1
Answer the question: What is Enlightenment?
Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?
(Königsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784)
By
Immanuel Kant
(Born in 1724 and died in 1804)
Translation into English by Daniel Fidel Ferrer (2013)
2
Table of Contents
Immanuel Kant’s Text translated into English (pages 2 to 10).
Notes, Bibliography, Related Links, Etc., Appendix A (pages 12 to 25).
Word Index (pages 26 to 44).
[Start of Immanuel Kant’s Text]:
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity
(selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit). Immaturity is the inability to use one
understanding without guidance from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage
when its cause lies not in lack of understanding (Versandes), but rather of
resolve and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere Aude!
[Latin translated: Dare to know, from Horace]. Have courage to use your
own mind! Thus is the motto of Enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the causes (Ursachen), why such a large
part of humanity, after nature has released them from external guidance
(natura liter maiorennes) [Latin translated: come of age via nature],
remain; but like life immaturity, and why it is so easy to set themselves up
as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature. I have a book, which
understands for me, a pastor who has conscience (Gewissen) for me, and a
physician who decides my diet, etc., so I do not even need to try. I do not
think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for
me. That by far the largest proportion of people (including the entire
(ganze) fair sex), the step to maturity, but this is that it difficult, even for
3
very dangerous to think, have rendered those guardians, the ultimate
supervisor (Oberaufsicht) of them graciously took upon themselves. Once
they have made their domestic cattle first stupid and have made sure that
were these placid creatures will not dare step without the harness is it a like
a children’s walking cart (Gängelwagen, footnote #1), if they try it go alone
it shows them the danger to them threatens. Now this danger is not so
great, for they would learn to walk by falling a few steps times, but an
example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all
further attempts.
So it is difficult for any single individual to work himself out of
immaturity as has become almost his own nature. He has even grown fond
and forehand is really incapable of his own use of his understanding
(Verstandes), because you never let him make the attempt. Statutes and
formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational use, or rather misuse, of his
natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity (Unmündigkeit).
Whoever throws them off would still do well on the narrowest trench only
an uncertain leap, because he is not accustomed to kind of free movement.
Therefore, there are few who have succeeded in extricate themselves by
their own exercise of mind (Geistes) from immaturity and still a steady
pace.
But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible, yes, it is; if
one is only allowed freedom, Enlightenment is almost sure. For there will
always be some independent thinkers (Selbstdenkende), found even among
the established guardians of the great masses, who, after throwing off the
yoke of immaturity themselves thrown to think the spirit of a reasonable
estimate of their own worth and every man's vocation, will spread even to
themselves. Especially is herein: that the public, which previously brought
by them under this yoke by them afterwards even, forces them to remain
among them, when some of his guardians (Vormünder), who are altogether
incapable of Enlightenment been incited to do so. Thus, harmful it is, to
plant prejudices; for they finally take revenge on those themselves, or their
predecessors have been their authors. Thus, a public can only slowly attain
4
Enlightenment. A revolution is perhaps probably a waste of personal
despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression (herrschsüchtiger
Bedrückung); but never a true reform in ways of thinking can come about;
but rather, are new prejudices, just as well serve as the old ones to harness
the great unthinking mass (gedankenlosen großen Haufens).
For this Enlightenment nothing is required but freedom, namely the
most harmless amongst all what may be called freedom, namely: to make
use of one’s reason (Vernunft) in all public use. But I hear calling from all
sides: do not argue! The officer says: do not argue but rather drill! The tax
collector: do not argue, but rather pay! The clergyman: do not argue, but
rather believe! (Only one ruler in the world says: argue all you want and
what you want, but obey (gehorcht)). Here is everywhere restriction
(Einschränkung) of freedom. But which restriction hinders Enlightenment
and which not, but instead actually advances it? - I answer: the public use
of reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about Enlightenment
among men; the private use (Privatgebrauch) of reason may often be very
narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of
Enlightenment. But I understand the public use (öffentlichen Gebrauche)
of one's reason, to anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire
literate world. Private use I call that which he entrusted to him in a certain
civil post or office shall make use of his reason. Is now to some businesses
(Geschäfte) that run in the interest of the community, a certain mechanism
is necessary, by means of which some members of the community must
passively conduct themselves in order, by an artificial unanimity, the
government for public purposes or the destruction of at least held to these
purposes. It is certainly not allowed to see reason alternative, but rather
one must obey. If, however, this part of the machine [Translator note:
German word is ‘Maschine’] at the same time as a member of a whole
community, regards itself at the world civil society, and thus in the quality
of a scholar who can addresses an audience at the proper sense of
expediency alternate, however, without prejudice to the businesses
suffering to which he is in part responsible as a passive member. So it
5
would be very disastrous if an officer, who is commanded by his superior,
was serving on the desirability or utility of a given to command -- he must
obey. He cannot be justly constrained from making a scholar of the error in
the military service notes and submit them to the public for their opinion.
The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on them, indeed,
impertinent criticism of such levies, if they are to be paid by them, as a
scandal (occasion general insubordination) could be punished. However,
the same person does not act contrary notwithstanding this the duty of a
citizen, when he publicly expresses his thoughts as a scholar resists the
impropriety or even injustice of such tenders. Similarly, a clergyman is
connected to do his catechism students and his community after the Church
he serves his presentation symbol [Translator note: the German word is
indeed: Symbol], for he has been accepting to this condition. But as a
scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling to all his
carefully tested and well-intentioned thoughts on the faulty in that symbol
and suggestions for the better establishment of religion and Church being
communicated to the audience. There is devised nothing that could be put
to burden his conscience. For what he teaches as a result of his duties
(seines Amts, ‘his office’) as business of the Church, which he presents as
something, in respect of which he has not free of violence to teach as he
sees fit; but rather that he is hired to carry forward provision for and in the
name of another. He will say: our Church teaches this or that and these are
the arguments, which he uses. He thus extracts all practical uses for his
congregation from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with
complete conviction; but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake,
since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden; but in any event, at
least nothing of the inner religion contradictory fact is encountered.
Because he believed he had found them, he would not administer his office
with a conscience, and he would have to resign. The use, therefore, to an
appointed teacher makes of his reason before his congregation is merely
private, because this is only one home, however large meeting, and in
respect of which he is a priest not free and should it not also be such
because he is someone else. In contrast, as a scholar, who through his