Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?”
An Examination of Kant’s Most Influential Essay
In 1784, Immanuel Kant wrote What is Enlightenment? in response to the question posed by the Berlinische Monatsschrift (a monthly magazine) concerning the nature of enlightenment. This blog post will examine Kant’s essay, providing an analysis of Kant’s perspective.
**Note One: While various translations of What is Enlightenment? exist, I will be utilizing the translation that employs the term “tutelage” in the opening sentence, in contrast to the more widely accepted translation using word “immaturity”.
**Note Two: My PDF copy of What is Enlightenment? was given to me from a former professor, and I will be reaching out to obtain the proper citation (as the citation is not listed on my PDF).
So, let’s answer the question: Was ist Äufklarung?
Kant begins his essay by immediately defining enlightenment:
Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.
We rarely incorporate the word “tutelage” into our everyday speech, so it is necessary to define the term. A quick Google search defines tutelage as the “protection of or authority over someone or something.” In the following sentence, Kant defines tutelage in the context of human reason:
Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.
Hence, the inverse is true: enlightenment entails an individual’s ability to employ their understanding without relying on guidance or authority from others. We frequently encounter those all too familiar phrases about people relying on guidance from others and the necessity to ‘break free’:
- Be a leader, not a follower
- Don’t be a sheep
- Think outside the box
- Forge your own path
- Think for yourself (even the Beatles have a song about this)
Kant is not merely expressing that guidance is troublesome in the sense that one should never take the advice of others. Instead, Kant is arguing that the issue lies in “self-incurred” tutelage.
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.
This is why the term “immaturity” is not accurate. Immaturity denotes the state of not being fully grown or mature, a condition not inherently self-inflicted or necessitating authority. In fact, immaturity is typically overcome and reshaped with life experience. For our purposes, the word “tutelage” proves more fitting as Kant is asserting the inability of an individual to use their own reason due to their dependence on others.
At any rate, Kant continues:
Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment.
**Sapere aude is a Latin phrase meaning “Dare to know”
Kant elucidates that “laziness” and “cowardice” are the factors that lead individuals to persist in a state of “lifelong tutelage.” This is especially true after “nature has long since discharged [one] from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes)”. The term naturaliter maiorennes is employed to signify a natural transition to maturity. While it is undeniable that nature plays a role in shaping our identities, there comes a point in one’s life where they cease to be dependent, like that of infants, and must autonomously navigate their own journey.
However, due to the simplicity of succumbing to laziness and cowardice, it becomes progressively effortless for someone to establish themselves as the arbiter of authority over another. Kant explains that “it is so easy to not be of age”; if everything is easily handed to me, why should I think for myself?
Kant writes:
If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay — others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.
**Kant suggests that the “far greater portion of mankind” conceptualize the transition to competence as a dangerous journey. He compares the general populace to that of cattle:
After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone.
After the guardians have induced people (sheeple, in this case) to submit to their authority, they subsequently assert that deviating from the established rules and norms is risky — a dangerous endeavor, particularly when attempting to live life without the guidance of an authority. However, Kant emphasizes that “this danger is not so great” because all it takes is one to fall a few times before they learn how to walk alone. This is why an example of this failure, presented by the guardians in an intimidating fashion, makes individuals frightened at the prospect of failure.
**Note: It must be noted that Kant makes a sexist remark by claiming that the entire female population has a particular struggle with the transition to competence. Obviously, this is not something endorsed by this blog, and we ought not make excuses for Kant.
Kant is by no means suggesting that living a life without self-incurred tutelage is easy — especially for those where self-incurred tutelage almost becomes one’s nature:
He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out.
At what point will one make use of their own reason?
Kant gives a metaphorical example about one being thrown:
Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion.
Breaking free from self-incurred tutelage is a challenging, difficult process. It is a jump into the unknown, a risky move across an unfamiliar terrain. Therefore, it is no surprise that there have been only a few “who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace.”
Though Kant is advocating that individual persons ought to employ their own understanding without the self-imposed authority of others, he still finds that the public enlightening itself is more possible. He believes that “if only freedom is granted enlightenment is almost sure to follow.” In any type of society — no matter the type of authority — Kant notes that “there will always be some independent thinkers” who attempt to promote the ability to think for one’s self. Kant writes:
There will always be some independent thinkers, even among the established guardians of the great masses, who, after throwing off the yoke of tutelage from their own shoulders, will disseminate the spirit of the rational appreciation of both their own worth and every man’s vocation for thinking for himself.
Yet, as the general populace is under the guise of the guardians (due to their “self-incurred tutelage”), they will seek to uphold the power of their authority, suppressing dissent on behalf of the guardians.
Therefore:
The public can only slowly attain enlightenment. Perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking. Farther, new prejudices will serve as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses.
Surely, revolutions have occurred in the past, but revolutions do not necessitate that one revolutionizes their way(s) of thinking. (Yes, I will bring up the Beatles again because their song Revolution sums up this point quite clearly.)
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
At any rate, all that enlightenment requires is freedom. Kant explicates:
It is the freedom to make public use of one’s reason at every point.
Though, Kant highlights the fact that in every facet of life, one is told what to do and how to think.
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!”
Kant is correct in saying that “everywhere there is restriction on freedom.” Thus, Kant is right in asking the question:
Which restriction is an obstacle to enlightenment, and which is not an obstacle but a promoter of it?
Obviously, certain rules are necessary to cultivate a harmonious society; so the question as to which restrictions are an obstacle to enlightenment (and which ones are not) remains prevalent. To answer this question, Kant identities two types of reason: public use of reason and private use of reason.
“By the public use of one’s reason,” Kant says, “I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public.” In this sense, Kant is describing freedom that is exercised when addressing the public through writings. (I will give an example below)
On the other hand, private use of reason is “that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him.” In this sense, there are those in positions of power who do not have the capacity to challenge authority — they must be confined to the established rules and norms without engaging in public dissent. Kant explains that:
Many affairs which are conducted in the interest of the community require a certain mechanism through which some members of the community must passively conduct themselves with an artificial unanimity, so that the government may direct them to public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying those ends.
Thus, in the case of private use of reason, “argument is certainly not allowed — one must obey.”
Kant illustrates the distinction between private and public use of reason through the example of a military officer following orders from a superior. In the private use of reason, an officer is required to follow the command without contesting it — the officer must obey. However, the officer retains the ability to challenge and discuss the errors in their superior’s commands by presenting these concerns as a scholar in a public forum. Many officers actively participate in public forums, vote, and engage in other civic activities, exercising their public use of reason beyond their immediate military duties.
Another example that Kant illustrates is the payment of taxes. In the private use of reason, “the citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him” — these taxes are necessary for the function of government. However, “as a scholar, [the taxpayer] publicly expresses [their] thoughts on the inappropriateness or even the injustices of these levies.”
The final example that Kant gives is that of a clergyman who, through private use of reason, gives his sermon and conforms “to the symbol of the church.” Yet, through public use of reason, the clergyman is able to communicate to the public how to best organize and structure the church.
In these instances, individuals follow instructions in the private use of reason adn question those instructions as scholars in public discourse. In such cases, “there is nothing that could be imposed as a burden on their conscience.”
Continuing with the example of the clergyman, we must recognize that if the clergyman were truly teaching something that were against their religious beliefs, “[the priest] could not conscientiously discharge the duties of his office; [the priest] would have to give it up.” Yet, most priests would rather not give up the role by choosing to give the sermons they are required to give, then through public use of reason, challenge some facets of the teachings or organization(s) of the church. Kant writes:
As a priest, he is not free, nor can he be free, because he carries out the orders of another. But as a scholar, whose writings speak to his public, the world, the clergyman in the public use of his reason enjoys an unlimited freedom to use his own reason to speak in his own person
Kant continues to describe how societies of clergymen and organizations tend to make binding oaths where they conform to a set of unchanging beliefs which controls its members indefinitely — serving as an attempt to block future enlightenment. However, Kant finds these efforts to be heavily problematic:
Such contract, made to shut off all further enlightenment from the human race, is absolutely null and void even if confirmed by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most ceremonious of peace treaties.
In this context, Kant is problematizing the concept of comprehensive religious doctrines, or more broadly, overarching and totalizing forms of thought. To prevent individuals from ever seeking enlightenment “would be a crime against human nature.”
Now, the ultimate question resides in what one is able to define as a legitimate law. Kant explains:
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.
If a law can be established based on individual’s reasoning alone, it qualifies as a law designed for the people. In contrast, laws enforced by guardians with the intentions of controlling and manipulating others does not hold the same legitimacy. While Kant does not align with religion in the same way as devout believer, he explores the idea of a ‘religious compact’ that, for a limited time, permits an open dialogue within the church. This approach allows for the pursuit of a better future that challenges rigidity and unchanging principles within the church that hinders enlightenment. However, Kant strongly opposes the creation of a permanent, unquestionable religious institution, as it would hinder progress:
To unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public even in the lifetime of one man, and thereby to make a period of time fruitless in the progress of mankind toward improvement, thus working to the disadvantage of posterity — that is absolutely forbidden. (emphasis mine)
Surely, an individual “may postpone enlightenment” but Kant finds that closing off the opportunity for future generations to attain enlightenment is a violation to human rights and a threat to all of humankind:
For himself (and only for a short time) a man may postpone enlightenment in what he ought to know, but to renounce it for posterity is to injure and trample on the rights of mankind.
Kant extends this argument to different systems of governance, asserting that “what a people may not decree for itself can even less be decreed for them by a monarch.” This implies that if a group of people lacks the authority to make a decree, then a single individual, like a monarch, should not have more authority. According to Kant, systems of governance should not dictate matters of spiritual welfare since it falls outside of their domain. Leaders risk compromising their authority by intervening in spirutal affairs:
To meddle in these matters lowers his own majesty, since by the writings in which his own subjects seek to present their views he may evaluate his own governance.
Should a leader interfere in spiritual affairs, the governed might witthold their genuine opintions, distorting the perception of the leader’s true governance. Although Kant does not explicitly state this, I believe that people would perceive the leader as spiritually illegitimate if they enforced specific regions; for example, if one practices Christianity but the leader imposed Hinduism, this can cause tension. Such actions could diminish the leader’s perceived power.
Kant uses the phrase, Caesar non est supra grammaticos, which is Latin for, Caesar is not above the grammarians. This phrase is utilized to show that all leaders — even those as powerful as Caesar — are not exempt from criticism.
At this juncture, we must ask the question: “Do we now live in an enlightened age?”
“No”, Kant replies, “but we do live in an age of enlightenment.”
Kant posits this question to showcase that enlightenment is very much possible, but a difficult endeavor:
As things now stand, much is lacking which prevents men from being, or easily becoming, capable of correctly using their own reason in religious matters with assurance and free from outside direction. But on the other hand, we have clear indications that the field has now been opened wherein men may freely deal with these things and that the obstacles to general enlightenment or the release from self-imposed tutelage are gradually being reduced. In this respect, this is the age of enlightenment, or the century of Frederick. (emphasis mine)
Numerous individuals are hindered from exercising their own reason, particularly in matters of religion. Nevertheless, Kant highlights the existence of an open space whereby individual possess the capability to liberate themselves from their self-incurred tutelage. It is crucial to note that this does not necessitate a departure from societal structure. There are leaders who are also enlightened:
A prince… [that] prescribe[s] nothing to men in religious matters but give[s] them complete freedom while renouncing the haughty name of tolerance, is himself enlightened…
A leader who grants individuals complete freedom, upholds laws that individuals would enact through their own reason, and separates religious enthusiasm from governance is deserving of admiration. Throughout his essay, Kant has pushed religion to the forefront he finds that “rulers have no interest in playing guardian with respect to the arts and sciences” and that “religious incompetence is not only the most harmful but also the most degrading of all.” At any rate, even though it may appear contradictory, Kant strongly supports the mindset of a leader who encourages religious enlightenment. Kant is not asserting that a leader must adhere to a particular religion. Instead, he contends that a leader who permits individuals to freely exercise their reason, expressing thoughts on matters of faith and openly criticizing religious doctrines, is honorable. This leader, in Kant’s view, does not perceive the pursuit of enlightenment as a challenge to their legitimacy.
Finally, Kant finds that one who finds themselves enlightened can eagerly say: “Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey!”
Initially, this appears contradictory. However, as we have examined, the ability to abide by the law in private reasoning while also challenging the law as a scholar in the public sphere is the proper application of reason. Contrary to popular belief, Kant proposes that having some civil constraints on freedom, though seemingly restrictive, has the potential to foster an individual’s aptitude for independent thought. He writes:
As nature has uncovered from under this hard shell the seed for which she most tenderly cares — the propensity and vocation to free thinking — this gradually works back upon the character of the people, who thereby gradually become capable of managing freedom
In nature, a tough shell encases the seed of a plan; the seed must adapt and grow within these confines. Analogously, Kant argues that despite societal restrictions on freedom, we must employ creative and thoughtful approaches in public reasoning that enables the mind to flourish, empowering individuals to exercise their reason.
Conclusion
Overall, What is Enlightenment? is a profound essay that implores us to ask ourselves whether we are exercising our own reason or are being driven by another authority. Ultimately, Kant is, ironically enough, guiding his readers towards the capacity to exercise their own reason.
Sapere aude!
