Western Civilization Lecture2

What is Enlightenment?
Immanuel Kant defender of French Revolution, radical position
Interesting facts about Kant
Kant never travelled further than 60miles from his home
Came from humble origin
As a child very frail
Parents sent him to local school to become a pastor
Attended University of Konigsberg and became a professor
Only at the age of 57, he was able to support a family
Popular image of Kant is rigid and strict
E.g. took regular walks at 3:30 PM
However, in his circle he was known for his wit
In 1784 his article published -> responding article Dec. 1783
: On the question of whether marriage ceremonies should be civil rather than religious
In this article, observes in passing journals frequent use of the times, all this terms
pertaining to enlightenment
What is Enlightenment? This question, which is almost as important as the question What
is truth? should be answered before one begin to enlighten others! And yet I never found it
answered anywhere
The word I found as the way of characterizing a culture had only entered widespread usage in
literary journals in the previous decades (1770s)
In his writings prior to what is enlightenment, Kant describes his own time variously as quote
the age of critique, the thinking age, and enlightenment age
-> Name of the era had not yet stabilized
People wanted to herald this cultural change that they observed, but the discourse around this
wasnt the other point where they had stylish (?) the concept for it still very much
transitional moment
Like someone asking in 1978, what is post-modernism?
The guy who was credited with pointing the term post-modernism in 1979, before
he was using the terms like paganism to describe this cultural phenomenon, postmodernity is signature of abandonment (?) of idea of universal truth
There are two main parts to the article: (1) an ideal definition of the enlightenment (2)
enlightenment in practice what are the political implications of enlightenment?
Enlightenment as a project, communicates a new found sense of human kinds control of ,
ability to remake itself and to remake society
Enlightenment is mans emergence from his self-imposed [incurred] minority -> what is
the word that marks the enlightenment as a project?
Emergence: denotes the action but does not necessarily involve intention
Enlightenment: involves undoing essentially a bad habit; instigating the change
within one style
What does this change consist of? There are two parts:
(1) The way you relate to your own past reason
Self-incurred: what cannot resist enlightenment upon till the moment of count writing
has a source in human activity
What exactly is this to do with enlightenment? Self-incurred minority the

Western Civilization Lecture2

refusal to grow up to take up the rights and responsibilities of an adult stands
from the blind acceptance of authority
It causes not because of lack of understanding, but because of lack of will to take that
understanding; the dependence on source of authority outside
Inversely, to be enlightenment, is not necessarily to know anything in particular, but just to
arrive at any knowledge by oneself -> processing and investigating ideas
To take responsibility to ones own lives, rather than simply accepting traditions, religion, or
such prevention dictates
(2) Change in ones relation to reason requires the change in will
Kant did not think enlightenment not as a matter of intellectual capability,
but of will or courage
Resistance in enlightenment comes from laziness and cowardice
People stay in immaturity because it is so comfortable to be a minor
People are attempted to delegate to others, the hard world (?) of thinking through
everything
If I have a book that understands for me, a spiritual advisor who has a conscience for me, a
doctor who decides upon a regimen for me, and so forth, I need not trouble myself at all
-> On the other side of transaction, self-appointed guardians (experts) had best
interest in keeping the rest of population depending on them; this is the source of
power
Barrier to enlightenment lies in interplay of inertia on part of the masses and
paternalism of the guardian
How can things change? -> Kant said, for average person, it will be difficult; they are not
used to self-reliance, the guardians make it scary for them, and education does not teach them
to think, leaving them disconnected from the natural flow of thought of their own experiences
Precepts and formulas, those mechanical instruments of a rational use, or rather misuse, of
his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of an everlasting minority
-> While it makes impossible for individuals to tarry themselves out of self-imposed
immaturity, that a public should enlighten itself is more possible
Indeed, for Kant, such enlightenment is inevitable, if conditions of free-speech are
maintained
The anticipates that enlightenment will take root in a few people who have already
occupied positions of authority or guardians, and they will be able to spread this new ideas
among the general population
In other words, enlightenment is necessarily a social process; it depends on the existence of
public sphere
Kant defines enlightenment not in terms of what it achieves
He exempts the purely negative definition -> enlightenment is not minority, it is
the escape of minority
Enlightenment is not presented as positing a new positive situation; it is not, for
example, knowing the true face of the world
-> Everything can be questioned, but not everything can be known
Kant devotes much more intention to the nature of minority (Unmndigkeit) that what
actually constitutes the charity (mndigkeit) -> autonomy as ultimate goal

Western Civilization Lecture2

We can infer that Kant, in fact, posits autonomy as the ultimate goal of process of
enlightenment
But, at the same time, we also need to ask why Kant seemed reluctant to formulate
his definition of enlightenment in this way, in positive way
We can understand this in relation to Kants critique of the limits of the reason in
Critique of Pure Reason (published in 1781)
In that word, the demand that one thing for oneself was understood by Kant as a quote,
liberation from prejudices in general, and the quote liberation from superstition
Reason must never be nearly passive and must instead be actively self-legislative
Such an attitude is sustainable so long as one does not demand to know anything
that is beyond his own understanding
But it is difficult to resist the temptation to strive for this kind of knowledge and if
one does given to that temptation, then it is more difficult to avoid surrender once
upon me to those who seem to possess that knowledge, who offer the satisfied desire
for that knowledge
Kants injunction, Sapere aude! (=dare to know, or dare to be wise), would also involve
recognizing when knowledge
In Critique of Pure Reason, he writes the beyond those limits, beyond the limits what wed
know in relation to our own experience of that verify by our own experience
Beyond those limits lies imagined happiness, which keeps so many bondages to
theories and systems
And we hear an echo of this in Kants denunciation of precepts and formulas
The idea that education would hurt (?) knowledge that we can never actually verify
by ourselves through our experiences and that holds us in thrall to guardians to
authority
Why is enlightenment account in negative way and positive way?
Kants definition is couched in the set of evil metaphors
It may be strange beginning with this paradoxical notion of immaturity of minority
(selbst verschuldeten Unmndigkeit schuld means guilt, blame -> it is minority
of which you and yourself to blame)
With this idea of minority of which you are guilty, continues through Kants sarcastic
discussion of the guardians (Vormnder)
These guardians whose main concern is to make sure that none of their words attain
maturity
Some commentators including Kants contemporaneous friend of philosophe, Johann Georg
Hamann, considered this concept, the concept of self-imposed minority, to be the profound
error of the heart of the essay
Its not hard to see why -> those whose reasoning capacities arent complete and
have not chosen to be the minority
-> And so they must lack insight into this incompleteness
How can they be considered guilty for their lack of ability, or deepen it more broadly,
are people in control or not of their own condition of minority?
Is it individuals to make independent use of their reason due to lack of moral courage
(laziness and cowardice) or is it because, as Kant also says, they can prevent it from
doing so by constraining social authorities?

Western Civilization Lecture2

So these questions lead us to third ambiguity concerning the role of the guardians
As you know, the guardians are the one who keep the public unenlightened
They also play central role in bringing in enlightenment
Most individuals, Kant says, will not be able to enlighten themselves -> they need
help from public sphere, but not only the public sphere but also enlightened
guardians
These ideas of questioning things (?), abusing your own reason, this will take root
among some figures of authority, among some guardians and they, in turn, will
spread the words
So guardians are not necessarily bad, there are some good too
How are we supposed to understand Kants independent thought?
It is the public that supposed to emancipate itself, not from all, but only some leaders
Doesnt this question of public back into a constant role of immaturity? Isnt the public
supposed to allow itself to be enlightened?
These questions dont get resolved in the space of the essay -> but they lead us to
second part of the essay, which is about forging, a more nuance relation to
authority
Kant does this by distinguishing intellectual freedom from civil freedom
Up until the middle of the fourth paragraph, the essays politics are seemed to be pretty
radical
We might imagine that Kant was calling for some kind of anarchist revolt
Kant seems to be saying, in those couple paragraphs, (1) those of us are enslaved
because we accept the authority of others, (2) all that is needed to transform state of
fairs (?), to modify the power built by elite is simply for individuals to reject their
authorities
At this point, he warns that, in a revolution, its easy for inequality and for ignorance to
perpetuate themselves because of the desire for vengeance and in revolution
The structure of the society would then not truly change and there would not be true
reform in ones way of thinking
It would just allow people to swap positions within social structure and swap new
prejudices for the old ones
In other words, it will keep an elite power over the great unthinking masses instead
of allowing for transformation of the great unthinking masses
So, the practical question of Kant, how do you insulate the process of enlightenment from its
potential for revolution? What is required to separate the realm of obedience from the realm
of the use of reason?
In other words, Kant is obviously not advocating the destruction of all sources of
authority except for the individual voice of reason
Some freedom, he says, are necessary for enlightenment, but some freedom also need
to be withheld in order to maintain the peaceful functioning society and to make sure
the reform of thought is gradual and thorough
And the key to this move is Kants distinction between the public and private uses of
reason
He writes that, For this enlightenment, nothing is required but freedom to make public use
of ones reason in all matters

Western Civilization Lecture2

He gives us three examples of public use of reason: (1) the military situation, the officer (2)
the political situation, the taxpayer (3) the religious authority, the clergyman
In each place, one is told not to argue and to only do what is recommended to do
For Kant, humanity will reach maturity when it is no longer required to obey
When taxpayers pay their taxes, they will able to argue about this amortization (?), or
as a pastor, taking responsibility for power of service while reasoning freely without
religious dogma
Of the three theses Kant discusses, he devotes the greatest detention to the question of the
responsibilities of the clergy
Whats interesting about Kants description here is that the clergyman is interested in
the practical, not the dogmatic, part of religion
He explains what the church got turned to is explicitly on behalf of the church and
the clergyman fulfills his duty, extracting all practical uses for the congregation
from these precepts
Kant says that clergyman can carry out this duty, service that he is rendering to the
public by enlightening them as to practical benefits of doctrine
As long as he concerns it not entirely impossible, the doctrines of the church are
true
A religion, for Kant here, is the matter of practical thing, not theoretical
So the general formula for the division between personal conviction and civic function is
argue as much as you will and about whatever you will, but obey!
Kant does not have problem with people telling each other what to do, but only with
people telling what to think
He gives us the following definition of public reason: by the public use of ones own reason
I understand that use which someone makes of it as a scholar before the entire public of the
world of readers. What I call the private use of reason is that which one may make of it in a
certain civil post or office with which he is entrusted
So, the public use of reason is the freedom to advance philosophical arguments for ones
conviction and the private use of reason allows reason to dictate how one goes about ones
duty to the harmonious function of society
The private use of reason is the kind of reason you use to figure out how you did
your job well
The public use of reason is that you use to make arguments maybe against the way in
which you are commanded to carry out your job
He says only one ruler in the world says, argue as much as you will and about whatever
you will, but obey!
Who is he talking about here? This is his captive to the enlightened ruler of Prussia;
he says more about this towards the end of the essay
What was special about Prussian monarchy?
We can understand Frederick The Great better by comparing him with Louis XIV
of France
Both were absolute monarchs and they were not limited to constitution, but they
approached sovereignty with fundamentally different world view
Louis XIV can be seen as the typical 17th century monarch and then we understood his
primary duty to the state as a religious leader -> he was capable of thinking extreme (?)
persecutory measures in order to maintain the religious unity of the country

Western Civilization Lecture2

Most famously, evoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685
Edict of Nantes: passed as an attempt to put an end to wars of religion in
France between Protestants and Catholics
He did so by granting some rights to Protestants and by evoking the Edict; he
reinstated provisions against being Protestants
-> It had affected on forcing a huge exodus of Protestants from France
In short, the model of sovereignty body by Louis XIV is one for which religious unity trumps
everything; his relation to God trumps everything including economic disparity or diplomatic
relation to the other nations -> extremely impractical move
In contrast, Frederick The Great was basically a secular leader; he considered his subjects,
religion and matter as private concern, and none of the states business
His main concerns was the security and prosperity of his subjects
Ex) building an army, a stable government bureaucracy, and putting in place efficient
tax structure
In other words, this is much closer to our understanding of democracies of what a
state is -> but remember that we are still in absolute monarchy at this point
Frederick The Great understood the common ground among his subjects had been previously
polarized into Catholics and Protestants
He understood new common ground to be science, rational inquiry, and what the
declaration of independence would call the pursue of happiness
Here, in his model of sovereignty, reason is substitute for religion; it provides its own world
view, own value system, its own way of understanding the meaning of humanity
Back to Kant, by the public use of ones own reason I understand that use which someone
makes of it as a scholar before the entire public of the world of readers. What I call the
private use of reason is that which one may make of it in a certain civil post or office with
which he is entrusted
This is pretty counter-intuitive; wouldnt we assume the opposite? Like writing and
something that you do maybe in the privacy of your home as a private individual
We think a public function would be associated maybe with the state
Ex) the thoughts expressed in email are attributable only to the person who
wrote it not to cooperation
So you think that writing would mean saying something on behalf of only oneself as
opposed to acting on behalf of cooperation in an official function
But Kant says precisely the opposite -> the use of ones reason in exercising a civil or
complete office is private
Now, if I call this use private, Kant is rejecting assumption that public officials have any
right or duty to explain or justify their actions on their own account, which something
underlines use of mechanical metaphors to describe the proper attitudes of this charge with
executing official policy
He says, for many affairs conducted in the interest of a commonwealth a certain mechanism
is necessary, by means of which some members of the commonwealth must behave merely
passively, so as to be directed by the government, through an artful unanimity, to public ends
(or at least prevented from destroying such ends). Here it is, certainly, impermissible to
argue; instead, one must obey
So in manners of what we might call, not Kant, public interest and public understood in the

Western Civilization Lecture2

stated sense of what belongs to the domain of governmental authority; and official or any
citizen called upon the formal function must simply follow order without a question
One commentator has suggested that Kant wants to characterize the private use of reason as
deprived or deficient; its the use of reason which you have subtracted yourself and it
comes from the root of the word, private
You notice that private deprived privation; private property is property that is
subtracted from the domain
So my point being, this is one way of understanding the word private
Kant is according this use of reason as a negative connotation; it is that, in fact,
which has to deprive your person
Maybe that would be incredibly subtle since Kant also gives this use of reason a
complementary role in promoting enlightenment
Another way that we can understand that maybe more compelling is through Roman legal
convention
This is a kind of legal system that perhaps you are familiar with in a state where there
is a distinction between civil and criminal sues
Breach of contract is a civil affair between citizens not between state and citizens
But, suing where there is breach of contract, when you prosecute only the state
prosecutes -> criminal affair
Could Kant be in talking about the private pointing to a contractual sense, the contractual
relationship?
You can understand the private sphere as a domain of contractual relation, in which
individuals can modify their talents including their intellectual powers
But they, in fact, sell these talents to others for the purpose of advancing common
goals
So in each of Kants three examples, the constraints governing the private use of reason low
from the contractual relation between the individual and an employer
In the case of taxpayer, maybe you can understand that as a contract of obtaining
protection and ministrative rights in return for taxes
This is important because it gives us sense of why Kant defines the public in the way
he does; the idea of defining against something or reappropriating the term, public
Concept of public suggests is a rival conception to the convention of freedom, which we
consider the sphere of the public to be precisely the dominion of the state
Kant redefines this term, public away from the state
Instead, as readers of cosmopolitan society, what we now know as the public sphere
He is redefining the locus of power in a particular way to from taking away this idea
of public from the state and giving it back to people, to reading and discussing public
What are the politics of this essay?
There are unsettling authoritarian tones in several of Kants remarks
Most troubling in this regard is the observation that only a ruler who has a welldisciplined and numerous army ready to guarantee public peace and tolerate
complete freedom of public expression
And there is also the idea that a lesser degree of civil freedom, it is necessary for the
fullest expansion of peoples freedom of spirit, intellectual freedom
So does Kant ultimately increases the conservative political position in contradiction to the

Western Civilization Lecture2

radical implications of his own critical philosophy
I think its difficult to answer this question, then we have to read the essays part of larger
project of reconciling the ideal requirements of republican constitution, which is what the
critical implications of the argument are one that rejects all forms of supreme authority
So we have to reconcile that ideal with the political reality of Prussian absolute monarchy
The essay, in fact, directly debates within Prussian philosophical circle about the advisability
of official restrictions of enlightenment in the interest of preserving public order
Kants primary concern in the essay is to argue that the regime of the public reason is not
only compatible with absolute government but that it can be justified as an extension to the
political domain of official Prussian policy
In that respective, we might understand that ambiguity of his text distend from this kind of
strategic desire above all to keep open the space for popular enlightenment, while pacifying
fears about its disruptive consequences