Essay on Kant's What is Enlightenment?

In his essay titled "What is Enlightenment?" Immanuel Kant defines enlightenment as "man's leaving his self-caused immaturity." (145) In order to fully comprehend his definition, one must first clearly understand Kant's use of the term "immaturity." He explains that immaturity is not thinking for oneself because of a "lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another." (145)

To Kant, immaturity is the individual's fault. He explains that a pattern of immaturity is difficult to break, because it becomes comfortable for the individual to rely on others for knowledge. (145) The chief example that Kant provides to illustrate this point is domesticated animals. As an allusion to the role of government on its citizens, he explains that the animal's guardian domesticates it, and then warns it of the dangers of straying from his or her guidance. However, as Kant explains further: "this danger is not really so very great... [but] an example of this kind intimidates and frightens people out of all further attempts." (146) Much like the guardian in Kant's domesticated animal example, governments sometimes facilitate an individual's immaturity by providing the individual with a ready-made set of beliefs to which he or she can cling. (148)

Kant identifies a clear distinction between the individual's pursuit of enlightenment as opposed to that of the public:

"It is difficult for the isolated individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become most natural for him... but it is more nearly possible for a public to enlighten itself." (146)

He says that once an individual gets into a pattern of immaturity, he or she becomes comfortable relying on external sources for knowledge. Individuals fear relying on their own faculties because there is a chance that they may find personal inadequacies. No one wants to be wrong. Therefore, "only a few...have pursued a firm path and have succeeded in escaping from immaturity by their own cultivation of the mind." (146)

Although he doesn't say so explicitly, Kant's explanation of the sources of immaturity - cowardice, laziness - implies that an individual can only achieve personal enlightenment if he or she possesses the qualities of bravery and diligence. (145)

As was previously alluded to, Kant believes that it is far easier for a public to reach enlightenment. In fact, he even goes so far as to say that "[public enlightenment] is even inescapable if only the public is given its freedom." (146) The reader is initially struck with the extremeness of this declaration, but Kant's statement becomes more logical following further explanation.

He says that although it is easier for a public to reach enlightenment than for an individual, it is only possible as a gradual change. (147) Further clarity is shed upon Kant's view by his definition of freedom and how it ought to-and ought not-be used.

"All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all matters... the public use of a man's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment among men: while the private use of a man's reason may often be restricted rather narrowly without thereby unduly hampering the progress of enlightenment." (147)

By this, Kant means that men can and must exercise their reason in public arenas such as newspaper editorials, public debates, and similar activities. If enough individuals act in the same way over a period of time, their will be enacted by those in a position of authority.

However, Kant is careful to point out the distinction between the public use of freedom as opposed to the private use of freedom. While Kant deems the public use of freedom as a necessary element of mankind's journey toward enlightenment, he explains that private use of freedom is entirely inappropriate. Once again, it is essential that the reader understand what Kant means by the "private use of freedom." Kant presents a rather helpful example:

"A clergyman is obliged to teach his pupils and his congregation according to the doctrine of the church which he serves, for he has been accepted on that condition. But as a scholar, he has full freedom, in fact, even the obligation, to communicate to the public all his diligently examined and well-intentioned thoughts concerning erroneous points in that doctrine and concerning proposals regarding the better institution of religious and ecclesiastical matters." (148)

While it is unacceptable for the priest to preach his displeasure to his congregation, he is free to (and ought to) write a critique on the specific points of his dissatisfaction so that they may be examined by those superior to him.

It becomes evident to the reader that Kant draws a line between the freedom to express one's opinions as opposed to the freedom to act according to such opinions. To Kant, it is essential that individuals obey the established laws of their society because doing otherwise undermines all authority of such a legal structure. A disobedient society cannot achieve enlightenment. (150)

Immanuel Kant lived in a world where monarchy was a widely accepted (and practiced) form of government, much unlike the modern world. This may lead one to question whether Kant's prescribed process for the societal achievement of enlightenment can be applied to the democratic world. The answer is most certainly no. The reasoning behind this answer is inarguable.

In Kant's essay, he mentions the counterproductive nature of revolutions: "Through revolution... new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as the guiding reigns of the great, unthinking mass." (147) One of the most distinguishing characteristics between a democracy and a monarchy is enfranchisement. Through the right to vote, citizens have the ability to act to initiate a full exchange of one administration for another after a single term of only a few years. Therefore, the voting and inauguration of a new leader every several years is, in principal, a revolution. If a majority of the public is dissatisfied with the incumbent administration, they have the ability to remove them from office and bring in an entirely new set of individuals with their own opinions, agendas, etc. Therefore, although Kant's theory of enlightenment seems logical and rather feasible, it is completely contingent on the situation to which it is applied. In a monarchical society, slow change based on the public use of freedom is reasonable-and perhaps the most efficient way to enact change. However, in the modern democratic system, the slow process of public enlightenment of which Kant writes is entirely impossible.

Kant, Immanuel. "An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"." Sapere aude!. 29 Feb 2008 .