Kant: What is Enlightenment?
The illustration is the man out of his minority. The same is guilty of it. Immaturity is the inability to make use of their own understanding without direction from another. There is only one guilty of this minority when the cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolve and courage to use it independently, without driving other. Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding! Here is the motto of enlightenment.
Most men, even though nature has long ago escaped from driving others (naturaliter maiorennes), gladly remain low over her life, due to laziness and cowardice. So it is very easy to set itself up as the other guardians. It's so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who replaced my moral conscience, a physician who judges about my diet, and so on, I need not own efforts. Only I can pay, I have no need of thinking: another take my place in such a tedious task. Like most men (and including the entire fair sex) are very dangerous step to adulthood, were to be arduous, those tutors have been very kind to take care of itself such superintendence. Having stunned its domesticated animals, so that these peaceful creatures do not dare take a step outside the walkers as they are stuck, showed them the danger that threatens them if they try to walk alone. The truth is that risk is not as great, because after some declines have learned to walk, but examples of such accidents usually timid and frightened, and alienate any subsequent attempt to remake the experience.
Therefore, each individual man finds it difficult to leave the minority, almost turned into his own nature, He has even become a hobby. For the moment is really unable to make use of his own understanding, because never lets you do this test. The shackles that bind to the persistent minority are given by rules and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts. Not to be used to free movement, which is apparent from these crickets may give an uncertain leap over a very narrow trench. Therefore, only few of them, by effort of the spirit, make it out of the minority and walk, however, safe step.
But instead, it is possible that the public should enlighten itself, always to be left free; even, it is almost inevitable. In fact, always will be some men who think for themselves, even among the guardians of the great masses. They, after having rejected the yoke of immaturity, widen the spirit of a rational assessment of self-worth and vocation of every man: that of thinking itself. Note in particular that the tutors had previously put the public under the yoke, after being forced to submit to it. Such thing happens when some, themselves incapable of any illustration, inciting rebellion, as harmful to instill prejudices, for they eventually take revenge on those who have been the authors and propagators. Then the public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. Perhaps a revolution is possible to produce the fall of personal despotism or oppression of any interested and ambitious, but never achieved on this path of true reform of the way of thinking, it will be new prejudices, like the old, will serve as walker most of the mass, devoid of thought.
However, for this illustration only required freedom and, indeed, the most harmless of all bearing that name, namely the freedom to make public use of reason itself, in any domain. But I hear everywhere exclaim: Do not argue! The officer says: Do not argue, drill! Financier: reasons and not pay! The pastor: Do not argue, believe! (Only one ruler in the world says: Argue all you want and what you want, but obey!) Everywhere, then, are limitations of freedom. But which of them and what prevents enlightenment, however, encourage it? I reply: The public use of reason must always be free, and is the only one who can produce the picture of men. Private use, however, must often be severely limited without being impeded progress in a particular way of illustration.
understand by public use of the very reason that someone makes it, as a scholar, and before the entire audience in the world of readers. Employment call for private use of reason which enables man in a civilian position or function entrusted to him. However, in many occupations pertaining to the interest of the community are needed certain mechanisms, through which some members have to behave as purely passive, so that, by some artificial unanimity, the government directed toward public purposes , or at least to limit the destruction of them. Naturally, in this case is not allowed to reason, but must obey. But regarding this part of the machine, it is considered a member of a whole or even of cosmopolitan society, as it considers as the scholar who, by letters addressed to an audience in the proper sense can reason about everything, without necessarily suffering occupations partly assigned to as a passive member. For example, it would be very dangerous if an officer, who must obey their superiors, be put to argue loudly, while on duty, about the wisdom or futility of the order received. Must obey.
But you can not do justice to prohibit comments as a scholar, about the shortcomings of military service and present them to the trial the public. The citizen can not refuse to pay the taxes that are allocated, while censorship irrelevant to that charge, when they should pay, it can be hit by scandal (as it could cause general resistance). But, however, does not act against the duty of a citizen if, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his ideas about the inconvenience or injustice of such taxes. Similarly, a priest is bound to teach their catechumens and the community as the symbol of the church he serves, because she has been admitted with this condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom and to the mission, to communicate to the public their ideas Carefully considered and well-intentioned, about the shortcomings of the symbol, ie expose to public proposals concerning improvement of the institutions relating to religion and the Church. In this there is nothing that can cause it to conscientious scruples. Present what is taught under its function as driver of the Church as something that is not to teach with arbitrary freedom, and according to their own opinions, because it is committed to preach according to requirements and on behalf of an authority others. He will say: Our church teaches this or that, for which he uses to certain arguments. On that occasion deducted all that is useful for the community of propositions to which he would not submit with full conviction, but has pledged to expose, because it is absolutely impossible that they hide some truth that, at least, not at all cases against religion intimate. If I did not believe the latter, could not maintain its function and not feel the reproach of his conscience, and should resign. Then the preacher made use of his reason to the community is purely private, since that community is just a family gathering, by a large it is. With regard to it, the priest is not free, nor should be, since it runs a command is strange. As learned, however, speaking by letters to the public, as such, ie the world, the priest shall, within the public use of reason, of unlimited freedom to use it and, thus, for speak for itself. In fact, pretend that the guardians of the people (in spiritual matters) are also minor, is an absurdity can lead to the perpetuation of insanity.
But such ecclesiastical society, such a synod of the Church, that is, a classis of Reverend (as the Dutch call it) could not commit anything and swear on a symbol that would invariably well a constant guardianship over each of its members and, through them, on the town? Thus does not achieve last forever? I say it is absolutely impossible. Such a contract, which would exclude forever all further enlightenment of mankind is, in itself, without null and nonexistent, even if confirmed by the supreme power, Congress and the most solemn peace treaties. A time and can not be compelled to swear to the following condition that you are unable to expand their knowledge (especially very urgent), purify errors, and generally promote the picture. It would be a crime against human nature, whose original destination consists precisely in this progress. Posterity is fully justified in rejecting those decrees, accepted so incompetent and criminal. The touchstone of everything that can be decided as the law for a people lies in this question: a people could be imposed such a law himself? That could happen if it were, had the hope of achieving in a short and defined time, a better law, capable of introducing some sort. But at the same time, every citizen, especially the priests, as scholars, should have liberty to take their comments publicly, that is, writing about the shortcomings of the current institution. Meanwhile-up the insight of the quality of these issues had spread far enough and was confirmed, so that the agreement of their voices (though not all) could elevate to the throne a proposal to protect the communities that had joined in changed direction of religion, according to the concepts of a more enlightened understanding, while allowing those who want to remain faithful to the old do so well, in the meantime, it would endure the established order. But it is absolutely forbidden to join a religious establishment shaken, that should not be publicly questioned by anyone, even if only for what lasts the life of a man and becomes infertile annihilates a period of humanity's progress towards its development, becoming even harmful for posterity. A man about his own person and for some time, may delay the acquisition of an illustration that is required to hold, but give it up, with regard to his own person, and a fortiori with reference to posterity is to violate and trample on the sacred rights of mankind. But what a people can not decide by itself, unless you can do a monarch's name. Indeed, the legislative authority is due to meet in his will of all people. If the monarch is concerned that any true or alleged development is reconciled with the civil order, may allow the subjects to do for themselves what they consider necessary for the salvation of their souls. This is something that is not concerned, however, will matter much avoid each other to prevent violence is to work with all the capacity they are able, for the identification and promotion of that salvation.
even be aggravated his majesty If you mix these things, government inspected the writings with which subjects try to expose your thoughts with purity, unless to do so convinced of their own and supreme intellectual opinion thus lend itself to blame Caesar non est supra grammatico-or cut its supreme power enough to protect the state within the clerical despotism of some tyrants, exerted on the remaining subjects.
Then, if we ask how we now live in an enlightened age? say no, but in an age of enlightenment. There is still much to all the men in their present condition, are able or are in a position to serve well and secure our understanding, without resorting to strange driving. However, we now have an open field to work freely in the achievement of that goal and the obstacles to general enlightenment, or the output of a guilty minority, are dwindling. We have clear evidence of this. From this point of view, our time is the time of enlightenment or the century of Frederick.
A prince who is not declaring himself unworthy of holding a duty not to prescribe anything to men in matters of religion, but leaves them in full freedom and that, therefore, rejects the haughty name of tolerance, is an enlightened prince and deserves the world and posterity extols with gratitude. At least from the government, was the first to take mankind from the minority, leaving everyone free to use such reason itself in all matters concerning conscience. Under it, most worthy clergymen, without prejudice to their professional duties, may subject the world, in his capacity as scholars freely and publicly, judgments and opinions on certain points deviate from the accepted symbol. Such freedom is even greater among those who are not bound by a professional duty. This spirit of freedom extends outward, reaching even the places where they must struggle against the external obstacles to a government that wrong its obligations. This circumstance is a clear example for the latter, as in the case of freedom, should not be the slightest concern about external peace and solidarity of the community. The men gradually leave the state of wildness in their own work, provided they do not artificially try to keep them in that condition.
I put the main point of enlightenment, ie the act by which man leaves a minority of the guilty-on the religious question, because for the arts and sciences who have not mastered no interest in playing the role of guardian of his subjects. In addition, the minority of religious issues is offered greater danger is also the most dishonorable. But the mindset of a head of state who favors this freedom goes even further and understand that, in terms legislation, it is dangerous to allow the subjects to make public use of reason itself and publicly exposed to the world the thoughts of a more perfect this legislation, which may include a frank critique of the existing. Here again we take a shining example, which no monarch was anticipated that we honor.
But only someone who is not afraid to be illustrated by the shadows and at the same time, has a large and disciplined army, which guarantees citizens a peace of mind, only he can say something that is not permissible in a free state : Argue as much as you like and what you want, but obey! Shown here is a strange and unexpected march of human affairs, but if we look at the breadth of his career, everything is in it paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to the freedom of the spirit of the people and yet, we set certain limits. A minor degree, however, he seeks space for expansion of all its powers. Nature once under this hard shell the seed has developed extreme care with tenderness, that is, the inclination and disposition to free thought, that gradually made an impact on how public sentiment (with which it is being gradually more capable of a freedom to act) and even the principles of government, which is as useful to treat men according to their dignity, since it is more than a machine.
Kant: Philosophy of History. Nova ed. Buenos Aires.
