Jason Harrill

Daniel Levine
PSC 422
February 17, 2014
What is the Meaning of Enlightenment?
Enlightenment is the human beings emergence from his self-incurred minority. Minority is the
inability to make use one's own understanding without direction from another. This minority is
self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and
courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere Aude! Have courage to make use of
your own understanding! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment (Kant, 17).
The previous quote is an excerpt from an article published by Immanuel Kant.
The article, titled An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? was
publicized in an intellectual journal circa 1784. Kant was and is a greatly influential,
and famously quotable philosopher from the age of enlightenment. In his article
Kant aims to postulate a theory that explains the meaning of enlightenment, and its
effect on individual freedom.
The principal purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation for Kants
view of the answer to the principal question What is Enlightenment? In my
explanation I will cover Kants view on enlightenment, as well as his beliefs on its
ties to individual freedom. My response will strictly cover material from the source
article, An answer to the question: What is enlightenment (Kant). Through this
examination, I will offer explanations for his claims, and any dissenting opinions, if
they exist. Before I begin my examination, it is important to first explain how this
principle came to be.

The principle question, What is Enlightenment, appears to have originated

from an article by Johnathon Zollner, another author in the age of enlightenment.
Zollners work in question was published one year prior to Kants article on
enlightenment and seems to be the cause for Kants response. Three key ideas from
Zollners are as follows: there needs to be an understanding of the word
enlightenment before one attempts to share enlightenment, What is Enlightenment
and What is Truth are important philosophical questions but a slightly greater
importance is placed upon the question, What is Truth?, and that there was no
sufficient explanation for the meaning of enlightenment at that time which he
thought was suitable. The last key idea, wherein Zollner states, And yet I have
never found it answered anywhere leads me to believe that he was under the
assumption that at that time, there was no answer for the question of
enlightenment which was sufficient (Kant, 13). I believe that this was the spark, so
to speak, which ignited Kants response to the meaning of enlightenment.
In his article, Immanuel Kant states that enlightenment is the human beings
emergence from the self-incurred minority. Essentially, this means that he claims
enlightenment to be the ability of a person to think for them self. This is best
understood when his claim is broken down and evaluated, piece by piece. I will
begin with the first four words; enlightenment is the human beings . This
introduces the subject, enlightenment, and says that it is a possibility of the human
experience. Next is emergence, which is defined as the act of becoming known or
coming into view. Then we have from the self-incurred. Self-incurred is
defined as to become liable or subject to through one's own action; bring or take
upon oneself. And lastly, there is minority which is defined as a part of a
population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to

differential treatment. Put that all together and what you have is something like
this - enlightenment is a possibility of the human experience that comes into
existence when one has subjected oneself to a part of a population which is given
differential treatment however, this is not what he meant.
Modern definitions dont help to explain his claim, but thankfully we have
definitions from Kant himself. Kant states that minority is the inability to make use
of ones own understanding without the help of another. He also states that the
minority is self-incurred if its cause lies not in lack of understand but in lack of
resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. He basically says
that for humans, enlightenment is the separation of thought from accepted beliefs
of others which leads to the transcendence of independent thought that is selfevaluated for validity through reason and ones understanding of their observations
in the world. Also, these thoughts or beliefs must be protected from outside
influence after their construction as well. This can be simplified into saying that you
must use your power of comprehension to agree upon personal opinions that are
void of any ideas not of your own, whereby a self-reflection of your ideas will leave
you with a belief that is truly yours. From this, I constructed my previous
clarification that Kant essentially claims enlightenment to be the ability of a person
to think for themself.
Kant follows this with his beliefs for a public emergence versus individual
emergence. Although he believes that a public emergence is more likely than
individual emergence, he argues for both that all which is required for this to
happen, is to have the existence of freedom. Thus, without freedom, there would be
no possibility for an emergence on either level. This seems ridiculous, as ones

emergence can be learned in the sense of a transfer of knowledge, especially in

scholarly works, but I digress.
In his article, Kant stated multiple ways in which he believed this emergence
to be tied with individual freedom. The first way which he states this connection is
through a description of citizens who are in their self-incurred minority indefinitely.
He states that laziness and cowardice are the causes for the large amount of people
stuck in the self-incurred minority. He basically believes that they have given up
their individual freedom to think for themselves. In his article he states If I have a
book that reads for me, that understands 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 and this is an example of his for how the selfincurred minorities think (Kant, 17). They give up their inherent right as a human to
think for themselves, in exchange for a simplistic lifestyle which they have become
accustomed to. This accustomed lifestyle has become what he calls second
nature and the fear of not having this lifestyle enforces their acceptance of it (Kant,
17). Thus, because of this fear they give up their individual freedom that is to think
for themselves.
Another way Kant ties this emergence to individual freedom is through his
explanation for the uses of reason. First, he explains that nothing but freedom and
the specific freedom to make public use of ones reason for all matters are the two
necessary components for this enlightenment (Kant, 18). Then he reasons that
there are three ways which reason can be used. In his article he writes Everywhere
there are restrictions on freedom. But what sort of restriction hinders
enlightenment, and what sort does not hinder but instead promotes it? (Kant, 18).

To this question he replies, and explains the three forms of use for reason; public,
private, and scholarly.
He proposes that public use of reason alone can bring about enlightenment in
humans. Public use of reason is the use which he believes helps promote
enlightenment, and it is essentially the declaration of ones reason to the public via
any medium. Private use of reason is described as the declaration of ones reason
while holding a certain civil post or office. We still have this practice of limited use of
ones reason and it can be seen in many white collar careers, as well as civil post or
political office. This responsibility is referred to as a professional liability, in which
one cannot state a personal opinion if it is dissenting towards ones professional
career standard. Although private use restricts the ability of some to voice their
opinion, Kant says that they still have a civic responsibility to voice their opinions.
This can be done through the third use of ones reason, the scholarly use. As a
scholar, it is permissible for one to voice their opinion to the world of readers
regardless of their limitations through private use (Kant, 18-19).
An import factor for individual freedom, which ties to this emergence, is the
civic duty that we humans must uphold against the guardians of society. He
believes that an unalterable creed, which would perpetuate a guardianship over the
systems members and all citizens through them, is one that is null and void. It is
null and void because it binds the systems members into following a condition that
would prove impossible for progress in enlightenment. On this he states The
touchstone of whatever can be decided upon as law for a people lies in the
question: whether a people could impose such a law upon itself (Kant, 20). I
believe this to be a subtle hint at the transition of his claims applicability from a
religious standpoint, to a governmental one. He is saying that the people must

become enlightened and learn to govern themselves, if not learn to be governed to

a degree that they consider nothing less than acceptable.
Immanuel Kant was one of the greatest philosophers of his time. His theories
are still strong influences in current contemporary thought and will undoubtedly
remain there for a good while longer. The production and evaluation of his works are
a testament to his importance as well, for they still remain in modern scholarly
readings and conversations. Does it not stand true that Kant remains influential in
current contemporary thought, despite there being more than 200 years separating
his death and the current scholars who read his works? This is why I am afraid to
say that I feel as if he would have expected more. More from todays citizen, more
from todays scholar, and more from everyone since his demise. He has laid out a
template for our own emergence, as a society and individuals, but are we
enlightened? Kant asked himself this question and his response was a remorseful
no, but nevertheless, the question remains for us to answer. Are we enlightened?

References:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self+incurred
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minority
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/emergence