Immanuel Kant - “What is Enlightenment?”

A critical review of one of Kant's most famous writings and why this particular piece of writing is still hugely significant today;

The foundation of Kant’s essay is his own personal definition of what enlightenment is and he uses his definition to explain why he concludes that enlightenment is attainable. A critical review of this essay requires not just analysing Kant’s definition of enlightenment but also whether it is possible. Then it is necessary to analyse the significance of enlightenment and how it has influenced politics and philosophy as well as acknowledging how enlightenment brought the notion of individualism into reality. The crucial part of Kant’s essay is actually within the first sentence, where he defined enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.”[1] Immaturity for Kant, is an individual being unable to use their own understanding without the support from another person. Kant blames the individual for this immaturity as it is self-inflicted. Therefore in order to achieve enlightenment, one must be courageous and resolute. This is why he uses the Latin term ‘Sapere aude’ in his essay, meaning ‘dare to be wise’. [2]

However, after analysing Kant’s definition of enlightenment and the philosophy as well as the meaning behind it, for me enlightenment is nothing more than a myth. We as human beings have two purposes that unite all of us together and this is not the attainment of enlightenment, it is the survival and reproduction of humans in order to ensure the continuation of our species. This is highlighted in the theory of the ‘Survival of the fittest’. In addition, regardless of Kant, the term ‘enlightenment’ is contingent on the existence of freedom, yet freedom simply does not exist. We are controlled by causal powers which are a part of the causal chain of events which does not necessarily determine our behaviour but it certainly influences it. Therefore, it is simply illogical to believe that we are totally free. Even if science was wrong and enlightenment was truly possible, we shouldn’t pursue it because of the negative impact it has on wider society. It promotes individualism and it is a very self-centred theory. If everyone pursued it, we’d live in a totally individualistic society and there would almost certainly be social anarchy.

One of the key themes in this essay is the reason why so many people have not achieved enlightenment. It is evident in Kant’s essay that immaturity according to him, is the individual’s own fault. It is a personal consequence for not being courageous and resolute, “This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another”.[3] It is evident in the essay that a lot of people are ‘immature’ because Kant goes on to argue about the convenience of being immature, because everything is handed to us on a plate. It is such a convenience that we blindly accept being immature. Kant refers to two examples to demonstrate this, “a spiritual advisor to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me.”[4] We get people to do jobs which we really should be doing ourselves. It is when we become more independent and rational that we move away from this state of immaturity.

As previously mentioned, enlightenment is contingent on the existence of freedom and for Kant, it is the simplest forms of freedom required, “freedom to make public use of reason in all matters.”[5] This alone is sufficient enough to enlighten us. However, Kant was also realistic, he comprehends the unlikeliness of this to happen as people passively follow institutions such as the monarchy and religious institutions such as the Church. Therefore, we are on the wrong path heading into the wrong direction which halts philosophical progression, because we are content with the way that we currently are. Being content and passive contributes to one’s own immaturity because it shows a lack of courage and resolution as well as independence.

One of the aims of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy was to enable political progression and he aimed to achieve this by changing the way we view politics intellectually. As a liberal, Kant argued that it was in the interests of the government to treat its citizens with dignity as it enables intellectual freedom. This increases the likelihood of community enlightenment which for Kant is more probable then individual enlightenment and this form of enlightenment is the most beneficial for the human race.

There for a lot of weaknesses that can be identified from Kant’s essay, none more so then his view that immaturity is self-incurred. Naturally, we are social beings who rely on others for survival. Our behaviour, knowledge and attitudes are a product of our socialisation and upbringing. We are not born with innate knowledge - we know nothing at birth, gaining knowledge is a gradual process throughout one’s life. As John Locke argued, our mind at the beginning of life is like a blank slate – tabula rasa.[6] There is no such thing as innate or intrinsic ideas. In addition, scientific and psychological studies have revealed that we are also influenced by our biological makeup. So as humans, a combination of nature and nurture shapes who we as individuals are and what we stand for. Therefore, is immaturity ‘self-incurred’, when it is the very essence of humanity to rely on the aid and support of those around us? For many including myself, Kant fails to comprehend what it is to be human and this brings his whole reasoning for immaturity into serious doubt.

Moreover, Kant deals with the philosophical puzzle of the issue of freedom insufficiently. Kant argued that being free is to be able to express oneself honestly and this is paramount for enlightenment. In his other work, Kant logically identified the fact that space and time are not entities that exist independently of human beings, because there are purely concepts made by the human mind. The same goes for freedom, it is purely a subjective term made by humans. As Kant argued, we cannot know if freedom actually exists - it is unverifiable, yet he emphasised the importance of believing that we are free - autonomous beings, because that would be a preferable world to live in. As Kant stated in his studies of ethics, it is pivotal that we believe in freedom because morality would otherwise be a meaningless concept. There are two fundamental weaknesses here. First of all, if freedom is merely a myth and nothing else, then so is enlightenment. Enlightenment cannot occur without the capacity to be free, enlightenment is contingent on the existence of freedom. Secondly, the view that we may not actually be free makes morality arbitrary and meaningless. It also rejects the notion of absolutism. This opposes the view of many traditional religions, where we are free beings that are responsible for our actions. This is a core theme of the Abrahamic religions.

Another key foundation of Kant’s essay is ‘reason’. Kant argued that systematic knowledge in reason can only be fulfilled with assumptions that empirical evidence cannot support. This is because we as ‘human beings cannot understand and contemplate the ultimate nature of things because of the spatiotemporal constraints on our sensibility’.[7] Therefore, it is logical to conclude that because reason is a human quality, reason is intrinsically spatial and temporal. So when Kant encourages the use of reason, resolution and courage to achieve enlightenment, is this possible? This is because using reason willingly postulates the existence of freedom, but if we are temporal and spatial then we cannot be free, so therefore enlightenment is just a myth.

Michael Foucault praised Kant for undertaking a ‘critical ontology of ourselves'.[8] Whilst Kant can be praised for the implications he has had on the way we view our purpose, it is pivotal to look at the bigger picture. Individualism which is a product of his definition of enlightenment has caused modernity which has undeniably reduced social cohesion and the collective consciousness. This has led to the decline of the key institutions such as the monarchy and religion which has formed a secular Western World. In the last one hundred years alone, there have been many regimes such as the: Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, North Korea and Islamic Extremism which strictly oppose Western individualism because of the selfishness that this way of life presents. So when analysing the effects of enlightenment and what that entails for humanity, it has caused conflict, destruction and hatred.

People who regard Kant highly would argue that Kant’s view of enlightenment has completely changed the shape of politics. It is because of Kant that today, we have less restrictions and more freedom. Kant’s philosophy has reduced inequality and it has promoted the ideology that we should all be treated with dignity and respect. Yet this isn’t sufficient enough to override all of his criticisms of his essay, because he has created more harm than good. He has neglected the fundamental role of humans, he has encouraged the questioning of religious doctrines when he said that it is immature to not question them. All that this has done is lead to conflict. On top of this, he has heavily contributed to the decline in religious institutions such as the Church in this country because he promoted the questioning of religious doctrines. Less than 2% of the country’s population attend a Church of England Sunday mass.[9] This is one of the traditional religions of this country and this just goes to show the lack of consensus in this country. We are living in an individualised society and this has such a negative effect both on a national and global scale. Within one society, we have conflicting ideas about everything; politics, religion and morality as well as many other topics. It is by no means incoherent to conclude that Kant’s essay on ‘What is Enlightenment?’ has caused more harm than good.

[1] Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? 1784, p.1.

[2] ibid., p.1.

[3] ibid., p.1.

[4] ibid., p.1.

[5] Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? 1784, p.2.

[6] Simon Blackburn, Oxford: Dictionary of Philosophy (third edition, 2016), p.470.

[7] Matt McCormick, Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/> (10.11.2017)

[8] Colin McQuillan, Conceptions of Critique in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy, (Palgrave MacMillan UK, 2012), p.66.

9 Andrew Brown, Church of England weekly attendance falls below 1m for first time, The Guardian, < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/church-of-england-attendance-falls-below-million-first-time> 11.11.2017