Kant Definition of Enlightenment Essay Example
Kant Definition of Enlightenment Essay Example

Kant Definition of Enlightenment Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were philosophers who lived in the 18th century, the century of the Enlightenment. Both have strong positions in their definitions of the Enlightenment. Kant's journalistic article “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? ” makes direct statements about the nature of Enlightenment, while Rousseau expresses his thoughts in his “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts”. They held differing views on the influence of the Enlightenment and whether it promoted positive or negative results for society.

Kant defines Enlightenment as “man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. ” For Kant, “Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another,” which he blames on “laziness and cowardice. ” Kant's motto for the Enlightenment is “Sapere aude! Have courage to use you own understanding! ” For Kan

...

t, Enlightenment for the individual is achieved when men gain courage to use their own perceptions and overcome their guardians. This philosopher describes a difference between Individual Enlightenment and Enlightenment of the general public. Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature for him ..

. There is more chance of an entire public Enlightenment itself. ” All that the Public Enlightenment needs is freedom - “freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. ” In his discourse, Rousseau first traces the events leading to this age. People who call themselves “enlightened today, lived a few centuries ago in a state worse than ignorance”. Enlightenment started with a revolution, “to bring men back into common sense.

With Enlightenment “people began to feel the main advantage of busying

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

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.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New