An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? by Immanuel Kant

An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? Reviews

• 
  KamRun

  روشنگری همانا به‌در آمدن انسان از حالت کودکی‌ای است که گناهش به گردن خود اوست. یعنی ناتوانی از به کار گرفتن فهم خود بدون راهنمایی دیگران. این که بخشی بزگی از انسان‌ها، با آن که دیریست طبیعت آنان را به بلوغ رسانده، باز به دلخواه تا دم مرگ کودک می‌مانند و دیگران چنین به سادگی خود را سرپرست ایشان می‌کنند، علتی جز کاهلی و بزدلی ندارد. راستی که کودک بودن چه آسان است! اگر کتابی داشته باشم که جای فهم مرا بگیرد و مرشدی که کار وجدانم را انجام دهد و پزشکی که خوراک مناسبی برایم معین کند و ...، دیگر لازم نیست که خود را به زحمت بیندازم. همین که بتوانم پولی بدهم، دیگر نیازی به اندیشیدن ندارم، دیگرانی هستند که این کار کسالت‌بار را به جایم انجام دهند. برداشت آزاد از روشنگری چیست - کانت

  
  
  چرا کودک‌بودگی لذت بخش است؟
  
  اول
  روشنگری در تقابل با کودک‌بودگی، ارتباط نزدیکی با تفکر تحلیلی/فلسفی در تقابل با تفکر اسطوره‌ای دارد. به عبارت دیگر فرد کودک، الزاما اسطوره‌باور است. در فرهنگ/تفکر اسطوره‌ای، فرد اسطوره‌باور در مورد چرایی سوالی نمی‌پرسد، اصلا طرح پرسش از مسائل بنیادی صورت نمی‌گیرد، بلکه پذیرش بی‌چون و چرای روایات و نهایتا پرسش‌هایی درباره‌ی چگونگی وقایع مطرح است. پرسش‌ها و پاسخ‌هایی از پیش حاضر و آماده. بنابراین فرد در چالشی برای طرح پرسش و یافتن پاسخ آن‌ها قرار نمی‌گیرد.
  
  دوم
  برخورد فرهنگ/تفکر اسطوره‌ای با سوژه همیشه صفر و صد است، همیشه قهرمان و ضدقهرمان، سفیدی و سیاهی دارد، از این رو نیازی نیست فرد سختی قضاوت و سنجیدن را به جان بخرد، باور اسطوره‌ای پیش‌تر این کار را برای او کرده است، او تنها باید به برچسب‌هایی که فرهنگ اسطوره‌ای به کار می‌برد توجه و از آن‌ها کند: جادوگر، بربر، دشمن، مرتد، کافر و مفسد و واژگانی از این قبیل
  
  سوم
  اسطوره نیازهای عمیق دینی و اخلاق فرد را برآورده کرده و پاسخگوی نیازهای روزمره‌ی اوست. فرد اسطوره‌باور به هیچ‌عنوان درگیر بحران‌های معنایی نمی‌شود، او نیازی ندارد که به دنبال چراییِ بودن و معنای زند��ی برود. نیازی ندارد که به خلق معنا دست بزند، بلکه از بسته‌های معنایی آماده که اسطوره ارائه کرده استفاده می‌کند. انسان اسطوره‌ای از درون به پدیده‌های هستی می‌نگرد و خود و هست بودن خود را میان آنان درمی‌یابد. از این رو اسطوره فقط معنابخشِ او نیست، هستی بخش هم هست. او در چهارچوبی زندگی می‌کند که اسطوره برایش تعریف کرده؛ باید و نباید هایی که از سیستم ارزش‌گذاری اسطوره‌ای که سنت به آن مرجعیت و اقتدار بخشیده ریشه گرفته است
• 
  فؤاد

  این که بخشی بدین بزرگی از انسان ها، با آن که دیریست طبیعت آنان را به بلوغ طبیعی رسانده، باز به دلخواه تا دم مرگ کودک می مانند و دیگران چنین به سادگی خود را سرپرست ایشان می کنند، علتی جز کاهلی و بزدلی ندارد. راستی که کودک بودن چه آسان است! اگر کتابی داشته باشم که جای فهمم را بگیرد و کشیشی که کار وجدانم را انجام دهد و پزشکی که خوراک مناسبی برایم معین کند و...، دیگر لازم نیست خود را به زحمت بیندازم. همین که بتوانم پولی بدهم، دیگر نیازی به اندیشیدن ندارم؛ دیگرانی هستند که این کار کسالت بار را به جایم انجام دهند! و برای این که تعداد هر چه بیشتری از آدمیان رفتن به سوی بلوغ را که به خودی خود دشوار هست، سخت خطرناک نیز بینگارند، این سرپرستان خیرخواه تدارکی بایسته می بینند: اینان نخست گله رام خود را از مغز تهی می کنند و خاطرشان آسوده می شود که این موجودات بی آزار جرأت آن را ندارند که گامی از چراگاهی که در آن محبوسند فراتر روند، آن گاه به ایشان گوشزد می کنند که اگر به تنهایی قدم بیرون بگذارند چه خطرهایی تهدیدشان می کند!
  
  اما این خطرها چندان هم که می گویند بزرگ نیستند، چرا که [نوپایان] با چند بار افتادن سرانجام شیوه راه رفتن را می آموزند؛ اما چشم انداز همین یک بار افتادن کافی است که انسان را از هر آزمون تازه بهراساند. از این رو برای بسیاری کسان دشوار است که به تنهایی از حالت کودکی ای که کمابیش برایشان طبیعی شده است، به در آیند.
  
  
  لینک دانلود مقاله
• 
  P.E.

  'Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto of enlightenment.'
  
  
  Read at the University of Nantes in 2012
• 
  Sarah

  “Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another.”
• 
  Jonathan O'Neill

  3.5 ⭐
  
  "Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of [man's] natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity."
  
  RTC
• 
  Ali Di

  :شعار روشنگری اینست
  !در به کارگیری فهمِ خود، شهامت داشته باش
  
  نوشته ای کوتاه اما سراسر نکته
  
• 
  Scot

  I read Kant in college and for some reason he never clicked for me, everyone assumed I would like him but every time I tried to read him something seemed off. This essay is a perfect illustration of that overriding feeling. I was immediately drawn in as Kant described enlightenment as emergence from self-imposed nonage (the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance). Sounds great, right up my alley, yes we can free our minds and think for ourselves, you go Kant, go. Yet then somehow he concludes the essay with "Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!" Wait what you ask? How did he get there? As I can understand, he is essentially saying that you have the freedom to think and criticize whatever you want if you are being scholarly about it, or when you are not being paid to do it, or have no obligations to it, but if you are doing one of those latter things including expressing doubt about your religion as a pastor or thinking about refusing to pay taxes as a citizen, well then you need to stop at this instant and obey. Hard not to conclude that Kant was really high on himself as a scholar, and have a feeling I would not want to party with him at all.
• 
  Amirmahdi

  پس از مطالعه‌ی دو مقاله‌ی در پاسخ به "روشن‌گری چیست؟" و "انقلاب چیست؟" کانت، پر بیراه نیست اگر بگوییم که کانت یکی از ناروان‌شناس‌ترین فیلسوفان تاریخ است.
  کانت در مقاله‌ی "روشن‌گری چیست؟" خود مصرانه، از موضعی بالا به پایین و در کلامی کاملاً شعاری اعلام می‌دارد که "درباره‌ی هر چه دلت می‌خواهد چون و چرا کن، اما فرمانبردار باش."
  این در مقام تمثیل بدین معناست که شما و کانت روبه‌روی سفره‌ای نشسته باشید که در وسط آن بره‌ای بریان و خوش‌خوراک (فرضاً یک اشکال در ساختار حکومت) قرار داده شده است. شما این بره را می‌بینید (اشکال را شناسایی می‌کنید)، آن را به بشقاب خود می‌کشید (بررسی‌اش می‌کنید) و به تمامی‌ی دیگر کسانی که در آن‌جا هستند نیز اعلام می‌کنید که بره‌ی بریان را دیده‌اید و راه خوردن آن را می‌دانید و می‌توانید به آن‌ها نیز بیاموزید (اشکال را شناسایی کرده و می‌دانید چگونه اصلاحش کنید و هم‌چنین مردم را قانع سازید که راه درست این است).
  کانت تا به این‌جای ماجرا، نه‌تنها مخالفتی با شما ندارد، بلکه همراه و مشوق شما نیز هست، اما ماجرا درست از همان‌جایی شروع می‌شود که زمانی‌که می‌خواهید بره را نوش جان کنید، کانت جلویتان را می‌گیرد و می‌گوید نه، نمی‌توانی این کار را انجام دهی.
  اما این تمام ماجرا نیست؛ هنگامی که مقاله‌ی "انقلاب چیست؟" کانت را در کنار مقاله‌ی پیشین قرار می‌دهیم، تازه می‌بینیم که کانت حتی طعم بره را هم برایتان توصیف می‌کند (قانون اساسی که منشاگرفته از اراده‌ی مردم است)؛ و باز از شما توقع دارد که فرمان‌بردار بوده و دست به سمت بره دراز نکنید. این بعید به نظر می‌رسد، اما ناچارم بگویم که حکیم کونیگسبرگ، هیچ ایده‌ای درباره‌ی میل انسانی ندارد. او حتی از انسان توقع والایش میل را هم ندارد، تنها از فقدان صحبت می‌کند و بعد از انسان می‌خواهد که به دنبال ارضای آن نگردد. و جالب آن‌که از این موضوع که اکثر نوع بشر از انجام چنین کاری عاجز است، متعجب می‌گردد.
  از طرف دیگر هم‌چنین کانت به این موضوع اشاره می‌کند که "هر انقلابی که پدید آید، خرافات جدید خود را با خرافات پیشین جایگزین می‌سازد." به عبارتی، اگر اندیشه‌ی کانت در این دو مقاله را به دو قسمت، یعنی: ۱. جرات دانستن و چون و چرا کردن و پدید آمدن شور انقلابی در سرها و ۲‌. رسیدن به قانون اساسی‌ای که ریشه‌ی آن در اراده‌ی جمعی‌ی ملت است، تقسیم‌ کنیم، به راحتی می‌توان مشاهده کرد که کانت حلقه‌ی بینابینی‌ی این دو اتفاق که همان وقوع انقلاب باشد را نادیده گرفته و طی یک‌ پرش عجیب، بدون این‌که بخواهد هزینه‌ای برای تصمیمش بپردازد، خواهان دست‌یابی به نتیجه است. انگار کانت از گریز‌ناپذیری‌ی نتیجه‌ی تصمیماتش که هزینه‌های هنگفت جانی و مالی در طول انقلاب‌ها می‌باشد، اما شهامت پذیرش آن‌ها را ندارد.
  او هم‌چنین می‌داند که اصلاح‌گری اتفاق نمی‌افتد مگر آن‌که مردم آن را رقم بزنند و به اصطلاح فرمان‌برداری نکنند؛ اما با این حال، چون از پذیرش هزینه‌ی تصمیم سر باز می‌زند، در قالب رویکردی محافظه‌کارانه، فرایندی که به وقوع انقلاب ختم می‌شود را نادیده گرفته و صرفاً از قبل و بعد از انقلاب سخن می‌گوید. که اگر این‌گونه نبود و این‌ها نبودند فرضیه‌های کانت و او باور داشت به این‌که خود عوامل قدرت، به صرف گوشزد کردن نکات به آن‌ها دست به اصلاح خواهند زد، دیگر اصلاً چه نیازی بود به اعلام این اصلاح‌ها در میان توده‌ی مردم (که به عقیده‌ی کانت اول و آخر هم جرات دانستن نخواهند داشت)؟
• 
  Amirsaman

  کانت با زیرکی دو مقوله‌ی آزادی بیان و فرمان‌برداری را از هم تفکیک می‌کند. هر چه می‌خواهی بگو ولی فرمان‌بردار باش. از نظر کانت با این توصیف، هم انسان می‌تواند پیشرفت‌های ذهنی کند و روشنگر باشد، و هم دیگر آنقدر از کارش طفره نرود که امنیت کشور به خطر افتد. کانت از شاه خواهش می‌کند که بگذارد همه حرف‌های‌شان را در روزنامه‌ها بزنند و ایشان نگران امنیت کشور نباشند، چون شاه یک ارتش بزرگ و منظم دارد که هر وقت این آزادی بیان، مخل امنیت داخلی کشور شد، می‌تواند قضیه را به سرعت فیصله دهد. کانت معتقد است که هر کس باید وظیفه‌اش را انجام دهد و در کنارش اگر نقدی هم داشت، به شکل عمومی و آزادانه بیان کند؛ اسم عمل به وظیفه‌ای که دیگری (دولت و کلیسا) بر عهده‌ی شخص گذاشته را استفاده از خرد خصوصی می‌گذارد، و به نگاشتن برای عموم مردم می‌گوید استفاده از خرد عمومی. بنابراین فرد نباید خودسرانه تغییراتی در انجام وظیفه‌ی شغلی و غیره‌اش دهد، بلکه باید آن عقاید را به شکل عمومی ابراز کند تا مقامات خودشان از بالا بیایند و اصلاحات را انجام دهند. در واقع انسان برای آزاد شدن از یوغ صغارت، نیاز دارد تا قیمی مثل کانت یا شاه روشن‌بین‌اش، او را آزاد کنند. به یک معنی، کارتان را انجام دهید و از اعتصاب و اخلال بپرهیزید، اما به حکم عقل کانتی، در توییتر اعتراضات خود را بیان کنید. پس می‌بینیم که آزادی بیان پوشالی دنیای امروز چه‌قدر متاثر است از این مقاله‌ی کوتاه.
• 
  Valentina Vekovishcheva

  Dare to think!
• 
  Petergiaquinta

  At least you don't have to wait long for the answer. Kant gives it to us in the first sentence of this short pamphlet written in 1784: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." And what's immaturity, Mr. Kant? "Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!"
  
  Ah, "Dare to be wise," eh, Mr. Kant? You poor deluded idealist, you...
  
  As an American, I get it. We're perpetually stuck in our own "self-incurred immaturity." So Kant has presupposed my main complaint. Writing shortly after our revolution, Kant says, "A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones they replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass." But it's been over 200 years now, and despite all the freedom we've had over the last two centuries (Kant writes in the next sentence, "For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all—freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters"), we're no better off than we were. We're probably worse off: Obama was born in Kenya; vaccinations cause autism; women don't get pregnant in legitimate rapes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
  
  Here's what Kant claims: "Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artificial measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it." How long is "gradually"? I'm reminded of Morrissey plaintively asking, "When you say it's gonna happen, well when exactly do you mean? See I've already waited too long, and all my hope is gone." Or something like that.
  
  
  Yeah, you know it: I'm taking the Coursera MOOC, "The Modern and the Post-Modern." Go ahead and take it with me; it just started!
• 
  Skyler Myers

  "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'- that is the motto of enlightenment."
  
  PROs
  
  * Very well argued
  
  * Clear and hard to disagree with
  
  CONs
  
  * Short so not all thoughts are fully developed
  
  "The touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself."
  
  As one can reasonably conclude from the title, this essay is Kant's opinion of what Enlightenment is. As you can see from the quote I provided, Kant essentially says that Enlightenment is the ability of people to think for themselves, rather than having other people think for them. The reason he gives as to why people generally do not think for themselves is a combination of laziness and cowardice brought on by the governing authorities.
  
  Kant says that (during his time at least) the population was not Enlightened, but that we was living in a time of Enlightenment due to the relative ease of which the population could become enlightened. He then goes on to lay out how to make a people Enlightened, namely, that freedom of thought and expression must be avowed. If this is the case, Enlightenment is bound to follow. Although freedom of speech is a must for Kant, this right must not always be exercised. There are two domains of life, public and private, and use of one's reason must be used differently at these different phases. A soldier doesn't have the right to question his commanding officer in the line of duty, since this was the job he signed up for, but as a citizen, he has the right to question these orders publicly. He says that there is no reason to restrict freedom of speech, even for a monarch, since the monarch, by hearing criticisms, can improve himself.
  
  I give this work 3 stars due to the lack of depth in developing most of his points. This is mainly due, I think, to the common sense nature of what he was saying. There is nothing here that would challenge the views of most people living in the 21st century, though clearly this was not the case when this was written in the 18th century. Overall, it is a good work that is enjoyable and insightful but far from groundbreaking.
  
  "For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly be applied. It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at every point. But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The Officer says: 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector: 'Do not argue but pay!' The cleric: 'Do not argue but believe!' Only one prince in the world says, 'Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey!' Everywhere there is restriction on freedom."
• 
  David Sarkies

  The Freedom to think for oneself
  
  17 January 2013
  Okay, this pamphlet (it is way too short to be called a book, but still there is an entry on Goodreads, so while I will not count it as a part of the 2013 reading challenge, I will still write a commentary on it) is probably where the term 'Freethinker' came from. My first encounter with a so called 'freethinker' was in the Adelaide Railway Station when I was handing out invitations to the church carol service and I ended up speaking to a man who termed himself a freethinker. Personally, I liked the term, but had really encountered it before. A quick look on
  Wikipedia suggests that a freethinker was an atheist, but I suspect that the definition may go deeper than that (positions regarding truth should be based on logic, reason, and empiricism rather than tradition, authority or other dogmas, which does not necessarily mean that the philosophy is atheist).
  This pamphlet is about being imprisoned in one's mode of thinking, and while Kant opens with how the modern individual (if one can consider 1784 modern, but then what he wrote back then is still true today) goes to a professional when he wants certain things done so that the individual does not need to be able to know how to do it himself. For instance, if he wants legal advice, he goes to a lawyer, if he wants medical advice, he goes to a doctor, and if he wants spiritual advice, he goes to a priest.
  However, this is where the crux of Kant's argument comes down, not so much regarding the lawyer or the doctor (for individuals are not expected to be able to have such knowledge) but rather with regards to visiting the priest, or to be more precise, the pastor. Kant's argument is that the pastor is enslaved to his mode of thinking by the doctrine of the church and is unable to speak outside of that rigid doctrine when addressing his congregation. In a way the congregation expects him to remain true to that doctrine, but the pastor in the end enslaves himself to that doctrine because he is unable to speak, or even think, outside of that rigid circle.
  So, then, what is enlightenment? Well, from what I gather from this pamphlet it is being able to have an open mind, and being able to think outside of the rigid doctrine of society, This can be dangerous, not only to society, but also to one self. The problem is that people do not want to think outside of the box, and in particular people do not want you thinking outside of the box because by doing that you may uncover a truth that they do not want you to know. In fact, it may simply turn out that you have exposed them as crooks, but they do not want you to do that, and in fact they do not want you freed from their rigid dogma, or from under their control, so they will accuse you of being paranoid, or even insane.
  So, I guess enlightenment is being able to free your mind and your thoughts from the rigid dogma of society (and notice how I am not focusing on the church here, unlike Kant, who we must remember was writing in the 18th century, so the church still had quite a lot of influence in society and impacted on the way society thought), to be able to ask questions, and not just any old questions (why is the sky blue?) but difficult and challenging questions (you ask us to tithe, but does not the Bible suggest that the idea of the tithe went out with Christ's death and resurrection, and also are we not meant to support those who are poorer than us than to give some guy the opportunity not to be a productive member of society?). I do not think that Kant is writing some anti-Christian doctrine here, but is rather challenging a rigid dogmatic view to life and getting people to think rather than to simply act without thinking.
  
  20 January 2013
  After listening to a lecture based on this tract I felt that I should write down a few more thoughts regarding it. Basically, during the period Kant was writing there were two different philosophical thoughts: the Descartes' school of thought which said 'I think, therefore I am', which in a way led to the concept of Existentialism, the concept that the only reality that is true is the reality that you perceive for yourself; and the Lockian point of view, in which the only reality that exists is the reality that can be determined by the scientific method - if you could not prove it by experimentation then it pretty much did not exist.
  Kant apparently took a middle road saying that both feeling and experimentation has a role to play, and that in taking this road he set the course of the Enlightenment. However I find that difficult to accept because the world in which we live today, or at least the Western world, tends to fall into two camps, and that is the camp of the so called educated, and the camp of those who are not educated in the same way. Personally I don't want to call them uneducated, because I generally fall into that category.
  With the educated category (and once again that is a bad description of them because they are not really educated in a way because they do not look at both sides of an argument but rather that they push their own viewpoint without considering any other view that may be different from their viewpoint) we have what is called the New Athiests, who believe that religion cannot be proved scientifically and therefore the spiritual realm does not exist. As such they denigrate anybody who believes in a spiritual reality as being backward and trapped in the past. However, on the opposite side of the fence, you have the fundamentalists who believe that anything that comes from humanity is ultimately flawed and not to be trusted, and as such reject science and anything that is not supported by their religious teachings (and you will note that I don't focus on Christianity here, though here in the West they tend to be the dominant ones in this camp).
  I guess Kant's ideas generally apply to those of us who take the middle road, namely the road that says that both sides have equal value. It applies to those of us who accept evolution (even to the limited extent that I do) and consider that the universe was created. It applies to those of us who recognise that God has gifted us with intelligence to be able to explore and try to understand this world, and to also understand that the Bible, while it may be a cosmological text, is not necessarily a scientific text. In the end, it applies to the bulk of us who believe in the existence of God, but also understand that salvation is not determined by whether we believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis or Revelation.
  
  21 February 2013
  Now I have read this pamphlet again after having listened to a lecture on Kant and I feel that I need to slightly alter what I have said above, and while I do not consider what I have written above to be wrong in a sense, I feel that I have not necessarily got out of the pamphlet what Kant was trying to outline. It is true that he is calling for us to think for ourselves, but the whole question of 'what is enlightenment' comes down to the opening few paragraphs: Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another.
  The idea that Kant is trying to raise here is not so much being a freethinker, but learning to think for ourselves. The key point that he is bringing out is to be able to make a decision without constantly going to others for guidance. That is what Kant describes as being mature. For instance, instead of going around to all of your friends and asking them if you should ask a girl out on a date, make the decision yourself (and live with the consequences of that decision, whatever the consequences are).
  Now, Kant is not being anti-authoritarian here (particularly since he is writing in 18th Century Prussia, which was far from being a Liberal Democracy). In fact he writes to those in power and tells them that he is not telling people to be anti-authoritarian. The whole question of being able to think for one self does not mean that you reject all guidance, or even live a life of rebellion, but rather to be able to decide and choose, and then be able to live with the consequences of the choice that you make. It is the freedom to choose whether you wish to rebel or to obey, but in making that choice, to be able to raise the pro's and the cons of that choice before making it.
  It is not the question of obedience that Kant is talking about but rather enslaving yourself to other people by giving the power of choice over to them. However it is not always that easy because there are always people out there that want to enslave you by making the choices for you, and even twisting reality so that you are unable to make that choice. We may live in a liberal democracy, but even in this liberal democracy, choices are made for us. In fact these people (whom we will refer to as 'insecure Betas') actually believe that they only know the right way to do things, and try to interpose themselves into your life so that you will seek guidance from them, and always turn a conversation around to giving advice to you (you can never have a discussion with them because it is always what they think and why your thoughts are wrong).
• 
  Carmen Álvarez

  De tejo, esta tarde me he metido entre pecho y espalda dos libros y 4 papers para este trabajito de 2000 palabras y aún no he acabado. No puedo más. Ten piedad de mi
• 
  Meike

  I would feel a little silly rating Kant, so let me just say that this is one of the texts I first read in high school and that I now re-read - unsurprisingly, it's still relevant. In fact, it's more relevant than one could possibly wish for, as I am sure we all know some people we would love to hit over the head with a copy of this while yelling "sapere aude".
• 
  Ali Reda

  Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority. Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This minority 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! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.
  
  Thus a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may well bring about a failing off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one’s way of thinking; instead new prejudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses.
• 
  Viji (Bookish endeavors)

  'Dare to use your own brain'-it seems a good proposition. What else it is for.?! Kant's criticism of the society was good but the actions he asked to take seemed a bit passive and that's not my cup of tea. It was a good read,a perfect view into one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived.
• 
  Wiom biom

  I liked reading this more than I did Rousseau's "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" because it was less reliant on rhetoric and more straight to the point.
  
  In "What is Enlightenment?", Kant provides a straightforward answer: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage, [which is the] inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance." While the focus of his writing is chiefly on religious dogma, he also mentions other forms of authority that usually go unquestioned, for example, the commands of a military officer or the demands of a tax collector. Interestingly enough, Kant adopts a measured perspective; even though he respects their compulsion to follow orders (respecting authority), he also argues for the freedom of the individual to critique the forces that keep them in bondage. Perhaps a pastor feels that he is "bound to preach to his congregation in accord with the doctrines of the church which he serves" but as a citizen, as an individual, he has the full freedom to communicate with the public his ideas. So even though the private use of reason may be restricted (as the pastor does in preaching ideas he does not fully believe in), the public use of reason should be free so as to advance the enlightenment of the society at large.
  
  The other point that drew my attention was his proposed paradox: a large degree of civic freedom appears to be of advantage to the intellectual freedom of the people, yet at the same time it establishes insurmountable barriers; a lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity. Even in the context of the paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what he was referring to in "insurmountable barriers". But what I inferred from this paradox is that states should be cautious in the extent of civic freedom they allow, which is something I believe in as well.
  
  Kant writes that "only the man who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of shadows, and who commands at the same time a well disciplined and numerous army as guarantor of public peace can say what [the sovereign of] a free state cannot dare to say: "Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!"" From this quote alone, one can infer the tension that existed and still exists, particularly in liberal democracies, between individual freedoms and the authority of the state. Yet, even though protesting and criticising the government seems to be part and parcel of liberal democratic culture, one cannot but wonder if national loyalties do still erode (and I think that's a bad thing) and if there comes a time when excessive dissent from all corners of the country is something to be moderated rather than encouraged.
• 
  Yann

  En 1783, dans une revue Berlinoise parait un article : "proposition visant à ne plus déranger les prêtres pour célébrer les mariages", dans lequel l'auteur s'insurge contre la religion et ses effets délétères sur le peuple, et s'enthousiasme de sa prochaine disparition. Il n'en faut pas plus pour provoquer la réaction du pasteur Zöllner, qui se questionne sur l'opportunité de procéder à ce changement. Il est d'ailleurs un défenseur des lumières, mais voilà : court-on le risque d'en abuser? Ont-elles des limites ? Et d'abord, que sont ces fameuses lumières ? C'est à cette question que vont répondre en même temps les philosophes Immanuel Kant et Moses Mendelssohn. Il s'agit d'ailleurs d'opinions plutôt que de d'analyses extrêmement fouillées.
  
  J'aime beaucoup l'exorde de Kant, qui citant le "sapere aude" d'Horace, y voit le courage de se servir de son propre entendement, plutôt que de s'en remettre à autrui, et de rester ainsi dans une sorte de minorité et de dépendance éternelle, quoique confortable. Mais il s'agit de poser des limites, et de faire preuve de discernement : donc là, il nous propose d'un côté de faire sans restriction un usage "public" de cette faculté, si on est quelqu'un de cultivé, un lettré qui lit beaucoup, et qui partage avec ses semblables la recherche de vérités spéculatives, quelque soit le domaine, mais il souhaite par contre que soit fortement limité cet usage à titre "privé", c'est-à-dire chez quelqu'un dont on attend la loyauté et l'obéissance hiérarchique du subordonné, comme un ecclésiastique, un sujet ou un soldat. J'avoue que j'ai ici plus de mal à suivre Kant dans ce cas précis. Loue-t-il par là son souverain Frédéric II, lequel permettait à ses sujets de réfléchir tant qu'ils voulaient pourvu qu'ils obéissent? En effet, il utilise souvent ce mot de liberté, dans un sens subtil et spirituel, au lieu du sens premier : esprit de liberté, atmosphère de liberté, libre pensée, ... . Or est-ce flétrir la loyauté que justement faire usage de sa raison, et d'examiner la conformité de nos engagements civils et de nos devoirs moraux ? Ou peut-être est-ce simplement la répugnance d'avoir tort, ou plutôt d'être coupable, qui lui fait préférer dans ces cas-là l'ignorance, laquelle semble avoir l'avantage de toujours préserver notre innocence. Enfin, il finit par un joli paradoxe, suivant lequel l'usage de la raison semble être mieux exercé chez les peuples privés de liberté (au sens concret) que chez ceux qui en jouissent. Ce n'est peut-être pas si étonnant, si on considère que l'on est porté à mépriser ce qui semble facile à obtenir.
  
  La réponse de Mendelssohn, un peu différente de celle de Kant, expose des idées stimulantes qui ne sont malheureusement pas assez développées à mon goût. Il distingue ainsi au sein de ce qu'il nomme la Civilisation (Kultur) à la fois la "Culture" (Bildung) et les "Lumières" (Aufklärung). Il esquisse ce qu'il entend respectivement par Culture et Lumières plus qu'il ne le définit précisément. Par exemple, il attribue la première aux français, et la seconde aux anglais. Son idée est qu'il est nécessaire de conserver un juste équilibre entre ces deux notions. L'abus de Culture conduirait ainsi à la l'opulence, l'hypocrisie, la superstition, l'esclavage; et l'abus de Lumières, à l'affaiblissement du sens moral, l'égoïsme, l'irréligion et l'anarchie. Ca ressemble fort au discours sur les Sciences et les Arts qui avait rendu Rousseau fameux, tout en lui faisant pas mal d'ennemis. Mais ce qui est intéressant, c'est que Moses plaide pour une sorte de compétition entre ces deux aspects, afin qu'ils se préservent mutuellement de leurs corruptions respectives. Ca ressemble très fortement à l'opinion de Machiavel qui soutenait que la liberté ne pouvait être sauvegardée dans une république que si on opposait les riches et les pauvres, afin que se tenant en respect, les uns n'en viennent jamais à tyranniser les autres. Malheureusement, si Machiavel illustrait abondamment son opinion par l'histoire, l'auteur reste ici un peu trop laconique, et pique notre curiosité sans la satisfaire complètement.
  
• 
  midnightfaerie

  Oh these thinkers of philosophy! Analyzing our thoughts and ideas and telling us how to think. Which is funny because this whole writing is telling us to be free thinkers, but in essence, isn't he telling us what to do? So really, if we become free thinkers we're really doing what he tells us not to do, which is listen to others and not think for yourself. *laugh*
  
  Ok, that aside, Kant was a great philosopher that really had some great ideas about thinking for yourself. This was a big deal during the time that he wrote it, when the church pretty much made the rules for "how you should think, act, be, etc.". I won't go into the specifics of the Kant thought, but it's important to note the other prevalent thoughts of that time period. I recently read a review on this piece of work that was amazing. They covered the basic ideas of Kant and the other popular ideas of that time, and I highly recommend reading it. You can do so here:
  
  
  
  David Sarkies's Reviews > An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?
  
  For myself, I do believe this train of thought is still important today even more so as we head into this new age of sexual self discovery at such a young age and the dying of free speech. When children are being pressured into making a sexual identity decision at the age of 11 that might affect their whole life or colleges are creating areas on campus for "free speech", because they are afraid of someone's feelings getting hurt based on what you say, you have to wonder how Kant would have reacted to this. No one should be persecuted for how they feel but should be allowed to feel or be whoever they want without the fear of persecution. Thus I feel our society in essence is limiting "free thinking" by social pressure which is just another form of persecution which was acted out by the church in Kant's time.
  
  An example would be a popular political belief was running around social media in the last year and people were declaring their support for the issue in media feed. This is an issue I haven't mentioned yet and will not mention what I'm referring to because I don't want to get into a political discussion and it really doesn't matter what the issue was. The point is that it became so popular that if you didn't proclaim the same belief in social media you started to be persecuted for not having the belief or stating what you feel. I was following one of my favorite you tubers at the time and he didn't want to get involved so he avoided proclaiming any belief either way. He was constantly harassed and put down for not saying anything and it made me angry. Isn't choosing not to conform to popular standards or refusing to give an opinion when being persecuted for such a form of free thinking? Should we commend this person for sticking to his beliefs in only wanting to talking about his area of interest and not get involved in political matters? I say we should. Everyone should be able to be who they want, believe what they want, and say what they want, even if that is not saying anything or saying something that isn't popular. I think this is what Kant is talking about in his paper and it very much applies to today.
  
  Don't want to get into a political discussion, just food for thought.
• 
  Davide Calò

  Il testo di I. Kant "Risposta alla domanda: che cos'è l'Illuminismo?" non è nulla di più rispetto a quello che si studia nei libri di scuola ed è facilmente riassumibile con "Abbi il coraggio di sapere ma non fare il furbetto". Infatti, qui Kant cerca sì di legittimare una capacità raziocinante propria ma, allo stesso tempo, cerca di restare moderato: la rivoluzione non è contemplabile, il potere costituito va rispettato. Niente di eclatante o di incredibilmente fuori dagli schemi ma è sempre interessante leggere il punto di vista kantiano.
  
  Il testo di M. Foucault "che cos'è l'Illuminismo" riprende la matrica kantiana e va oltre: riflettendo sulla definizione stessa di Aufklärung contrapponendolo al modernismo baudelairiano per poi ricostruirlo come una forma di ἦθος riconcettualizzandolo né in maniera giusta né in maniera sbagliata ma cercando, archeologicamente, di rintracciare le proprie origini occidentali per poi rispondere se, veramente, siamo usciti da quello stato di minorità descritto da Kant. Questo è stato il mio primo approccio con Foucault e nonostante il fatto che il tema sia interessante ma non troppo ho trovato questo testo dell'autore francese molto puntuale.
• 
  BookWaffle :3

  Kant my man, I am deeply disappointed in you.
  
  Although to be fair, Kant has some decent points about enlightenment and a person thinking for themselves, I feel like he is highly wishy-washy. I do understand that this book was first of all written under different circumstances. Still, if we are to be rooted to think for ourselves and escape immaturity, then we ought to be able to reach conclusions that align with our thoughts and use our ability to think without the guidance of another.
• 
  laure

  what is enlightenment?, a very short and unironic summary by yours truly: my personal interpretation of the latin phrase "sapere aude" is "don't be like the other girls"-- kant agrees. oh and apparently freedom is kinda cool? yeah, not sure i agree with that one.
• 
  Lnaz Izd

  "That the guardians of the people (in spiritual things) should themselves be
  incompetent is an absurdity which amounts to the eternalization of absurdities."
• 
  Cam Cam

  An answer to the question: How do you call yourself "mature"?
  
  Wish i had read it earlier in my younger days.
• 
  Felix

  I am very interested in Immanuel Kant's philosophy, and I've watched several lectures on the subject. Something in his morality strikes a chord with me, and I like to think that insofar as is regularly possible, I try to live by Kant's values. This, however, is the first volume by Kant himself that I have actually read.
  
  Kant undoubtedly has a formidable reputation as a writer that inspires confusion and produces interminable sentences. In this collection of essays on political theory, he lived up to that reputation. I found myself continuously having to take these essays very slowly, in a way that I don't need to with Joyce or even Pynchon (well, at least not most of the time). A 'negative guarantee' is not a concept I am familiar with Mr. Kant. I apologize for my childlike ignorance, but I now have no idea what you were talking about through that entire labyrinthine page long sentence.
  
  I concede that this probably has a lot to do with translation. And even had I not acknowled that, there's not a lot that would put me off reading more of his work. I do find a strong affinity with his ideas. Maybe if someone went around the world and put a black widow spider inside every copy of Groundwork on the Metaphysic of Morals, that could do it. Although I guess when the news hit the internet I'd just carry bug spray.
• 
  Ipsa

  read this for my socio-political philosophy paper. and I'm not sure if I should hate on it for advocating the deontological tyranny of reason, or admire it for its individualist echoes.
  it's also kind of angering to see it being appropriated by the proponents of positive liberty into justifying despotism and totalitarian regimes; as very coolly analysed by Isaiah Berlin in his article, 'Two Concepts of Liberty.'