Notes on Kants What is Enlightenment

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Man incurs immaturity on himself. It is his choce if he chooses to be free of immaturity and gain englihtenment. Enlightenment: the ability to use your own understanding, without being influenced by another. You are immature when you have the understanding, but you do not use your own intelligence for lack of courage and resolution to use it without the guidance or support of another. If you think: if nobody else is doing it, then why should I. Then you are being immature. Motto of Enlightenment: Sapere aude! Dare to know Have the courage to use your own understanding Why people choose to remain immature: Laziness and cowardice. Adults, who are long emanciated from their parents and alien guidance choose to remain immature for life for this reason. It is so convenient to be immature One now has the luxury to have other people do their tasks for them. Books to have understanding for them, spiritual gurus to have conscience, doctors to judge diets. It is easy to resort to laziness. The guardians (Church and aristocracy) have made sure that ordinary people view the path to enlightenment as difficult and dangerous

Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided.
A person attempting to grow mature will learn to walk after a few falls. But: But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts. Immaturity has become second nature to individuals. Hence it has become hard for people to work their way out of it. He has gotten to a point where he is unable to use his own understanding, because he has never been in a habit of using it in the first place. He has started to rely on dogmas and formulas, which have become chains to his reasoning and have kept him immature. Unaccustomed to freedom or Free movement, he will be doubtful of taking the slightest step.

Therefore, only a few people who have taken a lot of effort to cultivate their own minds have been successful in becoming mature and continuing boldly on their way There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself. This is indeed almost inevitable, if only the public concerned is left in freedom. There will be a few people amongst the guardians who will think for themselves and become mature. Once these guardians have become mature, and thrown off the yoke of immaturity, they will:

disseminate the spirit of rational respect for personal value and for the duty of all men to think for themselves.
The public as a whole achieved enlightenment eventually, but it is a slow process. Revolution is effective when putting an end to dictatorship. But revolution cannot bring about changes in way of thinking. Instead revolution will lead to a build up of prejudices which will in turn become a noose and control the public. Freedom will eventually lead to enlightenment. The freedom that Kant is talking about is, the most non-harmful type of freedom - freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. There are people all around us who do not want us to argue. Who place restrictions on our freesome. The question is: what kind of freedom promotes enlightenment and what kind of freedom hinders it? The public use of reason must always be free. The private use should be restricted. Public: man of learning addressing the entire reading public. Private: person making use of reason in a particular civil post or office The employer cannot put his employees under contract to not hold opinions and talk about their views if they do not match with that of the organisation. A contract of this kind if null and void because its ultimate aim is to prevent all further enlightenment. Also, making a rule so that next generation will be hindered from extending and correcting their knowledge also hinders enlightenment. The future of mankind lies in progress of thought. Later generations thus have the rights to dismiss rules that place a limitation on their thought. To test whether any particular measure can be agreed upon as a law for a people, we need only ask whether a people could well impose such a law upon itself. Passing a law: Introduce an order, for a short period of time; an order, pending a better solution. Every citizen, particularly scholars, politicians, lawmakers, should

be given the right to comment publicly about the shortcomings of the order. The order would be passed as a law only when the public generally (not unanimously) consent to such a law. This will pacify the people who wanted the order to become a law, but such a law should also seek to protect the people who wanted to let things remain as before. But it is absolutely impermissible to agree, even for a single lifetime, to a permanent religious constitution which no-one might publicly question. Having two opposite sides to an issue is what increases public knowledge. Consent from everybody will nullify progress. A man may choose to postpone his personal enlightenment, but only for a short period of time. The idea of renouncing enlightenment completely,

means violating

and trampling underfoot the sacred rights of mankind. A monarch should give his citizens freedom to choose enlightenment as long as their actions do not disrupt civil order. But if one persons action are hindering another persons enlightenment, it is his business to stop the first person. We do not live in an enlightened age. But we live in an age of enlightenment. There is some time before men can be enlightened. But it is clean that the way to enlightenment now has fewer obstacles. A ruler who allows his people complete freedom is himself enlightened.
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. Kant has chosen religion as a focal point for enlightenment because religios immaturity is of the most harmful kind. Also because the guardians of the state take little interest as far as enlightenment in arts and sciences is concerned. The monarch who allows for freedom in arts and sciences goes even one step further, because he allows his subjects to make public use of their reason and put forward their thoughts to draw up laws; even though these things entail forthright criticism of the current laws. Because he has realized that by these actions, there is no danger to his legislation.

Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! This is paradoxical but so are most of the things in human affairs.
Great is the monarch who says:

A lot of civil freedom greater intellectual freedom but also big barriers Less civil freedom intellectual freedom has the room to expand to its fullest extent

Once the germ of free thinking has taken root in a man, it soon develops into a hard shell ; it reacts upon the mentality of the people who are then able to act freely. Eventually, it also affects the lawmaking and decision-making facilities of the government. The government can in this way, profit; if they treat man more than a machine, a manner which is more appropriate to his diginity.