The Crux Of Kant's What Is Enlightenment?

Freedom to think or freedom to act—that is the crux of Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?”. In this essay, the German philosopher describes enlightenment as an emergence from nonage: “the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance” (2). Initially, Kant emphatically asserts that the vast majority of people are obedient to and dependant on the thoughts of a few “guardians”, either because of laziness or cowardice (2). He even goes as far as to compare men to conditioned cattle:
First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if
This classification seems rather awkward, because what someone does out in the open as a civilian is far more public than what they discuss at home. I think that Kant designates writing in a scholarly matter as public use of reason because he believes that intellectual discourse opens up a debate that many people can enter into. Practically, however, this is not true, because the vast majority of people are better able to interact with others through their “civic post” and how the conduct themselves. For example, Kant believes that a pastor should preach what he has been told to in church, and then can later reveal his true thoughts as a scholar. Do you think a member of his congregation is more likely to internalize what is taught to them in church, or what the pastor publishes in some esoteric journal somewhere? Obviously the former. Thus scholarly debate is an act of private freedom, and one’s civic conduct is public use of reason. This distinction is an important one to make as it helps explain why civic disobedience is necessary for enlightenment. Consider the Civil Rights Movement. Intellectuals like McKay and Johnson had discussed the plight of black people for decades. And although the words of black scholars accomplished a lot, I think it is safe to say that it was only through civil resistance and disobedience that segregation and
After all, Kant appears very concerned with changing “modes of thought”, and not necessarily how people act (3). I would reply that according to Kant himself, enlightenment is not restricted to how people think and view the world. The philosopher defines enlightenment as using one’s own understanding. To use implies some sort of tangible result. If a scholar simply writes about their beliefs, they are not using their own understanding—they are simply furthering it. Furthermore, “argue but obey” contradicts the idea that enlightenment involves eliminating obedience to the thoughts of others (2). There are definitely two different Kants portrayed in “What is Enlightenment?”, and I agree with the first one. If Kant is correct in that we are not currently in an age of enlightenment, then it is impossible for there to be no change in society once we begin to escape nonage. Continuing to abide by the same laws means would indicate that we were bound to the same old