But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible…

In his 1784 effort on Enlightenment, Kant proclaims its creed as Sapere aude!, or "Have courage to use your own reason!" This phrase, it seems, functions as more than just a motto or badge of the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenment functions as more than just a period of learning in human history. Sapere aude! is a challenge set forth by Kant and his cohorts. This call to action, to reason, is a brave and powerful one, especially for the time. But how have we as humans, with 227 years since Kant ascribed it to the Enlightenment, heeded and understood Sapere aude! - have we fulfilled his challenge?

Kant urges an internal enlightenment, or what he describes as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage;" the method he offers to break these shackles is reason. In addition to providing the tool to reach enlightenment, he provides two avenues: the public and private enlightenments. He charges that the enlightened man should employ reason in both these realms. Kant says that for one man to break his bonds of tutelage is difficult work as this way of life has "become almost his nature." This idea struck me as strange. Is it then unnatural to become enlightened? At first, that idea seems even stranger, but as I think about it more, it seems logical - or at least reasonable. Kant says more about the public, that "[they] can only slowly attain enlightenment." This naturally begs the question: have we attained it? If so, do we exist in an unnatural world - one of the enlightened?

Kant says, "If we are asked, 'Do we now live in an enlightened age?' the answer is, 'No,' but we do live in an age of enlightenment," suggesting the ongoing process of the whole thing. Surely, the Age of Enlightenment (if that's what we've began) has caused good for the human race. Medicine, religion, manufacturing, quality of life, and other human conditions and processes are all in arguably better standing than before. Kant has risin to defeat the unenlightened idea that "I need not think, if I can only pay--others will readily take the irksome work for me." This is the age of action!

Naiveties of the Enlightenment

As we discussed in class, at the core of Enlightenment thinking lies the aggressive, unyielding pursuit of advancement. To accept the status quo is to succumb to the societal dogmas that are imposed upon an individual, effectively limiting any potential for future intellectual growth. With freedom, “unassisted human reason, not faith or tradition, was the principal guide to human conduct” (Kramnick xi). Being the cynic that I am, I have come to appreciate the concept of doubting institutions and allowing individuals to formulate their own moral code that Enlightenment thinkers pioneered. However, that same cynicism leads me to question how such brilliant minds could have genuinely had such a naive view of human nature.

How many examples are necessary to show that individuals left to their own will are going to eventually act immorally? Everyone has read The Lord of the Flies. Imagine if you were stranded on an island with a random group of your peers. While there may be a handful of selfless and morally sound characters in the group, without authority anarchy bred of self interest will naturally occur sooner or later. Yet Francis Hutcheson’s view that “human beings have an inner sense – an unerring feeling – of what is proper and true” (Kelleter 81) is considered ‘enlightened’. Perhaps an innate sense of right and wrong exists, but there is no indication that this will generate ethical behavior. Adam Smith’s critique that one will act morally as an “impartial spectator” and examine the causal effects of an action strikes me as equally idealistic. Still, “the Enlightenment valorized the individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest” (Kramnick 81). Maybe its just me, but self-interest to me seems inherently morally illegitimate. This theory of self determination as the proper method of governance may have been an advancement from the aristocratically imposed subjugation of the masses that preceded the Enlightenment, but many of the discussed ‘advancements’ present clear problems.

Along these lines, the criticism of the Enlightenment that “freedom from external authorities enables the enlightened individual “to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do”” (Kramnick 87) struck me as acutely accurate. This concept succinctly encapsulates my skepticism surrounding the Enlightenment’s questionable belief in the goodness of man. There must be a limit on freedom- some kind of authority to control man’s natural desire to not only advance himself, but advance himself above others as Hobbes described in his state of nature.