Anti-Colonialism Montaigne: The Embodiment of Identity as Grounds for Toleration

A crucial issue between many identity groups is conflict. Toleration by definition is basically the rejection of a belief or practice, which is followed by restraint of one's self from suppressing that belief. Those seeking to make social and political aspects of toleration among people from different backgrounds need to delve more deeply into the idea of toleration; what it means and what it is based on. In the 16th century, the aim was to establish conditions of harmonious living for people who held different beliefs. Thus, the most crucial issue among politicians and other thinkers was the conflict between identity groups that begun in the 1970s and brought about a quick end to the spread of communism. The idea of tolerance provides a basis for thinking differently about how to react to the said conflict. The rejection of a belief or practice, which is followed by restraint of one's self from suppression, is of importance in solving conflicts. When communities are rallied to go into conflict with one another on the basis of social injustice, heresy, or ideologies, then the disapproval of the process and then its allowing, is not a sufficient explanation for thinking of the ways we should interact with others, if we are trying to come up with social and political conditions of toleration (Creppell, 247).

In the 16th and 17th centuries, after the Reformation, when thinkers first conceptualized toleration as a political norm, its goal was to establish conditions of harmonious living for people who held different beliefs. Those who were advocating for toleration did so for two reasons. First, was to allow for differences, and second, was to establish the right conditions for political links. Many different changes helped this new political norm to survive in the long-term. Would societies with communities of different religious backgrounds accept tolerance policies brought upon them by their political leaders, just for the good of the state? Yes, and one of the reasons that enabled them to accept toleration was the rethinking of values i.e. what societies valued changed. In this paper, I look into the change in moral values as the basis of political toleration using the concepts and arguments proposed by Michel de Montaigne. One of the best ways to explore this subject is through being aware of the value of our spiritual selves. Montaigne investigated the issue of endless political and religious conflicts in a totally different dimension (Creppell, 248).

Montaigne is widely recognized as one of the most impactful early advocates of tolerance and religious freedom. Four arguments have been put forth to back this claim: practicality, skepticism, self-interest, and privacy. Montaigne was basically known for his arguments for skepticism, yet as Richard Tuck notes, skepticism is not in itself a basis for toleration. Montaigne also practiced pragmatic politics; he advocated for moderate politics instead of the extremist Catholic League stand. He did call for tolerance of other denominations, such as Protestants in the pre-civil war era in France (Creppell, 249). Thus, Montaigne is more recognized as the father of toleration, based on his pragmatic mentality.

One of the main distinguishing characteristics of western thought is the dichotomy of persons and society. Liberalism has been described in part as the preservation of individual thoughts against societal demands. Thus, in this context, Montaigne is seen as the father of individual liberty. Montaigne argued that we should make time and get a space, which we can keep entirely free and establish there, our true freedom in solitude. Even though this argument seems to show Montaigne's support for individual freedom, one should look at the idea with a little bit of skepticism. That is, although an individual represents the unlimited possibilities of the self, he or she is always bound by the magnetic force of the society. The society, laws and culture, are the things that make an individual unique. This concept of an individual as being attached to and also withdrawing from the society shows that we should not define the individual's toleration by supporting only one side of the equation. Since an individual cannot entirely escape the society, he or she should not attempt to use moral psychology in prevailing over it (Creppell, 255). Based on this, Montaigne also argued against adherence to customs and laws, since he believed doing so would result in less conflict in the world. However, it is important to note, for those who observe customs almost like their second nature, it often restrains them from attacking other...

Montaigne's work, however, did not directly articulate explicitly for the defense of the toleration itself, yet, all his work is based on the idea of creating tolerance that would enable people of diverse backgrounds to co-exist harmoniously in the same society. Noberto Bobbio, another author, speaks of tolerance in a different perspective. He introduces a virtue, which he calls "mitezza," meaning being actively meek and by extension, refusing to mete violence upon anyone, letting the opposing party to be themselves, not out of inaction, but out of positive action. However, Bobbio also argues that "mitezza" is not a political virtue, that it is the direct opposite of politics (Bobbio, 17).
Some modern thinkers, such as Bodin, stress on the use of institutions to counteract, or to use divisive issues. Montaigne also suggests an ethical respect of human life and by extension, gives a reason why we should protect life. Recognizing the embodiment of self, and being aware and attentive to it, could lend political ethics a push to work actively to preserve the diversity (Creppell, 271).

Kant

Immanuel Kant has been described as a classical philosopher of the enlightenment. He postulated that the freedom of choice, or action, practiced in or out of pure reason, is the most important value. And as he further argued in his Lecture on Ethics, choice made out of pure reason is the underlying value of the world. However, Kant is also widely recognized for his further thoughts on the matter, that free-will also means one deciding to choose evil, and that even though we must always perceive nature as an environment that might help towards the attainment of the goals of human morality, nature in itself can never guarantee the attainment of those goals. That only the choice to do good, instead of evil, can guarantee the realization of aims of morality. The perpetual peace essay gives the basis of the political philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and also elaborates Kant's belief that the laws of history and nature can bring about the prerequisite conditions required for justice around the globe, and that, however, the only missing condition in the realization of worldwide justice is the free choice of the people who are in leadership positions, and can influence both domestic and global affairs. Kant refers to such people as "moral politicians" and says that only they can bring about the necessary conditions for justice to be achieved (Kant, 1).

As stated above, Kant was of the opinion that the protection and preservation of free-will is the most important moral duty all of us have. First and most importantly, this is the freedom to choose our own actions -- a capability the Kant argues in his work 'Metaphysics of Morals' as the definition of humanity (Kant, 1).

William argues that the manner in which the issue of protectorates, colonies and colonialism was treated in the 'Enlightenment Philosophy', was one of its weakest points. Philosophers of the enlightenment often felt superior towards those who were not Europeans, and territories that were not in Europe. These philosophers were known to be arrogant towards less advanced societies, and were condescending towards the less civilized societies of other territories. Confident that as Europeans they represented an advanced society, they looked down upon the technically-backwards, non-organized, and less advanced natives of other lands. This was then the weakest point of the otherwise the by and large progressive philosophical group. Therefore, the knowledge offered by enlightenment is perceived as lacking and linked to a dominating power (Williams, 155).

Kant contends that free-will can only exist under a republic or system of government that respects the right to property, and is separated into three independent arms: the executive, legislature and the judiciary. And a government that prevents hereditary leadership and/or that its rulers do not regard their political positions as private property to be passed to their chosen sycophants, but rather see their offices as positions that are to be filled through the choice of the masses. In his work, 'Towards Perpetual Peace', Kant contends that stable peace can only be attained, where all nations around the globe are such true republics, governed through the will of the people, who view the security of their personal property as a priority, and thus, they cannot provoke war with other states, with a bid to acquire resources. However, Kant's arguments…