"Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?" (German: "Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?") is the title of a 1784 essay An essay is usually a short piece of writing which is quite often written from an author's personal point of view. Essays can consist of a number of elements, including: literary criticism, political manifestos, learned arguments, observations of daily life, recollections, and reflections of the author. The definition of an essay is vague, by the philosopher Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg. Kant was the last influential philosopher of modern Europe in the classic sequence of the theory of knowledge during the Enlightenment beginning with thinkers John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. In the December 1784 publication of the Berlinische Monatsschrift (Berlin Monthly), edited by Friedrich Gedike and Johann Erich Biester, Kant replied to the question posed a year earlier by the Reverend Johann Friedrich Zöllner, who was also an official in the Prussian government. Zöllner's question was addressed to a broad intellectual public, in reply to Biester's essay entitled: "Proposal, not to engage the clergy any longer when marriages are conducted" (April 1783) and a number of leading intellectuals replied with essays, of which Kant's is the most famous and has had the most impact. 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 Paternalism refers to an attitude or a policy reminiscent of the hierarchic pattern of a family based on patriarchy. The term may be used derogatorily to characterize attitudes or political systems that are thought to deprive individuals of freedom and responsibility, only nominally serving their interests, while in fact pursuing another agenda be abolished and people be given the freedom to use their own intellect. Kant praised Frederick II of Prussia Frederick II was a King of Prussia (1740–1786) from the Hohenzollern dynasty. In his role as a prince-elector of the Holy Roman Empire, he was Frederick IV (Friedrich IV.) of Brandenburg. He was in personal union the sovereign prince of the Principality of Neuchâtel. He became known as Frederick the Great (Friedrich der Große) and was 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.
Contents |
Basic understanding
Kant answers the question quite succinctly 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. Our fear of thinking for ourselves. He exclaims that the motto of enlightenment is “Sapere aude”! – Dare to know! The German word Unmündigkeit means not having attained age of majority The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized in law. It is the chronological moment when a minor ceases to legally be considered a child and assumes control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them. The or legal adulthood. It is sometimes also translated as "tutelage" or "nonage" (the condition of "not [being] of age"). Kant, whose moral philosophy is centred around the concept of autonomy In the subfield of Sociology called Sociology of knowledge, controversy over the boundaries of autonomy stopped at the concept of relative autonomy , until a typology of autonomy was created and developed within science and technology studies (MARANHÃO, 2005; 2006; 2007; SOBRAL & MARANHÃO, 2008). According to it, the contemporary form of, is distinguishing here between a person who is intellectually autonomous and one who keeps him/herself in an intellectually heteronymous, i.e. dependent and immature status. Kant understands the majority of people to be imprisoned by the guiding forces of society, such as the Church and the Monarchy, and therefore unable to throw off the yoke of their immaturity due to a lack of courage and 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 that we have been given all our lives, we would still be stuck, because we have never “cultivated our minds.” 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 guardians, who think only for themselves. They will help the rest of us to “cultivate our minds.” Then Kant shows he is a man of his times when he says: “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 seems to be criticising the recently completed American Revolution, but he points out that new prejudice will replace the old and will become a new leash to control the “great unthinking masses.”
Private and Public use of reasoning
Private use of reason is doing something because we have to. For example, rational workers in a specific occupation use private reasoning to complete tasks. Public use of reason is doing something on the public sphere because we choose to improve our private function.
No matter how much one may disagree with his/her own function/job, the task must be completed for society to flow consistently. They may, however, use public reasoning in order to complain about the function in the public sphere.
A military officer is required to obey the orders of his superiors. A clergyman is required to teach the doctrines the church that employs him. But the responsibilities of their office do not preclude them from publicly voicing any opinions that may conflict with those responsibilities. We expect office holders to stay in character at all times, but Kant gives examples. A clergyman is not free to make use of his reason in the execution of his duties, but as “a scholar addressing the real public through his writings, the clergyman making public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak in his own person.”
Kant and Religion
Staying on the religious theme, Kant asks if 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 “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 doesn’t allow public comment and criticism. If one was 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.” If Enlightenment is man's emergence from his ‘self incurred immaturity’ and the guiding forces of society, then simply put: 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 to ascent a set of beliefs which hinder the development of your reason. It is in man's interest to surpass those that prevent him from using his own reason.
Kant and Frederick the Great
Then Kant segues to the subject of his monarch, Frederick the Great. He states that a monarch should allow his subjects to do or think whatever they find necessary for their salvation, and that such thoughts and deeds are “none of his business.” 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 people’s 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.”
Kant and Orientation in Thinking
Orientation in thinking links very much with direction of thought: on what basis does our thought path determine the way we act?
This is split into two conceptions, theoretical and practical thinking. Theoretical thinking is the laws of thought, it is subjective (so an assumption) but must be established to prevent us from falling into chaos, a key example of this is the idea of an intelligible first cause and development of our moral attitudes. Practical thinking is the application of theoretical thinking to your thoughts, with which we can ensure the basis of moral laws through the concepts of freedom, highest good and happiness.
Kant and Historical Development
Humanity as a species requires historical development to become autonomous, for reason does not work instinctively; it requires trial, practice and instruction to allow it to progress. ‘Argue as much as you like, but obey’ as, through opposition, a synthesis can develop. Resistance is needed for development.
Kant's last thought is nicely wrapped up in this patchwork sentence. “Once . . . man’s inclination . . . to think freely has developed . . . it reacts upon the mentality of the people, who . . . become increasingly able to act freely.”
Related topics
- Age of Enlightenment The Age of Enlightenment is the era in Western philosophy and intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority
- Anti-intellectualism Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternately, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to strict standards of rigorous
- Golden Age of Freethought
- Higher criticism Historical criticism, higher criticism, or the historical-critical method is a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text. As applied in biblical studies it investigates the books of the Bible and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. In Classical studies,
- Natural philosophy Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature , is a term applied to the study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics
- Self-efficacy Self-efficacy has been defined in a variety of ways: as the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals, as a person’s belief about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. It is a belief that one has the capabilities to
External links
Categories: Essays Categories: Literature by genre | Non-fiction literature | The Enlightenment Categories: Historical eras | Western culture | Western art | Religion and politics | Religion and society | Freedom of expression | Secularism | Separation of church and state | 18th-century philosophy | 1784 books | Books by Immanuel Kant | Books on historiography | Enlightenment philosophy Categories: The Enlightenment | Modern philosophy | Western philosophy | Scientific revolution Categories: History of science | Philosophy of science | The Enlightenment | Revolutions
Dr. Alex Grobman
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:42:33 GM
The idea that the . Enlightenment. would usher in an era where bigotry and prejudice would be replaced with tolerance and moderation turned out to be a fantasy. For Jews, it was an especial failure because in the 18th century Jews still ...
