IMMANUEL KANTlast christmas 歌词
An Answer to the Question:
What is Enlightenment?(1784)
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his lf-impod immaturity.Immaturity is the inability to u one's understanding without guidance from another.This immaturity is lf-impod when its cau lies not in lack of understanding,but in lack of resolve and courage to u it without guidance from another.Sapere Aude![dare to know]"Have courage to u your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
有关春节的资料
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men,long after nature has relead them from alien guidance(natura-liter maiorennes),nonetheless glad ly remain in lifelong immaturity,and why it is so easy for others to establish themlves as their guardians.It is so easy to be immature.If I have a book to rve as my understanding,a pastor to rve as my conscience,a physician to determine my diet for me,and so on,I need not exert mylf at all.I need not think,if only I can pay:others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully en to it that the far greatest part of them(including t
he entire fair x)regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous,not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb,and having carefully made sure that the docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnesd,the guardians then show them the danger that threatens them,should they attempt to walk alone.Now this danger is not actually so great,for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk;but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.
购物车 英文Thus,it is difficult for any individ ual man to work himlf out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature.He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding,for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it.Rules and formulas,tho mechanical aids to the rational u,or rather misu,
of his natural gifts,are the shackles of a permanent immaturity.Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch,since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement.Conquently,only a few have succeeded,by cultivating their own minds,in freeing themlves from immaturity and pursuing a cure cour.
hyper
索赔英文But that the public should enlighten itlf is more likely;indeed,if it is only allowed freedom,enlighten
ment is almost inevitable.For even among the entrenched guardians of the great mass a few will always think for themlves,a few who,after having themlves thrown off the yoke of immaturity,will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himlf.But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroud by some of tho who are altogether incapable of enlightenment,it may force the guardians themlves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejud ices,for they finally take revenge upon their originators,or on their descendants.Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly.Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression,but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking;instead,new prejud ices,just like the old ones they replace,will rve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.
英语角主题Nothing is required for this enlightenment,however,except freedom;and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all,namely,the freedom to u reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear:"Do not argue!"The officer says,"Do not argue,drill!"The tax man says,"Do not argue,pay!"The pastor says,"Do not argue,believe!"(Only one ruler in the World says,"Argue as much as you want and about what you want,but obey!")In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom.B
kanye west amazingut which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not,but instead actually advances it?I reply:The public u of one's reason must always be free,and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind;the private u of reason may,however,often be very narrowly restricted,without otherwi hindering the progress of enlightenment.By the public u of one's own reason I understand the u that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world.
I call the private u of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him.Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community,a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themlves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends,or at least prevent them from destroying such ends.Here one certainly must not argue,instead one must obey.However,insofar as this part of the machine also regards himlf as a member of the community as a whole,or even of the world community,and as a conquence address the public in the role of a scholar,in the proper n of that term,he can most certainly argue,without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible.Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order.He must obey.But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained
from making comments about errors in military rvice,or from placing them before the public for its judgment.The citizen cannot refu to pay the taxes impod on him;indeed,impertinent criticism of such levies,when they should be paid by him,can be punished as a scandal(since it can lead to widespread insubordination).But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when,as a scholar,he publicly express his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes.Likewi a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he rves,for he was appointed on that condition.But as a scholar he has complete freedom,indeed even the calling,to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol,as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters.Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience.What he teaches in conquence of his office as a rvant of the church he ts out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights;rather,he offers it under the direction and in the name of another.He will say,"Our church teaches this or that and the are the demonstrations it us."He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical us from precepts to which he would not himlf subscribe with complete conviction,but who prentation he can nonetheless undertake,since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them,and,in any ca,
里根演讲nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them.If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them,he could not in good conscience rve in his position;he would have to resign.Thus an appointed teacher's u of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private,becau,however large the congregation is,this u is always only domestic;in this regard,as a priest,he is not free and cannot be such becau he is acting under instructions from someone el.By contrast,the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as ,the world--enjoys in this public u of reason an unrestricted freedom to u his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the(spiritual)guardians of a people should themlves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.
很郁闷
But would a society of pastors,perhaps a church asmbly or venerable presbytery(as tho among the Dutch call themlves),not be justified in binding itlf by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to cure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people,and this for all time:I say that this is wholly impossible.Such a contract,who intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race,is absolutely null and void,even if it should be ratified by the supreme power,by parliaments,and by the most solemn peace treaties.One age cannot bind itlf, and thus conspire,to place a succeed ing one in a condition whereby it would
朝日日语培训be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge(particularly where it is so very important),to rid itlf of errors,and generally to increa its enlightenment.That would be a crime against human nature,who esntial destiny lies precily in such progress;subq uent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthoriz ed and criminal.The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question:Can a people impo such a law on itlf?Now it might be possible,in anticipation of a better state of affairs,to introduce a provisional order for a specific,short time,all the while giving all citizens,especially clergy,in their role as scholars,the freedom to comment ,in writing,on the prent institution's shortcomings.The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of the matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined(if not unanimous)voices of the populace could
propo to the crown that it take under its protection tho congregations that,in accord with their newly gained insight,had organized themlves under altered religious institutions,but without interfering with tho wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However,it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question,for so do-ing would deny,render fruitless,and make detrimental to succeed ing gene
ratio ns an era in man's progress toward improvement.A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person;but to renounce it for himlf,or,even more,for subq uent generations,is to vio late and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itlf may still less be impod on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only es to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being,which is not his affair.However,he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being.It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in the matters,since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance.This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himlf the reproach,"Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as,indeed even more,when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.
If it is now asked,"Do we prently live in an enlightened age?"the answer is,"No,but we do live in an age of enlightenment."As matters now stand,a great deal is still lack ing in order for men as a whole t
o be,or even to put themlves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues.But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their relea from their lf-impod immaturity--are gradually diminishing.In this regard,this age is the age of enlightenment,the century of Frederick.
