Kant

Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklrung?

Kant's opening paragraph of the essay is a much-cited definition of a lack of Enlightenment as people's
inability to think for themselves due not to their lack of intellect, but lack of courage.
Kant's essay also addressed the causes of a lack of enlightenment and the preconditions necessary to
make it possible for people to enlighten themselves. He held it necessary that all church and
state paternalism be abolished and people be given the freedom to use their own intellect. Kant
praised Frederick II of Prussia for creating these preconditions. Kant focused on religious issues, saying
that "our rulers" had less interest in telling citizens what to think in regard to artistic and scientific issues.

1) Kant answers the question in the first sentence of the essay: "Enlightenment is man's
emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." He argues that the immaturity is self-inflicted
not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect,
and wisdom without the guidance of another. He exclaims that the motto of enlightenment
is "Sapere aude"! Dare to be wise!
2) he German word "Unmndigkeit" means not having attained age of majority or legal
adulthood. "Unmndig" also means "dependent" or "unfree", and another translation is
"tutelage" or "nonage" (the condition of "not [being] of age"). Kant, whose moral philosophy
is centred around the concept of autonomy, here distinguishes between a person who is
intellectually autonomous and one who keeps him/herself in an intellectually heteronomous,
i.e., dependent and immature status.
3) Kant understands the majority of people to be content to follow the guiding institutions of
society, such as the Church and the Monarchy, and unable to throw off the yoke of their
immaturity due to a lack of resolution to be autonomous. It is difficult for individuals to work
their way out of this immature, cowardly life because we are so uncomfortable with the idea
of thinking for ourselves. Kant says that even if we did throw off the spoon-fed dogma and
formulas we have absorbed, we would still be stuck, because we have never "cultivated our
minds."
4) The key to throwing off these chains of mental immaturity is reason. There is hope that the
entire public could become a force of free thinking individuals if they are free to do so. Why?
There will always be a few people, even among the institutional "guardians," who think for
themselves. They will help the rest of us to "cultivate our minds
5) A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism . . . or power-seeking oppression,
but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Kant cautions that new prejudice
will replace the old and become a new leash to control the "great unthinking masses."
6) Private use of reason is doing something because we have to
7) Public use of reason is doing something on the public sphere because we choose to improve
our private function. Although someone may find his job or function disagreeable, the task
must be completed for society to flow consistently. He may, however, use public reasoning in
order to complain about the function in the public sphere
8) A military officer is required to obey the orders of his superiors. A clergyman is required to
teach the doctrines of the church that employs him.
9) Kant asks whether a religious synod or presbytery should be entitled to commit itself by
oath to a certain unalterable set of doctrines. He answers that a contract like this prevents

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

all further enlightenment of mankind forever. It is impossible and immoral that the people
of one generation could restrict the thoughts of the next generation, to prevent the
extension and correction of previous knowledge, and stop all future progress. Based on this,
later generations are not bound by the oaths of preceding generations. With freedom, each
citizen, especially the clergy, could provide public comment until public insight and public
opinion changes the religious institution. But Kant says that it is impossible to agree, even
for a single lifetime, to a permanent religious constitution that doesnt allow public
comment and criticism. If one were to renounce enlightenment for later generations, one
would be trampling on the sacred rights of mankind. Neither an individual citizen nor a
monarch has the right to constrict historical development.
Kant further explains why he has been emphasizing the religious aspect, religious immaturity,
"is the most pernicious and dishonourable variety of all. The church is a political force which
constrains public behaviour through the use of doctrine. By defining doctrines and making
them politically binding, the Church can control the growth of reason, therefore, publicly it is
in your own self-interest not to assent to a set of beliefs that hinder the development of your
reason. It is in man's interest to surpass those that prevent him from using his own reason.
Then Kant segues to the subject of his monarch, Frederick the Great. Religious ideas should
not be subject to government oversight, and government should not support spiritual
despotism against any of his subjects.
It is insisted that the king favours freedom in the arts and sciences because there is no
danger to his legislation from his subjects' making public use of their own reason and
providing forthright criticism of the current legislation. Throughout history we see that
most monarchs do perceive danger from free thinking subjects.
Kant asks if they (those living in 1784) are living in an enlightened age. The answer is no,
but they do live in an age of enlightenment. His point here is that because of the actions of
Frederick, there are fewer obstacles to universal enlightenment. Religious leaders may
freely and publicly submit to the judgment of the world their verdicts and opinions, even if
these deviate . . . from orthodox doctrine.
Finally, Kant provides some philosophy that is probably directed towards his monarch by
proposing a paradox. A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a peoples
intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree
of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent.