In this essay I will argue that Kantian enlightenment is intellectual independence,

freedom from any exterior thoughts. Kant claims that if men are given freedom,
enlightenment is almost inevitable (Kant). With this, I will argue that Rousseau is not
only an enlighten figure, but provides necessary arguments for Kants formulation of
enlightenment.
Kants entire formulation of enlightenment can be derived from the commentary
on freedom in Rousseaus Discourse on Inequality. Primarily, because Rousseau presents
the savage man as free, he is enlightened. Through property man becomes chained and
enters nonage because this enlightenment requires nothing but freedom (Kant). I will
show that by being able to recognize the lack of freedom of modern society, Rousseau
sets himself apart.
Men are equal to each other in the state of nature. Of course, there exists natural
inequality, but this type of inequality did not cause the natural man to compare himself to
othersthe original man had no comparative language. When discussing a man being
unequal to a man, comparison is necessary. Rousseau argues that purely abstract entities
are conceivably only by means of words, and so without language there is no ability to
conceive of difference (Rousseau 95).. Without recognizing difference between men, the
original man was able to live as a part of the general making it hard to imagine that one
man should have more need than another man (97). A consequence of this equality, from
no individuation, is total freedom from each other. Men in the state of nature had no
kind of moral relationship between [each other] or any known duties (98). Without
duties or relations, there was no force acting on mens natural whims. This is precisely
the kind of freedom that originates from equality and will be lost in the modern man.
Property became a necessity for modern men, imposing certain kinds of actions
onto men. The rise of society gave men leisure time. In this leisure, men created new
commodities that degenerated into actual needs (113). When lacking a necessity, men
experience some sense of pain, suffering, or depravation, or in extreme cases death.
Necessities become forces that act on men because part of man is a concern was selfpreservation (86). To make the claim that a human institution, property, is a necessity
is to make men subjects of their own or other mens property (128). This kind of
relationship to the world caused men to sacrifice pleasure, repose, wealth, power, even
life for the sake of preserving property (126). Protecting property becomes a force just
as strong as hunger. Thus property imposes a force on individuals, inhibiting their natural
freedoms.
With these superfluities seeming necessary, men had to subjugate each other in
order to obtain them. The men who were subjects always desired, and the men who were
masters were worried with protecting their property. Subjects were obliged to receive
their substances (120). Rousseau calls the rich vulnerable because they can lose
property. This made them take more precautions for their own protections (124). In
order to obtain this protection the rich men created politics to make their adversaries
their defenders (121). The poor who ran towards their chains became subjects to the
domination of the rich (122). When using the imagery of chains, Rousseau is evoking a
force that holds someone back. In order for politics to function, it requires that someone
is subjugated and others are not.
Relationships on subjugation perpetuate inequality. With political systems, the
poor entered chains that would maintain their status. Rousseau calls it the utmost folly

on their part to strip themselves voluntarily of freedom, the only good they still
possessed (Rousseau 124). The rich are able to dispose at will what he possesses
(128). When exchanges between the two groups occur, the only good the poor can give is
liberty. The rich can provide objects. The poor are giving up a life by exchanging
liberty and submitting to a life of subjugation (Rousseau 128). Because exchanges require
giving and taking, every exchange either makes a man richer or poorer. Every exchange
based on subjugation, then, makes man more unequal.
In order to be free, men must be equal. In society, men are forced to compare
themselves with one another (Rousseau 132). As men are not equal in society, the
differences present themselves as judgments. These judgments produced in men some
kind of reflection (Rousseau 110). This reflection was produced by mens factually of
perfectibility, which allowed men to alter their behavior. Behavior is conforming to a
society. This is a force that urges men to do something, causing them to lose their liberty.
So if men can be equal, then they can be free since this comparative force will not drive
men to take certain actions. There would be free agency, just like the savage.