Kant and enlightenment
Immanuel Kant:
knowledge is phenomenal
the object conforms to our mind
Overcoming rationalism and empiricism
our ideas come from our senses of the world
ideas without experience is not grounded
Both of the thoughts are correct, both are basis of knowledge however instead of 1 being better than the other both actually compliment each other
EnLIGHTenment:
Darkness is ignorance. Light represents what we see, realization and understanding of something. Like a lightbulb, it turns on when we realize something because it becomes “clearer” to us
Page 1
Enlightenment is a way for man to break free of self immaturity, the inability to use ones knowledge without help from others. It’s not that you lack knowledge, its that they lack the courage to put it into action, without the help of other people. “Sapere Aude!” dare to know.
Laziness and cowardice are reasons why men have grown immature. Even if they are given the choice to govern themselves, away from authoritative bodies, they still fail to do so out of convenience
If you let others decide and think for you, it will only foster laziness and fear of doing things yourself
Just like a domesticated animal, when you train/treat an them out of self capability the animal will fear taking action by itself.
This is why it is difficult for one to work their way out of immaturity, as it has been something they have been accustomed to for a long time, furthermore its like a “comfort zone” for them kind of like a safety net that they can fall back on
Sometimes, things that are meant to guide (dogmas) such as rules can sometimes act as chains, it keeps us confined and stopping us from questioning and exploring.
If you give someone freedom, it will allow these people to think independently, allowing them to influence others.
Authority and leaders don’t automatically create reform. There are 2 leaders, one that can inspire and allow the masses to think. The other who spreads prejudice due to ignorance, we cannot produce an enlightened leader without first being enlightened ourselves.
While revolution can topple authoritative power it will never spark true reform
Enlightenment is a slow process, as it isn’t always a straight line
Page 2
Freedom and enlightenment go hand in hand, freedom allows public reason.
Society often restricts the freedom of reasoning, challenging authority. Like if a tax official says “Don’t argue, pay” when you try to reason with them it stifles reasnoning
Public reason should be free, allowing debate and critique since these things allow you to refine your understanding/knowledge instead of passively keeping it.
opposite of public reason is private reason, it isn’t a bad thing as it is necessary to keep society in order, going back to the tax official, it is their job to follow the system. (Although it can be seen as being a slave of the system)
Outside the roles of private reasoning however, these people are free to practice public reason
ex: the clergyman can say that “this church practices this”, but outside of the church, as a scholar/citizen he can say “the church is wrong to do this” (Just because they’re a part of the system doesn’t mean they cant practice reason)
it coexists since without a system, without a set rule, there is nothing to critique, and if there isn’t anything to critique no one is able to reach enlightenment.
Page 3
Oaths or agreements that halt the future generations from challenging, reasoning, and thinking kills enlightenment. This is a crime against human nature since our destiny is progress
Later generations have the power to dismiss any of those oaths and agreements and label them as criminal because no one has the ability to stop people from seeking truth
Reafirms that in Page 2 everyone even those within the system are free to reason when not in the system (clergymen and their being a citizen)
No one has the right to stop others from seeking the truth even people with high authoritative power like monarchs do not have that power.
He takes shots at how the old church governed understanding in the dark ages.
Explains that religion is something that changes based on how a person understands it. It should never be strictly inforced since by inforcing these things, we restrict reason
“Ceaser non est supra grammaticos” The ruler is not above the grammarians is used because Kant believes that leaders who control religion and politics restrict free thought
Page 3 end and Page 4
we do not live in the enlightened age, we are merely in the age OF enlightenment. We still have a long way until men can put into action and challenge their own understanding
Summary: Joakim understanding!
Kant’s what is enlightenment tackles human understanding and the boundaries we have of it. Enlightenment is defined as the ability of a person to put into action/use the knowledge we gain without the help of others. However, people are still immature, if they rely too much on guidance they start to lack the courage or develop laziness to use their knowledge. "guidance" is sort of a metaphor. it can be seen as help from parents, or your peers but if we dig deepr guidance is basically the system. Politics and Religion have created a set ammount of laws that we must follow, this governs us, but at the same time if we strictly adhere to these things we never truly challenge reason with what we are given, nor do we use the knowledge we gain. This is what develops laziness in chasing knowledge and the fear of stepping out of this system/comfort zone. And If these politics and religions take away our right to reason, it is a crime against humanity since progress is tied to our being.
Public reason is freely using your own judgment to think and express ideas, while private reason is following rules or authority either out of obligation or ignorance. but it coexists since without a system, without a set rule, there is nothing to critique, and if there isn’t anything to critique no one is able to reach enlightenment because there is nothing to judge/question.