Kant: What is Enlightenment (He Zhaowu and Li Minghui Translation)

This article is based on the Philosophical Gate

Kant: What is enlightenment?

Translation by Lee Ming-fai

Enlightenment is man's detachment from his own incured juvenile status. The juvenile state is the state of incompetence without the guidance of others, that is, the inability to use one's own intellect. If the cause of the juvenile state is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of determination and courage to use the intellect without relying on the guidance of others, this juvenile state is self-induced. Be curious! Summon up the courage to use your intellect! This is the motto of enlightenment.

Why is it that the vast majority of people are still willing to remain underage for the rest of their lives after nature has freed them from the guidance of others (natural adults)? Why do others so easily claim to be guardians of those people? The reason for this is laziness and cowardice. The underage state is extremely comfortable. If I had a book (which had the intellect I needed), a pastor (who had the conscience I needed), a doctor (who made trade-offs for my diet), and so on, I wouldn't even have to do it myself. If I could just pay the bill, I wouldn't have to think about it, and someone else would work for me.

The vast majority of people, including all women, in addition to thinking that moving toward adulthood is a nuisance, also consider it dangerous. Those guardians have taken note of this and have been very kindly entrusted with the responsibility of supervising them. These guardians first make their domestic animals ignorant and are wary of these quiet creatures daring to take a step out of their walkers (which they keep in); and then they point out to the animals the dangers that threaten them when they try to walk independently, and these dangers are certainly not very great, because after a few falls they will eventually learn to walk; but one such example makes them cringe and often deters all further attempts.

Therefore, it is difficult for every individual person to break free from the juvenile state that has almost become his nature. He even likes this state, and is currently actually incapable of using his intellect, because no one has ever let them try it. The rational use of these rational mechanical tools of regulation and ritual is a constant shackle (or rather misuse) of juvenile status. Whoever removes these shackles will have to falter even the narrowest ditch, because he has not yet become accustomed to this free movement. As a result, only a few people are able to escape from their juvenile status on their own spiritual cultivation and still have difficulty.

But public self-enlightenment is more likely. As long as we let them have freedom, it's even almost inevitable. For there will always be a number of independent thinkers (even among guardians) who, after removing themselves from the shackles of their juvenile status, will spread the spirit of a rational respect for the unique values of each individual and a very independent thinking vocation.

In this case in particular, these guardians initially impose this shackle on the public, and then the public is incited by a number of their completely incompetent self-enlightened guardians to force themselves to remain in the shackles. Indoctrinating stereotypes is extremely harmful, because these stereotypes come to their own devices and their creators and heirs. Therefore, the public can only gradually reach enlightenment.

A revolution may be free from personal dictatorship and greed or power-hungry oppression, but it will never produce a real revolution of thinking, but a new stereotype, together with the old one, serves as a toddler for the thoughtless masses.

But what is needed for this enlightenment is nothing more than freedom, and it is the most harmless of all that can really be called freedom, that is, the freedom to apply its reason openly in all respects. But now I hear cries everywhere: Don't think rationally! The officer said: Don't think rationally, train! The tax collector said: Don't think rationally, pay taxes! The priest said: Do not think rationally, but believe! (There is a monarch in the world who said: Whatever you think, how much you think, think rationally, but obey!) There are restrictions on freedom everywhere.

But what restrictions hinder enlightenment? What kind of restrictions not only do not hinder enlightenment, but even contribute to enlightenment?

I replied that the open application of reason must always be free, and that only such application could bring about enlightenment among human beings; but the private application of reason can often be severely restricted, without thus particularly hindering the development of enlightenment.

But "the public application of one's own reason" I mean the application of one's reason to the general public of the reader's world as a scholar. And the application of reason which he may have made in a given public office or office is what I call the private application.

Thus, some things that concern the interests of the group require a system through which several members of the group simply act passively so that the Government, through an artificial coordination, can make them serve public ends or prevent them from undermining them. Rational thinking is certainly not allowed here, but we must obey. But as long as some members of the system also consider themselves members of the whole group, even members of society of the world's citizens, and thus have the status of scholars, they can indeed apply rational thinking, without the consequent affairs that they engage in part of the time as passive members.

Therefore, if an officer's commander orders him to do something, and he loudly criticizes the appropriateness or advantage of the order during his service time, it will be extremely harmful and he must obey. However, he could not reasonably be barred from commenting as a scholar on errors in military affairs and from making them available to the public for adjudication.

A citizen may not refuse to pay taxes, or even blame him for taking the liberty of imposing such obligations when he should be discharging them, which may be seen as a ridiculous act and punishable (which will provoke widespread revolt). Nevertheless, if the same citizen, as a scholar, publicly expresses his or her thoughts on the inappropriateness or even injustice of such taxes, he is not in breach of his duty as a citizen.

Similarly, a priest is obliged to address the students of his catechism and the members of his diocese in accordance with the doctrine of the Church he serves, since he is employed under this condition. But as a scholar, he possessed complete freedom, even a vocation, to make public his ideas about the erroneous elements of that doctrine (which were carefully deliberate and well-intentioned) and his proposals for a more arranged matter of religion and the church. There is no place to blame for conscience here.

For he did not have the right, according to his ideas, to teach in the performance of his office as an agent of the Church, but he was instructed to expound them in the name of another person as prescribed. He will say that our church teaches this or that doctrine, and that is the argument he uses. So he sought all practical benefits from the rules of the Church for the members of his diocese. He himself does not wholeheartedly endorse these regulations, but he can still volunteer to expound them, for it is not entirely impossible to imply truth in them. In any case, at least there is no contradiction with the inner religion. For if he believes that in it he finds a contradiction with the inner religion, he cannot perform his office in good conscience, and he must resign.

Thus, an employed teacher uses reason in the presence of the faithful of his diocese, but only as a private application. For although there are many of these believers, they have always formed only an internal assembly. And in this respect, as a priest, he has no freedom, nor can he have freedom, because he is carrying out a commission of others. Conversely, as scholars speaking to the real (i.e., the world), the priest enjoys an unrestricted freedom to use his own reason and to speak in his own personality when he applies his reason openly. For it is absurd to say that the guardian of the people (in religious affairs) himself is underage, and the result is that the absurdity will perpetuate forever.

But is it possible that a community of clergy— such as a council of elders, or a noble "Crasses" (as the Dutch themselves call it) — have the right to obey by oath to an immutable doctrine in order to exercise supreme custody over each of its members and thus supreme guardianship over the people, and even to perpetuate that supreme guardianship? I said, there's no way it's possible. If mankind signs such a contract to forever curb all further enlightenment, it is null and void— even if it is ratified by the highest power, by the Imperial Diet, and by the most solemn peace treaty. One epoch cannot unite, vowing to place the next in a state where it is impossible to expand its knowledge (especially the most essential knowledge), to cleanse away mistakes, and to really make progress in enlightenment. This is contrary to human nature, which is the original destiny of human nature, and therefore future generations have every right to reject those resolutions as an ultra vires and evil way.

The litmus of what kind of resolution can be adopted as a law of the people lies in the following questions:

Can the people take on such a law themselves? Now, for a particular short period of time, it is indeed possible to introduce some kind of order (as if expecting a better state). Thus, we allow every citizen (especially the clergy) to make his or her comments publicly (i.e., in his writings) in his capacity as scholars, of the faults of the current system, and the existing order continues until the public's knowledge of the peculiarities of these matters has been so well understood and justified that this understanding can make a recommendation to the monarch by unifying his voices , if not all voices — in order to protect, for example, those who have agreed to a changed religious system according to the concepts better understood by them, But it does not deter those who are willing to remain consistent.

But it is absolutely inadmissible to agree to a permanent religious charter (even if only within the life of a person) that does not allow anyone to openly doubt, and thus to reduce a period of time in the process of human progress, and to make it futile and, for the sake of it, even to the detriment of future generations. It is true that a man may, for himself, and only for a certain period of time, delay the enlightenment in matters which he should know; but to abandon the enlightenment (whether personally, or even to future generations) is tantamount to violating and trampling on the divine rights of man. However, the people cannot decide for themselves, and a monarch cannot decide for them; for his legislative authority lies precisely in the fact that he unites the whole will of the people in his will. If he pays attention only to making all real or imaginary improvements compatible with the order of the citizens, he can also let his subjects do what they think needs to be done for the blessing of the soul.

This is not his business; but he must prevent one from violently preventing another from doing his best to decide and promote the blessing of his soul. This would even undermine the sovereign's influence if he considered that the writings of his subjects in order to clarify their views should be monitored by his government and thus involved in the above matters. Thus he was accused, either out of his own best opinion, of being "Caesar not superior to the grammarians"; or even he relegated his supreme power to such an extent that he supported the religious dictatorship of a number of oppressors in his country against the rest of his subjects.

If now someone asks whether we are living in an enlightened era. The answer is: No! But we live in an age of enlightenment. As it stands, it seems that there is still a long way to go if all mankind is able (or even if possible) to use his own intellect properly in religious affairs without the guidance of others and with confidence. Yet we have seen clear signs that a field of freedom for humanity to work in this direction is now unfolding before mankind, and that the obstacles to universal enlightenment (or detachment of human beings from their own immaturity) are gradually decreasing. In this respect, this epoch was the Age of Enlightenment, or frederick's Century.

If a prince says that he considers himself obliged to make no provisions on the people in religious affairs, but to make them completely free in this respect, without feeling that this is a loss of identity, and therefore refuses to accept the name of arrogant "tolerance", then he himself is enlightened and should win the praise of the benevolent world and the hereafter, for he first freed mankind from his juvenile state (at least in the government) and allowed everyone to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, the venerable clergy, in spite of their duties, could freely and openly proclaim for examination their judgments and opinions, which were occasionally incompatible with established dogmas, and all others who were not bound by their duties could do so, and this spirit of freedom spread abroad, even though abroad it had to struggle with the external obstacles created by a government that misunderstood its functions. For this government has an example to prove that freedom does not have the slightest fear for the public stability and unity of the community. As long as we do not deliberately leave human beings in an uncivilized state, they will gradually get rid of this state on their own.

I have focused the main thrust of enlightenment (the detachment of human beings from their own immaturity) primarily on religious matters. For our rulers have no interest in acting as guardians of their subjects with regard to art and science; moreover, the religious state of underage is the most pernicious and shameful of all minors. But a pro-religious head of state went a step further and learned that it was not dangerous to allow his subjects to openly use their own reasons in their legislation and to make public (even a frank critique of existing laws) the best way to draw up laws. We have a striking example of this in which no monarch has surpassed the one we love.

But only a self-enlightened man, who is not afraid of apparitions, and who at the same time has a well-trained and numerous army to ensure public security, can say what a republic would dare not say: No matter how much you have to think and what you think, think rationally! But obey!

Thus here is revealed a strange and unexpected process of human affairs, as is the case when we usually observe it in general –almost everything is paradoxical here. A greater degree of civil liberties seems to benefit the spiritual freedom of the people, but imposes insurmountable restrictions on it. Conversely, a smaller degree of civil liberties provides room to fully exert spiritual freedom. When nature liberates in this hard shell the sprouts (i.e., the tendencies and vocations of free thought) which it cares for, it gradually turns back to affect the disposition of the people (which are thus slowly capable of acting freely), and finally even the principles of government,it finds that it is good for it to treat him in accordance with human dignity (he is now not only a machine).

Prussia Königberg September 30, 1784

Posted on 2020-04-16 00:52

Translation by He Zhaowu

The Enlightenment is the detachment of human beings from the immaturity they have imposed on themselves, and the immaturity is the inability to use their own intellect without being guided by others. When the cause is not a lack of reason, but a lack of courage and determination to apply it without being guided by others, then this state of immaturity is imposed on oneself. Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own sanity! This was the slogan of the Enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so many people, when nature has already released them from the outside world (naturaliter maiorennes), are still willing to remain immature for life, and why others so easily seem to think of themselves as their protectors. Being immature is so comfortable. If I have a book that can understand for me, a priest who can have a conscience for me, a doctor who can prescribe recipes for me, and so on; then I don't have to worry about myself. As long as it works for me, I don't have to think about it: someone else would do such a nerve-wracking thing for me.

The vast majority of people (including all women) consider coming into maturity to be very difficult and dangerous, and this has long been noticed by every well-intentioned protector who is engaged in their guardianship. The protectors are first and foremost to make their cattle stupid, and to be careful not to take the risk of taking a step out of the wagon that locks them; They are then pointed out to the kind of dangers that threaten them when they try to walk alone. But this danger is actually not so great, because they can finally learn to walk after a few falls; but once such an instance is frightening and often too frightened to try again.

It is very difficult for any individual to struggle out of a state of immaturity that has almost become his own nature. He even loves it, and indeed cannot use his own intellect for the time being, for he has never been allowed to make such an attempt. The rational use of regulations and formulas, or rather misuse, of mechanical products of his divisions is a perpetual immaturity. Whoever abandons it is nothing more than making an unreliable leap on a very narrow ditch, for he is not accustomed to such free movements. Therefore, only a very small number of people can get rid of immaturity through their own spiritual struggle, and thus take practical steps.

However, it is very likely that the public will enlighten itself; As long as they are allowed to be free, it is indeed almost inevitable. For even among the protectors established for the masses, there will always be people with independent thoughts; Having thrown off the shackles of immaturity, they themselves spread the spirit of a rational assessment of their own worth and of each person whose duty lies in thinking of himself. Of particular note is this: the public was bound by them, but when some of their protectors (who could not have any enlightenment in themselves) encouraged them, they were forced to be among themselves; The planting of prejudice is so harmful, because they have finally taken revenge on those who were their instigators or the forerunners of their instigators. Thus the public can only be enlightened very slowly. It may be possible to overthrow the oppression of individual despotism and greed and power through a revolution, but it will never achieve a real reform of the way of thinking; And the new prejudices, like the old ones, will become a trap for navigating the vast number of people who lack ideas.

However, this Enlightenment did not need anything other than freedom, and it was indeed the most harmless of all that could be called freedom, that is, the freedom to apply its reason openly in all things. But I heard shouts from all sides: No arguments! The officer said: No arguments, only practice! The tax collector said: No arguments, only taxes. The priest said: No argument, only faith. (There is only one monarch in the world who says: You can argue, argue as much as you want, argue whatever you want, but be obedient!) Monarch refers to King Frederick of Prussia) and there were restrictions on liberty everywhere.

But which restrictions hinder enlightenment, and which are not, but are sufficient to promote it?—— I replied: there must always be freedom to use one's reason openly, and that only it can bring about human enlightenment. The private use of one's own reason is often limited to narrowness, although it does not particularly hinder the progress of the Enlightenment. The open use of one's own reason, as I understand it, refers to the kind of application that anyone, as a scholar, can do in front of an entire audience. The rationality that a person can use in a certain public office or position to which he or she is appointed is what I call the private application.

As far as many things concerning the interests of the Community are concerned, then we must have a certain machine on which some members of the Community must maintain a purely negative attitude so that they, by a contrived unity, are led by government to the public purpose, or at least to prevent the sabotage of that purpose. There is indeed no room for debate on this; It's that people have to obey. But as far as this part of the machine is concerned, it is absolutely negotiable as a member of the whole community, and even as a member of the world's civil society, and thus as a scholar by writing to the public in the strict sense, without prejudice to the kind of undertaking which he undertakes as a passive member. Therefore, it would be very bad for a serving officer to accept an order from his superiors and argue with his superiors about the purposefulness or usefulness of the order; he must obey. But when he, as a scholar, comments on errors in military operations and submits them to the public for judgment, he cannot be openly prohibited. A citizen cannot refuse to pay the amount of tax imposed on him; he is guilty of provoking trouble against such taxes imposed on him, and can even be punished as defamation(which may provoke widespread revolt).

However, the same man, as a scholar, openly expressed his opinion, protesting that this taxation was not the same as the impropriety and unfairness, and that his actions did not violate the duties of citizens. In the same way, a pastor is obliged to report to the students of his catechism class and his congregation in accordance with the doctrine of the church he serves, for he is approved on this condition.

But as a scholar, he had the full freedom, even the duty, to convey to the public all his well-thought-out opinions on the shortcomings of that doctrine and his proposals for better organization of religious and ecclesiastical communities. There was nothing in it that could burden his conscience. For he regards what he teaches as a church worker in relation to his office as something that he himself does not have the right to teach according to his own will; He was ordained to speak according to the instructions of others and in the name of others. He will say: Our church teaches these or those; here is the argument they are quoting.

He then draws forth from the provisions which he himself does not approve of with complete conviction, though he is well placed responsible for his preaching—for it is not entirely impossible that there is also truth hidden in them, and in any case at least nothing contrary to the religion of the heart is found in them,—— eliciting all practical value for his hearers. For if he believes that anything contrary to his inner religion can be found in it, then he cannot perform his duties according to his conscience, and he must resign. The application of reason by an inaugural teacher to his congregation is purely a private application; For it is often just a family gathering, no matter how big it is; and in this respect he is not free as a pastor, nor can he be free, because he is conveying the commission of others.

Conversely, when a scholar speaks to the true public, that is, to the whole world, through his own writings, the priest enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason in the public application of his reason, and to speak in his own name. Because the protector of the people (in spiritual matters) is not mature in himself, it can be reduced to an absurdity, an absurdity that will last forever.

But does a community of priests, a synod or a venerable court (as they profess among the Dutch) have the right to swear an obligation between themselves to an unchanging doctrine in order to exercise eternal guardianship, and even perpetuation, over each of its members and, consequently, the whole people? I would say: this is completely impossible. Such a contract, which forever seals against humanity any further enlightenment, is absolutely null and void, even if it is affirmed by the highest power, by Congress and by the most solemn peace treaty. An epoch must not oblige itself and thus swear to place the later epoch in a state in which it is by no means possible to expand its (especially very urgent) knowledge, to clear away errors and to continue to progress in enlightenment in general. This would be a crime against human nature, and the original vocation of human nature lies precisely in this progress; Future generations are therefore fully entitled to reject such provisions, adopted in an unfounded and criminal manner.

The touchstone of anything that a nation can be summed up as a law lies in the question: Can a nation impose such a law on itself? It may, for a limited short period of time, seem to be expecting something better, in order to facilitate the imposition of a system in which every citizen, especially a priest, is free to speak openly, as a scholar, that is, through writings, of the shortcomings of the present organization. This new system will continue until the insight into the nature of such things has come so openly and confirmed that, through their call for unity (even if they are not identical), proposals can be made to the throne in order to protect this concept, which is based on their better insights, combined into another religious organization that has changed, without prejudice to those who still wish to remain in the old organization. But to unify into a fixed religious system that no one can openly doubt (even throughout one's entire life) is thus as inadmissible as it has wiped out an entire epoch of human progress towards improvement, and thus causes damage to future generations and renders them nothing,—— which is absolutely inadmissible. A man can indeed postpone the enlightenment of things which he is obliged to know for himself and only for a certain period of time; However, to abandon it is a violation and a violation of the divine rights of mankind, both for himself and, for future generations.

And for what the people cannot prescribe for themselves, a monarch cannot prescribe to his people; For his legislative prestige depends entirely on him to combine the will of the whole people into his own will. If he takes care to make all real or claimed improvements in connection with the civil order, then in addition he can leave to his subjects what they must do to teach their souls; This has nothing to do with him, although he must guard against anyone forcibly hindering others from making such decisions and promoting this salvation according to their own full talents. If he intervenes in such matters, he will judge the works by which his subjects are judged by the supervision of the government; and as he did so from his highest point of view, subjecting himself to the "Caesar non estt supra grammaticos" (Caesar is not superior to the grammarian); That would be detrimental to his majesty. It would be even worse if he reduced his supreme power to the point of supporting some tyrants in his own country in exercising spiritual despotism against the rest of his subjects.

If someone asks now, "Are we living in an enlightened age?" The answer, then, is: "Not really, but indeed in an age of enlightenment." The present situation is that there is much lacking in human beings, if they are generally in, or merely in a state in which they can use their intellect accurately and well in religious matters without the guidance of others. But now that the realm has been opened to them, they are free to work on it, and the obstacles to the general enlightenment, or to the freedom from the immaturity they have imposed on themselves, have gradually decreased; We all have clear signals about that. In this respect, this epoch is the Epoch of Enlightenment, or rather frederick's Century.

A monarch who does not claim to be disproportionate to himself: he considers it his duty to never prescribe to men in religious matters, but to give them full freedom, but he even refuses to tolerate the proud name; the monarch himself is enlightened, and deserves to be honored with gratitude by the hereafter to take the lead in freeing mankind, at least from the point of view of power, from a state of immaturity, And to make everyone free to use his own inherent reason in any matter concerning conscience. Under his rule, honorable priests can freely and openly offer to the whole world, as scholars, all their judgments and opinions, here or there, that deviate from established doctrine to test, without prejudice to their duties: this is all the more so with respect to the others who are not bound by any duty. This spirit of freedom also extends outward, even to the point where it is bound to clash with the external impediment of a regime that misunderstands itself. For it sets an example for such a regime that freedom is not at all concerned with public tranquility and the unity of the community. Only when man ceases to consciously try to keep mankind in a state of barbarism will mankind slowly emerge from it by his own efforts.

I place the emphasis of the Enlightenment, i.e., the liberation of human beings from the immaturity they have imposed on themselves, primarily in religious matters, because our rulers have no interest in the arts and sciences in exercising their responsibilities to their subjects; Moreover, this state of immaturity is both the most harmful and the most shameful of all. But a state leader who shelters the arts and sciences has a way of thinking that he sees no danger even in his legislation allowing his subjects to openly use their own reasons and openly present to the world their views on better codification of laws, or even to criticize existing laws outright. In this respect, we have a shining example, and the monarch we respect (referring to King Frederick of Prussia) is beyond which no other monarch can surpass.

But only the monarch, who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of ghosts, and who at the same time has in his hands a large and well-trained army in his hands to guarantee public tranquility, can say such things that a free country would not dare to say: arguing, arguing as much as you want, arguing at will; But obedience must be obeyed. This marks a surprising and unpredictable process of human affairs; Just as when we look at it as a whole, almost everything is a paradox. A greater degree of civil liberties seems to be a freedom conducive to the spirit of the people, but it sets insurmountable limits; Conversely, a lesser degree of civil liberties opens up room for everyone to use their talents. For when, underneath this hard shell, nature opens the sprouts which she has taken so carefully into account for, that is, the tendencies and tasks of freedom of thought, it will gradually react to the psyche of the people (so that they may slowly grasp freedom); and finally it will also react to the principles of power, so that it will see man in accordance with human dignity, that man is not merely a machine, and that it is in the interest of the regime itself.

K?nigsberg in Preu?en, 30 Septemb. 1784.

I. Kant.