Devon Smith

Intro to German Studies

First Paper: What is Enlightenment?
02/19/2015

Academia is in an age of regression. Students are not concerned about the

fostering of new ideas. Instead, they are worried about achieving the highest marks
possible with the least amount of effort. Sitting in the infamous expository writing class
at Rutgers University, a quick survey of the behavior of the students that are surrounding
you is enough to verify this claim. The class starts with a so-called, open discussion, in
which the professor will give an introduction of the author of the assigned reading and
give their insight about the text. They will then ask a few leading open-ended questions to
which the students are expected to answer. To appease their professor and secure high
marks, the students will flap their lips together and recite quotes from the text or
regurgitate the professors sentiments about the text. The professor will then praise the
students for their brilliant analysis of the text and the class will be dismissed. This is the
structure of a typical day in expository writing at Rutgers. The learning environment isnt
a true open forum littered with new ideas, interpretations and lively discussion. It is a
prison cell where the inmates slowly pass the time doing what they are told, never
questioning the wardens standards of proper conduct. We are living in an age of
regression; however, it is not the professor, nor the University president who is
responsible for making the learning environment like this. It is all of the individuals who
are affiliated with the University who are responsible.

In his essay, What is Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant addresses this issue.

In the opening line of his essay Kant says, Enlightenment is man's emergence from his
selfincurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding
without the guidance of another. Enlightenment as Kant calls it, is the opposite of this
self-imposed regression that I discussed earlier. It is, to use ones own mind to think for
oneself. Immaturity is the current state of the students in the typical university class.
Some students dont bother to think for themselves; instead, they are content with just
mechanically completing assignments based on the instructors preference. Applying the
enlightenment ideology to the university setting, it would be the obliteration of university
classes in which the student is simply regurgitating the author and lecturers words.
Instead, the student would digest the assigned text, and put forth a unique interpretation
of it. When I say unique, I mean that one has arrived at this interpretation through actual
thought, not just simply parroting an interpretation and claiming it as ones own. This age
of restriction as I call it, stems from exactly what Kant says, the inability to use ones
own understanding without the guidance of another. Extending this outside of
Academia, one can apply this concept even in terms of life decisions, such as attending
college versus going straight into the labor force, one must think, why did I choose to do
one or the other? Was it myself who made this decision? Did I truly feel that I wanted to
go to college and that it would be the best thing for me? Or did the decision lie with
parents or family, who decided that the best thing for me was to attend university? One of
the reasons why a lot of people choose to live an immature lifestyle is because its very

convenient. Kant describes immature people as being lazy. Kant says, Laziness and
cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long
emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly
remain immature for life. If you have someone to do the thinking for you, are you really
living your own life? It is important to note however, that Kant did make a distinction
between two different forms of enlightenment. Namely, those two forms are private
enlightenment and public enlightenment.
Public enlightenment is deep reflection and challenging of ones own ideology.
With the exception that is not while in a position in which one must represent the
ideologies. However, before discussing more intricate matters, an interesting point to note
exactly what Kant means by public. During Kants time, the publishing press had just
been created. When he says, public, he actually means in publishing. The printing press
was a new invention during this time and it was also a time where literacy wasnt
common. So we can assume that Kant means in regards to this ability to publically make
use of reason, the people who will be the audience of ones reasoning will only be the
literate. In fact, Kant expresses that sentiment in his essay. He says, But by the public
use of one's own reason I mean that use which anyone may make of it as a man of
learning addressing the entire reading public. When discussing how to make progress in
public enlightenment of the masses, Kant says, For enlightenment of this kind, all that is
needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all
freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. This statement by Kant
reinforces this idea that Enlightenment is at root using ones reason in all matters.
However, this statement also brings forth an interesting idea and condition for

enlightenment, in the public sense. He says that we must have freedom to publically
make use of our reason. We are left to interpret what this means. In modern day America,
we have the power of freedom of speech, we are free to question and speak our opinions
about anything ranging from our religious identity to the decisions made by the people
who run our country. This freedom to constantly question is the prerequisite to
enlightenment, for without this freedom we are forced to be unenlightened.

Private Enlightenment is when youre in a position in which you are representing

the ideology of someone other than your own, yet, you use some thought in executing
those actions. Kant says, What I term the private use of reason is that which a person
may make of it in a particular civil post or office with which he is entrusted. In the case
of private enlightenment, one is representing another entity, so it is inappropriate to act
and behave in a way that does not represent that entity. Doing such may result in
consequences such as anarchy. Kant says, it would be very harmful if an officer
receiving an order from his superiors were to quibble openly, while on duty, about the
appropriateness or usefulness of the order in question. He must simply obey. Using
Kants example, we simply cant have everyone acting of their own accord when they are
in certain positions. However an interesting case to contrast what Kant says here, is to
question how this lack of freedom while one is behaving as an officer intersects with
public enlightenment. Although one is acting as an officer, if one is enlightened one must
still be free to criticize and exercise reason in all matters. Yet in the case of an officer,
Kant suggests that one should not exercise reason, and just obey orders. This seems as if
it is a contradiction. However, Kant offers an answer to this contradiction. He says, The

same citizen does not contravene his civil obligations if, as a learned individual, he
publicly voices his thoughts on the impropriety or even injustice of such fiscal measures.
In other words, one an individual is off duty, or acting in a position in which they are not
representing an entity at a particular moment, their freedom to publically exercise reason
returns. They are free to publish their opinions on matters relating to the policies that they
must uphold. If it was impossible for this to happen, and that one who upholds principles
of this were not able to express their opinion, while not working in that particular post,
Kant says that enlightenment would be impossible. Kant says, A contract of this kind,
concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is
absolutely null and void, even if it is ratified by the supreme power, by Imperial Diets
and the most solemn peace treaties. If a contract like this were to exist, it means that the
next generation could never correct the errors of judgment that were made by the
previous generation. The policy makers would be obliged to stick with the policies that
they are bound to uphold. They are the only ones who would be able to actually change
these laws, yet, in a world where they could not express their views on these policies and
are forced to uphold them, they could not change these policies.

In regards to Kants explanation and model of enlightenment, I believe that it

makes sense and is a great goal for societies to strive for but not necessarily be truly
dedicated to attaining it. In essence I believe what the end goal of enlightenment would
be, is a society in which everyone attempts to live life in a way that they are completely
satisfied. By that I mean, each individual makes decisions that they feel will make it so
that when they are on their death bed, they will have no regrets about opportunities that

they didnt take because they were convinced by someone else that they couldnt do it, or
that it wasnt the best thing for them. In an earlier part of the essay Kant says, They []
show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger
is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few
falls. The they, in Kants statements would be anyone in an individuals life that seeks
to pacify him or her and make it so that they are scared to think for themselves. In order
to describe this relationship, Kant uses another metaphor he compares those who arent
enlightened to domesticated animals. Drawing from the fact that unlike their wild
counterparts who enjoy the freedom of adventure, a domesticated animals life has been
reduced to sitting in a home waiting for their owner to come home. While I do think that
enlightenment is something that everyone in a society should strive for, if Kant meant his
words literally, I cannot agree with him entirely. He says that enlightenment is exercising
ones personal reason in all matters, at least, in the public sense yet, I believe if that were
the case, it would be impossible to achieve enlightenment. Reading the opening
paragraph of Kants essay it seems as though he doesn't indulge in the other side of the
argument. In my opinion, sometimes it is better to let other people think for you in certain
circumstances. I say that because, there are some instances in which it isnt worth the
effort to concentrate energy to something that is truly of little importance to you, instead
of concentrating energy on something that is of substantial importance. Instead of
diverting energy and concentration to that trivial task, the energy would be well spent
doing something else. While I think this concept of enlightenment is important and has its
place. When I believe that it will most likely not be achieved.