What Is Enlightenment?

Kant does not think that the enlightenment of the public requires much in the way of political rights and freedoms, as long as people have Freedom of the Pen. In fact, he thinks too much “civil freedom” might actually get in the way of enlightenment. More democratically minded contemporary readers may disagree. Why does he believe this, and should we reject this view now? Why or why not?

The ideals of the Age of Enlightenment have attracted a range of critics, from the religious thinkers of the day through the 19th-century Romantic movement to 20th-century critical theorists. Familiarize yourself with a prominent criticism of the Enlightenment’s celebration of reason. Is Kant’s conception of enlightenment and reason subject to this criticism, or does the criticism miss the mark? How might Kant respond? (Some prominent critics of the Enlightenment include Edmund Burke, Novalis, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Max Horkheimer.)

King Frederick’s openness to freedom of religious and philosophical discourse appears to be the source of much of Kant’s optimism about the potential for enlightenment. However, Frederick died just two years after Kant wrote “What Is Enlightenment?” and was succeeded by a much less tolerant king. How do you think Kant might have responded to this? Would his optimism have given way to pessimism, or is his faith in human reason stronger than that?

Kant was influenced by social contract theory—the idea that the authority of the government (whether a monarchy or a republic) comes from a hypothetical agreement between a leader and the public. Kant does not use the language of social contracts in “What Is Enlightenment?” but the idea is just under the surface in some passages. How does Kant implicitly endorse social contract theory in the essay?

Kant uses several metaphors throughout the essay. Which metaphor do you think is the most powerful and might have had the most impact on his audience? What is the intended effect of the metaphor, and why is it effective?

To illustrate the distinction between public and private uses of reason, Kant gives the recurring examples of the member of the military, the tax-paying citizen, and the cleric. Which of these examples is most relevant to a contemporary context, and why? Does Kant’s endorsement of constraints on the private use of reason translate to this contemporary setting?

Kant does not recognize civil disobedience, though he acknowledges that there might be cases where one cannot in good conscience follow the dictates of one’s office. In those cases, the right thing to do is resign. This applies straightforwardly to the member of the military or the cleric, but how might this work if the office we are dealing with is that of the citizen? Can obedience to certain laws go against a citizen’s conscience? If so, how should the citizen respond? Can one “resign” from one’s citizenship?

The internet and social media have largely replaced the “realm of letters” in which Kant thinks the enlightenment of the public can occur. Do these new media affect Kant’s argument? Is there still a potential for some form of enlightenment in these arenas, and what might Kant’s “freedom of the pen” mean in these contexts?