Kant Definition of Enlightenment Essay Example

themselves with the Muses”. For both writers, Enlightenment's foundation lies in the ability of a man to think, to express his thoughts and share them. Kant and Rousseau evaluate man's pre- Enlightenment conditions. They turn to nature and the concept of virtue and vice.

Kant believes that “Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artificial measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it. ” Kant is sure people will learn step by step.He justifies the Enlightenment as the natural progression of man: “...

nature has lavished most care – man's inclination and vocation to think freely. ” Rousseau also uses nature to prove his claims. “The thick veil with which she had covered all her operations seems to provide a sufficient warning to us that we were not destined for vain researches. ” He claims “nature wishes to protect you from knowledge”. Man's nature is “perverse;”. As we see, Kant and Rousseau's points of view deviate from one another here.

The ways men are repressed are a focus for both philosophers.As mentioned before, Kant's “immaturity” makes “it is all too easy for others to set themselves as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! ” The guardians maintain the “Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments,” as they are “the ball and chain of permanent immaturity. ” Rousseau uses similar words to describe the restrictions on man living in Enlightenment. “While government and laws take care of the security” – while we are protected by society – “the sciences, letters and the arts..

.

pread garlands of flowers over the iron chains which weight men down. ” In other words, we become blinded by our subjugation. This is when we become “civilized people” contradicting with nature. Both writers use chains to draw the picture of their rival claims. Rousseau believes that with the development of arts and sciences, conveniences become needs as we grow attached to those luxuries.

Rousseau's chains limit man's natural freedom. Kant states that for a man to publish his thoughts publicly is the way to maturity, the freedom of being able to reason (as it is your “sacred right”).In case of denying it: “This would be a crime against human nature. ” Kant also says “Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! ” In contrast, Rousseau's view of the public writers has a negative tone.

He calls them “that crowd of obscure writers and idle men of letters … these vain and futile declaimers”, “their fatal paradoxes, undermining the foundation of faith. ” Rousseau declares negative the same actions Kant values. For the two writers, the end result of the enlightened society is contrastive.For Kant if the leader is enlightened, he will set the example “of how freedom may exist without in the least jeopardizing public concord and the unity of the commonwealth.

” Government will realize the advantage of interacting with man “in a matter appropriate to his dignity. ” For Rousseau society which embraces the arts and sciences is prone to fail. Kant espouses the concept that “Enlightenment is the project to make the world more of a home for human beings – through the use of

reason. ” Rousseau is the conscience of the Enlightenment.

They both raise important points to serve their arguments.