Enlighten Up

Kant and the Stoics on Education and Character Development

When I was a teenager, I thought philosophy might be interesting, so I went to Barnes & Noble and bought a history of philosophy from the discount rack. I don’t actually remember much about it, except that I came away from it thinking philosophy was focused on irrelevant minutiae and it definitely was not for me. The only specific thing I remember is puzzling through Kant’s metaphysics—lying underneath a tree in my backyard, trying to make sense of “noumena” and “phenomena.” Clearly not a good place to start, but I didn’t know that at the time. It was enough to turn me off Kant—and philosophy—for many years.

However, if I had instead been introduced to Kant through his ethics, I might have had a different opinion. When I discovered his more “human” side many years later, I found that his ideas on character education, human dignity, and social progress make a lot of sense. And it’s this side of Kant that really shines through in a recent intellectual biography by Marcus Willaschek (very well translated into English by Peter Lewis), called Kant: A Revolution in Thinking. This is an extremely well-written and interesting introduction to the life and work of a great philosopher, broad enough to include the less appreciated areas of his thought but deep enough to give the reader a really good understanding of what Kant was up to.

As the title suggests, Willaschek’s book focuses not only on the original (revolutionary) contributions Kant made in metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and a variety of other fields, but also on his insistence that everyone should learn to think for themselves—to have their own “revolution in thinking.” This is one of my favorite aspects of his work. Throughout his personal life, his career as a lecturer, and his philosophical writings, he urged his audience to seek wisdom independently. Kant called this “enlightenment”:

Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is inability to make use of one’s understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! Have courage to make use of your own understanding is thus the motto of enlightenment.

Willaschek, p. 37

Scholars have long recognized Kant’s debt to the Stoics in areas such as cosmopolitanism, natural law, virtue, practical applications of philosophy, etc. But what I find most interesting is his repackaging of the Stoic-Socratic demand to think for ourselves, and his tying of education or “enlightenment” to the ability to do so. The Stoic echoes here are unmistakable. We know Kant read Cicero and Seneca closely¹, and both of these thinkers wrote about maturing through philosophical education. Seneca for example, says:

Let him stand on his own feet! Let him say these things for himself, not recall what he has memorized. For shame, that an old person, or one nearly old, should get his wisdom from a textbook! “This is what Zeno said”: what do you say? “Cleanthes said this”: what do you? How long will you march under another’s command? Take charge: say something memorable on your own account; bring forth something from your own store… Remembering is one thing, knowing is something else. Remembering is keeping track of something you have committed to memory; knowing, by contrast, is making those things all your own, not having to depend on a model or to keep looking to your teacher for instructions.

Letters on Ethics, 33.8-9

Kant’s vision of education seems quite close to this. Throughout his oeuvre, as well as his teaching and personal relationships, he urged his friends and listeners to think for themselves:

“You won’t learn philosophy from me, but how to philosophize; nor will I supply you with thoughts for you to simply echo, instead you will learn to think.” His early student Borowski recalls: “Think for yourself—do your own research—stand on your own two feet—dicta like this came up time and time again.” Wholly consistent with his own educational theory, Kant’s intention in his lectures was not primarily to convey knowledge, but to ensure that his students became responsible citizens and free-thinking human beings. (Willaschek, p. 55)

Willaschek suggests that Kant’s emphasis on “learning to think” is a reaction to the narrow, parochial education he received at a religious college, which was overly focused on rote learning, indoctrination, and public display. This harsh and ineffective form of education seems to have pushed Kant in the opposite direction, toward the very humanistic educational theories of Rousseau (whose work strongly influenced Kant). As Willaschek notes,

Particularly where moral education is concerned, Kant recommends the “Socratic method,” which consists of leading the child, through clever questioning, to reach the right conclusions on their own accord. The advantage of using this method resides not only in the fact that a moral disposition can only be acquired voluntarily and from one’s own insight, but also in the fact that “one learns most thoroughly and retains best that which one learns as it were from oneself.” (p. 51)

In my opinion, it’s in the domain of character education and pedagogy where Kant’s work best helps to extend Stoic principles. The ancient Stoics wrote treatises on education—and obviously they had their own pedagogical methods since they actively taught students—but very few of the original writings have come down to us today. Therefore we have to guess at some of their ideas. At the same time, contemporary academic research on moral development is dominated by Aristotelianism, which is obsessed with habit acquisition in childhood. Almost all the academic publication in this area implicitly takes the Aristotelian position that childhood experience is destiny—that whatever education children are exposed to will form the basis of their character forever. It’s actually quite fatalistic and pessimistic.

Personally, while of course I believe we should all do our best to help kids develop virtue early on, I do not believe that people are prisoners of their childhood for the rest of their lives. The ancient Stoics did not believe this either. This is one reason why Stoicism has remained a perennially popular philosophy of life and Aristotelianism has not: because Stoicism holds out the promise of a better life through self-cultivation. Aristotelianism tends to look to external conditions for a better life, while Stoicism helps us to improve ourselves—that is, our character and mental wellbeing—through our own efforts.

In this matter Kant sides with the Stoics. And because Stoic pedagogy basically doesn’t exist, I think it’s quite helpful to see his post-Enlightenment, Stoic-inspired views on this issue. Kant’s writings in some senses bridge the divide between early modern and contemporary positions on virtue education, retaining the earlier emphases on lifelong self-cultivation, independence of mind, and the dignity bestowed by human reason. Kant’s ethical positions—respect for the individual and a belief in personal and social progress—clearly shape his pedagogy too.

If, like me, you’re wondering whether you can trust the pedagogical views of a lifelong bachelor, intellectual, and lofty-minded philosopher, the answer is: yes, I think so. Although Kant never married, he taught thousands of students over his life, and his biography convinces me that he knew what he was doing as a teacher. To begin with, his parents died young and he took on responsibility for the care and education of his younger siblings when he was only a teenager. This alone qualifies him as a pedagogue more than some other philosophers (ahem, Rousseau, who sent all five of his own children to orphanages). Financial responsibility for his siblings also forced him to go straight from secondary school to teaching as a private tutor, a position he held for nearly a decade before beginning his university career. And as a young lecturer, Kant was praised for his “animated lecturing style, his humor, and the highly original content of his lectures” (Willaschek, p. 54).

Perhaps you’re as surprised as I was to learn that Kant was actually an interesting lecturer and “entertaining interlocutor who could converse in an original and pleasing way on a wide range of topics” (p. 179). But given that he put so much effort and thought into his teaching, it’s really no surprise he had some very well-developed and humanistic ideas on the subject. And perhaps it’s also not surprising they are based on the Stoic theory of oikeiosis.² For example:

According to Kant, the aim of education is to develop the “personality” of a “freely acting being, who can support itself and be a member of society, but who can have an inner value for itself.” In saying this, Kant distinguishes four distinct goals of education: first, over time education should turn the unfree child (in that it is governed solely by instinct) into a freely acting (and free-thinking) rational being. Second, it should enable the child to lead its life independently and without the help of others (“support itself”), and, third, to become a useful, but also happy, member of society. Fourth and finally, the child should grow up to be an autonomous moral subject possessing the “inner value” of human dignity and also respecting this in other people. (p. 49)

These ideas are still very relevant today. Kant here is using concepts that remain popular in moral and developmental psychology—personality, independence, autonomy, integration, even happiness—but based on a foundation of virtue, which is an unfashionable term in today’s pedagogical literature and practice. (Though of course “virtues” have never gone away and continue to be taught under a range of guises.) I think it’s quite interesting to see a pedagogical scheme that blends the older virtue framework with themes and techniques that are recognizably modern.

Perhaps it’s too much to hope that Stoic ideas on moral development will find their way into mainstream education—particularly by means of Immanuel Kant—but I think there is great promise in figuring out how to link classical virtue concepts to favored contemporary themes. Kant’s precedent here paves the way for us to do something similar. Perhaps it’s not so much a hearkening back as a looking forward that will reinvigorate character education. Here are just a few areas where we could make the connection between virtue/character and educating young people today:

• Virtue is not merely a matter of morality but is also the highest form of personal autonomy and the clearest sign of respect for self and others

• Character education helps cultivate independence of mind and reduces dependence on other people’s opinions

• Character education can help address contemporary social problems connected to individual loneliness, alienation from society, over-reliance on technology, decline of social trust, etc.

• Mental health and overall wellbeing are bolstered by character education for teens and adults

While I don’t necessarily think Kant’s work provides all the answers for us today, Willaschek’s biography of him did inspire me to reflect more deeply on this and other aspects of the examined life. I should note, however, that Kant is not without his problems and limitations. It’s obligatory to mention that he was quite prejudiced against women and non-Europeans, and his picture of human dignity seems to leave out children and people with disabilities. Some of his ideas on physics, genetics, and anthropology were just plain wrong. And he rejected the classical (particularly Stoic) basis of morality in nature³, which I personally find to be an excellent guide to character and development.

Today we have a much better awareness not only of the equal dignity of all humans but also of our deep connections to and responsibility toward the natural world. We understand genetics and evolution in ways that Kant could (and did) only guess at. However, even as we criticize Kant for some of his wrong-headed beliefs, Willaschek reminds us that he would have been delighted at our progress:

Kant’s philosophy of history recognizes no historical necessities or inevitable developments, but only opportunities that nature offers to human freedom and conditions that are more or less favorable for its realization. For Kant, the only thing that nature guarantees is the possibility of progress. Its realization is entirely dependent upon the free decisions made by people, and upon their efforts and endeavors but also their mistakes and vagaries. (p. 31)

Mistakes and vagaries—personal and collective—are perhaps inevitable, but progress occurs only when people continuously try to do better. Kant, like the Stoics, insisted that it’s up to us to make the most of our rationality and develop our character. This is not only for our own good, but for the wellbeing of those we love and the health of our whole society. Generational progress depends on personal virtue; without virtue, social progress is simply a hollow shell that caves in on itself.

Kant is a theorist who shows us how to advance both as individuals and as a society. By urging us to think for ourselves—and make progress on our own terms—he reminds us of Seneca’s message: “Those who advanced these doctrines before us are not our masters but our guides. The truth lies open to all” (Letters on Ethics, 33.11). Whether we are educators, parents, or simply good citizens of the world, we can turn to Kant’s writings, and the example of his life, to guide our own (personal) revolution.

Recommended book:

Kant: A Revolution in Thinking, by Marcus Willaschek, translated by Peter Lewis. Belknap Press, 2025.

1. See Doyle and Torralba (2016), “Kant and Stoic ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition, ed. John Sellars. Routledge: 2016.

2. See Gill and Polat (2024) for much more on oikeiosis as a developmental process. Since I’ve written so much about it elsewhere, I’m not going into detail here.

3. Willaschek notes that “Kant’s ethics is based on the idea that moral rules apply to us not because we are humans with particular biological characteristics, nor by virtue of the fact that God imposed these rules upon us, but because these strictures are rational” (p. 67).

---

Photo credit: Janko Ferlic on Unsplash