康德：什么是启蒙运动［英文版］
What Is Enlightenment?
By Immanuel Kant
The 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his influential work The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. Three years later, he expanded on his study of the modes of thinking with an essay entitled "What is Enlightenment?" In this 1784 essay, Kant challenged readers to "dare to know," arguing that it was not only a civic but also a moral duty to exerci the fundamental freedoms of thought and expression.
Enlightenment is man’s leaving his lf-caud immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to u one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is lf-caud if it is not caud by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to u one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to u your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is becau of laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book which provides meaning for me, a pastor who has conscience for me, a doctor who will judge my diet for me and so on, then I do not need to exert mylf. I do not have any need to think; if I can pay, others will take over the tedious job for me. The guardians who have kindly undertaken the supervision will e to it that by far the largest part of mankind, including the entire "beautiful x," should consider the step into maturity, not only as difficult but as very dangerous.
After having made their domestic animals dumb and having carefully prevented the quiet creatures from daring to take any step beyond the lead-strings to which they have fastened them, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not really so very great; for they would presumably learn to walk after some stumbling. However,
an example of this kind intimidates and frightens people out of all further attempts.
It is difficult for the isolated individual to work himlf out of the immaturity which has become almost natural for him. He has even become fond of it and for the time being is incapable of employing his own intelligence, becau he has never been allowed to make the attempt. Statutes and formulas, the mechanical tools of a rviceable u, or rather misu, of his natural faculties, are the ankle-chains of a continuous immaturity. Whoever threw it off would make an uncertain jump over the smallest trench becau he is not accustomed to such free movement. Therefore there are only a few who have pursued a firm path and have succeeded in escaping from immaturity by their own cultivation of the mind.
But it is more nearly possible for a public to enlighten itlf: this is even inescapable if only the public is given its freedom. For there will always be some people who think for themlves, even among the lf-appointed guardians of the great mass who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themlves, will sp
read about them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own value and of the need for every man to think for himlf. It is strange that the very public, which had previously been put under this yoke by the guardians, forces the guardians thereafter to keep it there if it is stirred up by a few of its guardians who are themlves incapable of all enlightenment. It is thus very harmful to plant prejudices, becau they come back to plague tho very people who themlves (or who predecessors) have been the originators of the prejudices. Therefore a public can only arrive at enlightenment slowly. Through revolution, the abandonment of personal despotism may be engendered and the end of profit-eking and domineering oppression may occur, but never a true reform of the state of mind. Instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will rve as the guiding reins of the great, unthinking mass.
All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public u of his reason in all matters. But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don't
argue! The officer says: Don't argue, drill! The tax collector: Don't argue, pay! The pastor: Don't argue, believe! (Only a single lord in the world says: Argue, as much as you want to and about what you plea, but obey!) Here we have restrictions on freedom everywhere. Which restriction is hampering enlightenment, and which does not, or even promotes it? I answer: The public u of a man's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment among men: while the private u of a man's reason may often be restricted rather narrowly without thereby unduly hampering the progress of enlightenment.
