Enlightenment

What is Enlightenment

[Germany] Kant

English translation

Enlightenment is the disengagement of human beings A state of immaturity imposed on oneself by oneself. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own reason without the guidance of others. When the cause is not a lack of reason but a lack of courage and determination to use it without the guidance of others, then this immaturity is self-inflicted. Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own reason! This was the slogan of the Enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so many people, long after nature has freed them from external guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), are still willing to remain in a state of immaturity throughout their lives. , and why others can so easily regard themselves as their protectors. It's so comfortable to be in a state of immaturity. If I had a book that could understand for me, a priest that could have a conscience for me, a doctor that could prescribe recipes for me, etc., then I wouldn't have to worry about myself. As long as it's cost-effective for me, I don't need to think that someone else will do this nerve-wracking thing for me.

The vast majority of people (including all women) regard maturation as not only very difficult but also very dangerous; this has long been acknowledged by every well-intentioned person. Their guardians took notice. The guardians first make their animals stupid, and take care that the docile beasts do not dare to take a step out of the cradle in which they are locked; then they point out to them the things that threaten them if they attempt to walk alone kind of danger. But this danger is actually not that great, because after falling a few times they can finally learn to walk; but just one such incident will frighten people and often scare them away from trying again. .

It is very difficult for any individual to struggle out of the immature state that has almost become his nature. He even liked it, and indeed was not yet able to use his own reason, because he was never allowed to attempt it. Regulations and formulas, the mechanical products of his genius' rational application, or rather misuse, are a shackle to the ever-lasting immaturity. Anyone who abandons it is just making an unreliable jump in an extremely narrow ditch, because he is not accustomed to this kind of free movement. Therefore, only a few people can get rid of their immature state through their own spiritual struggle and take practical steps.

But it is possible for the public to enlighten itself; indeed it is almost inevitable if only they are allowed their freedom. For even among the guardians of the general public there are always to be found men of independent thought; The duty of an individual consists in the spirit in which he thinks himself. What is particularly noteworthy here is that the public was originally bound by them, but when some of their protectors (who themselves could not have any enlightenment) encouraged them, they later became The compulsory protectors themselves are involved; so harmful is the seeding of prejudice that they finally take revenge on those who were their instigators or the forerunners of their instigators. As a result, the public can only gain enlightenment very slowly. It may be possible to overthrow personal tyranny and the oppression of greed and power through a revolution, but it will never achieve a real reform of the way of thinking; and the new prejudices, just like the old ones, will become a way to control the vast number of people who lack ideas. trap.

This Enlightenment, however, requires nothing but freedom, and indeed the most harmless of all things that can be called freedom, that is, in all things Everyone has the freedom to openly use their reason. But I heard shouts from all directions: No arguing! The officer said: No arguments allowed, only drills allowed! The tax collector said: No arguing, only paying taxes. The priest said: No arguments allowed, only faith. (There is only one monarch in the world who said: You can argue as much or as little as you like, but you must be obedient! The monarch refers to King Frederick of Prussia) There are restrictions on freedom everywhere.

But which restrictions hinder enlightenment, and which ones do not, but are sufficient to promote it? --I answer: There must always be freedom to openly exercise one's reason, and it alone can bring about human enlightenment. The private use of one's reason was often narrowly restricted, although this did not particularly hinder the progress of the Enlightenment. And what I understand by the public use of one's reason is the use that anyone as a scholar can make in front of a whole audience. I call the use of one's own reason in a certain public position or position that a person holds in his private use.

As with many matters involving the interests of the community, we must have a certain machine by which some members of the community must maintain a purely negative attitude, so that they are motivated by a Artificial consistency is the purpose of the government leading to public affairs, or at least to preventing the destruction of this purpose.

There is indeed no room for argument here; rather people must obey. But as far as this part of the machine is also concerned as the entire *** body, and even as a member of the world's civil society, and therefore as a scholar who writes to the public in the strict sense, he is absolutely can be argued without thereby detracting from the cause in which he was a passive member. It would be a very bad thing, therefore, for an officer in service, when receiving an order from his superior, to protest the purpose or usefulness of the order; he must obey it. But when he, as a scholar, comments on errors in military business and submits them to the public for judgment, he cannot be openly prohibited. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the amount of tax imposed on him; any troublesome reproach to such taxes imposed upon him may even be punished as slander (which may cause general revolt). However, this same man, as a scholar, publicly expressed his opinions and protested against the inappropriateness and unfairness of this taxation. His actions did not violate the obligations of citizens. Likewise, a minister is obliged to address his catechism students and his congregation in accordance with the teachings of the church in which he serves, since he is sanctioned on this condition. But as a scholar he has full freedom, and even responsibility, to convey to the public all his well-considered and good-faith opinions concerning the shortcomings of that doctrine and his suggestions for the better organization of religious and ecclesiastical bodies. There was nothing in it to burden his conscience. For he regards what he teaches in connection with his office as a church worker as something which he has no free right to teach according to his own will; The name of the selected line is narrated. He will say: Our churches teach this or that; here are the arguments they cite. He therefore begins with those articles which he himself would not assent with complete conviction, although he could very well hold himself responsible for preaching them - for it is not entirely impossible that there is truth hidden in them, and in any case at least there is not detecting anything contrary to the inner religion--extracting all practical value to his hearers. For if he believes that anything contrary to his inner religion can be found in it, he cannot conscientiously perform his office, and he must resign. The exercise of reason by an appointed missionary to his congregation is purely a private exercise; for it is often only a family gathering, no matter how large; and in this respect he as a pastor is not It is not free, and it cannot be free, because he is conveying someone else's entrustment. On the other hand, as a scholar addresses the real public, that is, the world, through his writings, the priest enjoys unlimited freedom in the public use of his reason. He can use his own reason and in his own name. speak. For the protector of the people (in spiritual matters) to be immature himself is an absurdity, an everlasting absurdity.

But does a body of clergy, a synod, or a venerable ecclesiastical court (as they call themselves among the Dutch) have the right to swear an oath among themselves to a certain Does this immutable doctrine owe an obligation to each of its members, and therefore to the whole people, to have an unending guardianship, even to perpetuate it? I say: This is completely impossible. Such a covenant, which forever seals off any further enlightenment to mankind, is absolutely void, even if it is confirmed by the highest powers, by Congress and by the most solemn treaties of peace. An age can never obligate itself and thus vow to place subsequent ages in a state of affairs in which it is impossible to enlarge its (especially urgent) knowledge, to eliminate errors, and generally to continue progressing in enlightenment. middle. This would be a crime against human nature, whose original vocation lies precisely in this kind of progress; and therefore future generations would have every right to reject such regulations in an unwarranted and criminal manner.

Anything that a nation can summarize as a law, the touchstone lies in the question: Can a nation impose such a law on itself? It may be possible within a limited short period of time. It is as if they were expecting something better, in order to implement a system in which every citizen, and especially clergymen, would be free to speak openly as a scholar, that is, through writings. The shortcomings of current organizations have their say. This newly instituted system was to continue until insight into the nature of such things had come so openly and proved that by their united, if not unanimous, voices a proposal could be made to the throne, In order to protect this changed religious organization based on their better insights, without hindering those who still want to remain in the old organization. But to unify into a fixed and unchangeable religious system which no one can openly doubt, not even during a man's entire life, would be like annihilating an entire era of human progress toward improvement, and thereby giving rise to The damage caused to future generations leaves them with nothing to gain - this is absolutely unacceptable.

It is true that a man may, for his own sake and only for a time, postpone the enlightenment of something which he is obliged to know; but to give it up would be a disservice both to himself and, above all, to future generations. It can be said that it violates and tramples on the sacred rights of mankind.

And what the people cannot stipulate for themselves, a monarch cannot stipulate for his people even less; because his legislative authority depends entirely on him combining the will of all the people into his own will. . As long as he takes care that all real or alleged improvements are connected with the civil order, he can leave to his subjects what they find necessary for the edification of their souls; it is no business of his. , though he must guard against anyone who forcibly prevents others from making this decision and promoting this salvation according to their full faculties. If he interferes in such matters, judging by the supervision of government those works by which his subjects illuminate their own opinions; and if he does so in the light of his own highest opinions, he exposes himself to "Caesar non estt supra grammaticos" "(Caesar was not above the grammarians); that would be a disservice to his majesty. If he reduces his supreme power to the point of supporting some tyrants in his own country to implement spiritual despotism over the rest of his subjects, it will go from bad to worse.

If someone asks now: "Are we currently living in an era of enlightenment?" then the answer is: "No, but we are indeed in an era of enlightenment." The present situation is such that mankind in general is already in, or simply has been placed in, a state in which it is able to use its own reason accurately and well in religious matters without the guidance of others. , then there are still many things lacking. But now the field is open to them, they can work freely on it, and the obstacles to general enlightenment, or to escaping from self-imposed immaturity, are gradually reduced; about which we all know There are clear signals. In this regard, this era is the age of enlightenment, or the century of Frederick.

A prince who does not regard himself as unbecoming of a prince who considers it his duty to impose absolutely no rules on people in matters of religion but to leave them with full freedom, yet he Refusing even the haughty name of tolerance; this monarch himself was enlightened and worthy of being gratefully honored by posterity as the first to lift mankind, at least as far as political power is concerned, out of immaturity and to make everyone The individual is free to use his inherent reason in any matter of conscience. Under his rule the venerable clergy, as scholars, could freely and openly offer to the world for examination their judgments and opinions, which here and there departed from established doctrine, without injuring themselves. duties: this is especially true of others who are not bound by any duties. This spirit of freedom must also expand outward, even to the point where it will inevitably conflict with the external obstacle of a regime that misunderstands itself. Because it sets an example for this kind of regime, that is, freedom is not at all concerned about the tranquility of the public and the unity of the democratic community. Only when people no longer deliberately try to keep mankind in a barbaric state will mankind slowly emerge from it through its own efforts.

I place the emphasis of the Enlightenment, the liberation of mankind from the immaturity they have imposed upon themselves, primarily on religious matters, because our rulers have not advanced in the arts and sciences. Their subjects have no interest in fulfilling their guardianship; and this immaturity is at once the most pernicious and the most shameful of all. However, a leader of a country who protects the arts and sciences goes further in his thinking. He sees that even in his legislation, he allows his subjects to openly use their own reason and openly propose to the world their opinions. There would be no danger in better codification of the law, or even in outspoken criticism of opinions on the existing law. In this regard, we have a shining example, and the monarch we respect (referring to Frederick the Great of Prussia) is unsurpassed by other monarchs.

But only a monarch who is himself enlightened, not afraid of ghosts, and who has at his disposal a large and well-trained army to ensure the peace of the people can say what a free country wants. Things you don’t dare to say: You can argue as much or as much as you like; but you must be obedient. This marks a surprising and unexpected course in human affairs; just as almost everything in it is a paradox when we look at it as a whole. A greater degree of civil freedom seems to be conducive to the freedom of the people's spirit, but it sets insurmountable limits; on the contrary, a smaller degree of civil freedom opens up room for everyone to develop their talents.

Because when nature opens the buds that she has cared for so carefully under this hard shell, that is, when the tendency and task of demanding freedom of thought, it will gradually react on the mental outlook of the people ( Thus they will slowly be able to master freedom); and it will eventually react on the principles of the regime, making it realize that treating people according to their dignity - people are not just machines - is also beneficial to the regime itself.