that we can criticise anything from a public point of view, as citizens with the right to express our opinion freely. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
However, as private citizens we must be more careful. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
For example, a soldier can publicly express the opinion that military laws are unjust. For example, a soldier can publicly express the opinion that laws concerning the military |
|
However, as a private citizen, as a soldier, he is obligated to obey these laws. However, "Private citizen" actually means the opposite of what you're trying to say; the private citizen does not hold a particular position within the government (or its extensions, such as the military). More generally, according to Wikipedia, "A private citizen is someone who does not have an official or professional role in a given situation. The same person may be a private citizen in one role, and an official in another." |
|
This is an Enlightenment idea that was intended to save the right to defend one's own thoughts beyond the power of institutions. This is an Enlightenment-era idea that was intended to |
|
However, it has a problem that could not be imagined in the 18th century. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Some companies are so powerful that they can reach millions of people when they express their opinion on certain issues. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
So Facebook or Twitter, if they censor certain political ideas, are within their legitimate right to express their opinion publicly, but are they not infringing their private duty to be, simply, a platform that puts people in contact with each other? So, Facebook or Twitter, if they censor certain political ideas, are within their legitimate right to express their opinion publicly, but are they not infringing their Who has established this as their duty? I'd say that, as private "citizens," they have no undue mandate to act one way or the other, barring any regulatory laws. |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium