Due Apr 8
The Freedom to Think
Reading: Kant, “An Answer to the Question, What is Enlightenment?” (Blackboard).
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, posting as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- Kant opens with a provocative claim, “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority.” Tease out his meaning—whether by reference to a dictionary or to what he goes on to say in later ¶s. Alternatively, comment on Kant’s rhetorical strategy in employing this metaphor.
- A page later, Kant suggests that enlightenment depends crucially on freedom. But what sort of freedom, exactly? And why does it require courage to exercise it?
- Comment on a detail or oddity that catches your eye.
Kant’s notion of “self-imposed minority”
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
From Kant’s claim, he describes that it is not the fact that people don’t have intelligence, but rather that they will not use it on their own if not guided on how to do so. This incompetence is related to the metaphor of the domesticated animals and a walking cart (p.17). Kant explains that after being continuously guided where to walk and when by a cart and someone to guide them, the idea of NOT using the walking cart seems dangerous and out of bounds. Because of this, the natural instincts of these animals (which they used to use to hunt and travel land) are centralized on what the “leader” wants. This confines our intelligence into a box we, as a society, are too scared to break out of. The freedom in itself to think and use our intelligence on our own accord is essential for pursuing enlightenment to its full potential.
Kai, I agree with your point about people becoming dependent as it is really strong. The walking cart metaphor shows how freedom can start to feel scary when you’re so used to being led! I can even relate to this coming to college. It clearly explains why Kant believes true enlightenment requires thinking for yourself.
I like how you explained Kant’s idea that people aren’t lacking intelligence, but instead have become dependent on guidance, which connects well to his idea of “self-incurred minority”. He shows this through the metaphor of the walking cart, suggesting that people become so used to direction that they fear thinking for themselves, even though they are capable. As Kant says, “Have the courage to use your own understanding” (Kant 17), which emphasizes that the issue is not ability, but willingness to act independently. This metaphor is effective because it makes intellectual dependence seem unnatural and learned, pushing readers to question whether they are also choosing the comfort of guidance over the challenge of thinking freely.
In Immanuel Kant’s essay “What Is Enlightenment?”, he defines “self-imposed minority” as a state in which individuals rely on others to think for them instead of using their own reason. Kant argues that this condition is not caused by a lack of intelligence, but by a lack of courage and independence. People remain in this sea-imposed state because it’s seemingly easier and more comfortable to let authorities like religious leaders or government officials guide their thinking. In doing this, they avoid the risk and responsibility that comes with thinking for themselves. Kant believes that overcoming this “minority” requires individuals to have the courage to use their own understanding and think independently.
I agree with your point. I like how you say it is “comfortable” to stay in the minority. Kant even says the “guardians” make us feel like cattle or animals, so we are afraid to try. It is not just about being smart; it is about “Sapere Aude,” dare to know. We stay children because we are scared to make mistakes, but Kant says we must try
I agree with you, and I think what you described is why Kant makes his opening line very grabbing. It’s his rhetorical strategy. Starting with a statement that paints his idea of ‘Enlightenment’ as something ultimately good for humanity is important. It makes his harsh criticism of ‘followers’ later on and his urging them to be independent thinkers a lot more imperative. And, if you feel like you are a follower and are hurt by what he says about you, and want to turn away, then his opening line might keep you convinced. Because enlightenment, the independence of your own thought, will elevate you.
I concur with the above declarations and I’d like to add my own understanding. Kant talks about the generational drive to better society. In this way, Enlightenment is an endless process whose progress requires action of subsequent generations. Therefore, for a generation or those of a generation to not partake in self-thought means depriving future generations of a greater base of understanding from which to build upon and better. In this manner, cowardice is not a trouble of the one, but of the many and those who’ve yet to be born. To not think is to do a disservice to humanity. He prompts the audience to actions by acting upon their duty to future generations.
Kant’s claim at the beginning of the piece is concentrated on the idea of the “minority” which he calls the “inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another”. Kant is positing that enlightenment cannot exist unless being acted on by the individual through complete autonomy of thought. Self-incurred autonomy refers to the human nature of dependency whether that be to our peers or parents we have a deep desire as people to conform to other various forms of thought without directly creating our own. Kant is stating that the idea of consumption is “self-incurred” through human beings but to break free from that restriction means to think autonomously, without using other thought to directly affect your consciousness. This line of thinking is remarkably viable to modern times as human beings over-reliance on ai perfectly fits Kant’s idea of the “self-incurred minority”.
Why Enlightenment depends on freedom—and courage
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
Kant suggests that freedom is the only requirement for enlightenment, that is, “freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters” (Kant 18). In order for enlightenment to take place, there needs to be no restrictions on people’s speech as to allow for the flow of ideas necessary to promote independent thought. This sort of freedom requires courage to exercise due to the fact that the thoughts one might want to share can be far from the current public consensus. By putting these thoughts out into the world, the person is submitting their original ideas to public and universal scrutiny which itself can be difficult and frightening. Additionally, Kant says that the primary obstacle to enlightenment is not external but self-incurred, “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority” (Kant 17). This gives another necessary reason for courage- in order to put this freedom into practice, one has to bear the discomfort to practice reason and intellectual independence. The step that must be taken away from familiarity and comfort can seem like an impossible jump and therefore requires a tremendous amount of courage to do.
Kant thoroughly discusses his ideas of freedom in this text. Not physical freedom per se, but intellectual freedom. He uses a number of examples, one being how a military officer cannot disobey a direct order from his superior without consequence but, at the same time, “cannot fairly be prevented, as a scholar, from making remarks about errors in the military service and from putting these before his public for appraisal” (Kant 19). The laws within a society should not prevent an individual from using their own reasoning to conceive and share their thoughts, providing a sense of freedom that, when used in large groups, can generate real change. I agree with your point that the courage Kant believes is necessary to put this scholarly freedom into action stems from the fear of rejection from one’s peers. It is frightening to publicly voice an opinion that counters the beliefs of the general public. Kant also explains how this fear, however, can be utilized by the “guardians” in our society, used to keep its citizens immature or minor, emphasizing how courage is necessary to overcome this barrier.
While I agree with you largely, I would critique one statement made in your response. When you say, “there needs to be no restrictions on people’s speech” this is actually conversely addressed by Kant. He explains that there actually can be significant restrictions on free speech, but specifically in “private” use. An example that’s applicable is when a tax collector is collecting taxes, they may not make an argument against taxes. In a larger context Kant points to the idea that enlightenment doesn’t require free usage of speech in every circumstance, but specifically argues for it in the “world of readers” (18), where it has the largest impact.
I agree with both of your points about how freedom is the first step in the path towards enlightenment and overcoming societal barriers. All it takes is for one person to exercise their intellectual freedom and share their thoughts with the world to potentially create change in the world. Expanding on this idea of freedom, Kant brings up an interesting notion on how “a greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s freedom of spirit and nevertheless puts up insurmountable barriers to it; a lesser degree of the former, on the other hand, provides a space for the latter to expand to its full capacity” (Kant 22). He is saying that when a government gives people large amounts of civil freedom, people start becoming passive to what is happening around them and stop questioning things as deeply. However, when people have less civil freedom, they become more inclined to use their freedom of spirit to question the norms. Therefore, they develop a stronger sense of intellectual freedom and hopefully, the courage to share it with others. So he might not only be talking about intellectual freedom, but also the civil freedom that we have in the environment we exist in. That, too, is partially what enlightenment depends on.
I like how you highlight that Kant’s idea of freedom isn’t just theoretical, it’s actually uncomfortable and even a bit scary to live out. Building on that, I think Kant is also careful to show that it’s not about total freedom from rules, but specifically the freedom to think for yourself and share those thoughts openly. When he talks about “self-incurred minority,” he’s pointing out that the biggest barrier isn’t always society, it’s our own tendency to rely on others instead of trusting our own thinking . Your point about fear of judgment fits perfectly with that. It takes real courage not just to speak up, but to push past that comfort of letting others think for you and actually trust your own ideas, even when it feels uncertain or isolating.
Kai states that enlightenment relies on freedom to publicly use their own reason. People require the ability to write and speak openly, question authority, and share their ideas with others. Simultaneously, he argues that there are situations in which people should and must follow rules in their jobs, like soldiers following orders or priests teaching official doctrine. However, as thinkers addressing the public, they should always be free and have the right to express their reasoning. Using this freedom requires courage since thinking for yourself can be not comfortable and even more risky. A lot of people have a preference to let authorities lead them since it is much easier and feels safe. He thinks laziness and fear will stop people to become dependen, therefore enlightenment requires bravery to believe your own understanding and wonder what others tell you.
According to Immanuel Kant, the freedom that he’s talking about is the freedom to make public use of one’s reason. Kant defines enlightenment as depending on the ability of individuals as scholars and citizen to speak, write, and argue openly before the public. Enlightenment demands courage, because exercising freedom means stepping out of comfortable dependence and facing real intellectual and social risks.
Details or Oddities
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
Something that I find condusing is when, Kant states that, “It is because of laziness and cowardice that so great a part of humankind, after nature has long since emancipated them from other people’s direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remains minors for life, and that it becomes so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor!” (17). What I think he is trying to say is that people are scared to make decisions or they are too lazy to do this. However, I disagree. I think it doesn’t really make sense because most people never have the opportunity to think for themselves, because that is the way society has been set up that way. I feel like this is something that would be more acknowledged by Kant, since the upper class had more access to resources which allow them to utilize their independent thought.
Kant actually does acknowledge it! Many people are scared to make decisions BECAUSE of the pressures of society. Kant notes that a citizen cannot refuse his societal duties (like paying his taxes) but he can publicly express his opinion about the taxes and argue for change (19). Society pressures it’s citizens to be complacent and blindly follow the established order, and Kant urges us to speak out against it.
Kant also praises leaders who are willing to let their subjects think for themselves: “A prince who does not find it beneath himself to say that he considers it his duty not to prescribe anything to human beings in religious matters but to leave them complete freedom… , is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful world…” (21). In order for people to think for themselves, they need rulers to allow independent thought from all levels of society, in both lower and upper classes.
I agree that Kant does address that society pressures citizens to have similar beliefs and follow the rules that are set in place. On a similar note, a detail I found interesting is that Kant says, ” One age cannot bind itself and conspire to put the following one into such a condition that it would be impossible for it to enlarge its cognitions (especially in such urgent matters) and to purify them of errors, and generally to make further progress in enlightenment” (20). I believe Kant is trying to bring to readers’ attention that it’s important for groups of people in power or older generations to allow future generations to grow and expand their current rules for the betterment of society, and it would be unnatural to force people to continue obeying old laws left in place by older generations or people previously in power. And this demonstrates to us that Kant does recognize the established order and wants us to challenge it.
I agree that there are people who are afraid to make decisions because of societal pressures. However, it is up to that individual to make the final decision based on the result. For example, if a person does not want to pay taxes (in modern society), he will likely be arrested. To that person, is it worth it? When MLK jr performed sit ins, he knew that it was illegal, and he believed that the benefits of doing the sit ins would be worth it.
Going to your second paragraph, is a leader who lets their subjects think for themselves truly a leader? What would be a point of having a leader if each subject does whatever they feel like? Suppose a teacher (the leader) asks the class to read a paragraph in class. The students (the subjects) are thinking for themselves, and they arrive at the conclusion that reading is boring so they won’t do it. In this scenario, the leader is quite useless because nobody is listening to him.
I understand what you’re saying, and I mostly agree with you. I agree that Kant is talking about laziness and cowardice as a kind of mental block. People often like it when other people make decisions for them, but you’re right that this doesn’t fully explain the structural and social barriers that keep many people from thinking for themselves. For a long time, it has been hard for people outside the upper classes to get an education, resources, and the freedom to question authority. In that sense, what Kant calls “minority” isn’t always a choice that someone makes; it’s often something that happens to them because of things they can’t control. It’s interesting to think that Kant might be assuming a universal potential for reason that doesn’t fully take these differences into account.
I agree with Rinali and I also think Kant’s mention of “the entire fair sex” i.e. women, really highlights this blind spot that Kant has. In Kant’s era, women in Europe were rarely viewed as the intellectual and social equals to men. Those very few women who were given respect by male peers were often referred to as having the “minds of men,” implying that their very intelligence was a fundamentally masculine quality. Kant himself made many statements of this nature that were deeply misogynistic. If even he, who is advocating for people to break free of a minority imposed upon them by society and their acceptance of society’s demands, believes women to have a lesser role in society and to be of lesser intelligence, how can it not be hypocritical for him to use women as an example of people that simply must discover an inner courage that allows them to discover their own independent sense of reason?
As I was reading, one passage from the text particularly stood out to me. In this passage, Kant says, ” But the frame of mind of a head of state who favors the first goes still further and sees that even with respect to his legislation there is no danger in allowing his subjects to make public use of their own reason and to publish to the world their thoughts about a better way of formulating it, even with candid criticism of that already given” (6). This, to me was very interesting because it reflected how Kant’s ideas on the ‘enlightened’ leader or ruler. Especially in reference to supreme authority or monarchs, Kant discusses how an enlightened leader will use their power not for their own gain, but strictly for the collective good of the people. While having supreme authority means that they can interfere in these acts of the people in any manner they want, an enlightened leader will instead refrain from meddling in the affairs of the people and act only when improvement, “consistent with civil order” is put under stress (Kant 5). In other words, the king should only insert himself when the will the people does not align with their collective advancement and “salvation” (Kant 5).This was interesting to me foremost because this piece was written in the 18th century, when monarchs and kings still held constitutional power. So, seeing as Kant writes about duties of an enlightened leader, I wonder how authority figures and heads of state particularly affected him, and who/what the influence was for him to have written about.