What Is Enlightenment

Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.

Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Have the courage to use 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 because 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 myself. 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 see to it that by far the largest part of mankind, including the entire "beautiful sex," 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 these quiet creatures from daring to take any step beyond the lead-strings to which they have fastened them, these 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 himself 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, because he has never been allowed to make the attempt. Statues and formulas, these mechanical tools of a serviceable use, or rather misuse, 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 because 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 itself: this is even inescapable if only the public is given its freedom. For there will always be some people who think for themselves, even among the self-appointed guardians of the great mass who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own value and of the need for every man to think for himself...

A public can only arrive at enlightenment slowly. Through revolution, the abandonment of personal despotism may be engendered and the end of profit-seeking and domineering oppression may occur, but never a true reform of the state of mind. Instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as the guiding reins of the great, unthinking mass.

All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use 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!... Here we have restrictions on freedom everywhere. Which restriction is hampering enlightenment, and which does not, or even promotes it? I answer: The public use of a man's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment among men....

The question may now be put: Do we live at present in an enlightened age? The answer is: No, but in an age of enlightenment. Much still prevents men from being placed in a position to use their own minds securely and well in matters of religion. But we do have very definite indications that this field of endeavor is being opened up for men to work freely and reduce gradually the hindrances preventing a general enlightenment and an escape from self-caused immaturity.

什么是啟蒙

啟蒙乃是人脫離其自我導致的不成熟狀態。不成熟狀態就是沒有他人引導便無法使用自己的理智。如果不是因為缺少理智，而是因為在無人引導時缺少使用自己理智的決心和勇氣，那么此種不成熟狀態就是自我導致的。因此，“敢于運用你自己的理智!”就是啟蒙的座右銘。

由于懶惰與懦弱，人類的很大一部分在大自然把他們從外界的引導下釋放出來后，依然甘愿處于不成熟狀態。正因為懶惰與懦弱，別人便得以輕而易舉地以看護人自居。做未成年人是多么安逸!假如有書本為我釋疑解惑，有牧師為我提供良知，有醫生為我鑒別食譜，如此等等，那么我自己便不必勞神費力。我沒有任何思考的必要;假如我能夠支付報酬，別人會接替我那份乏味的苦差事。那些好心承擔了監督任務的看護人將確保包括所有女性在內的人類的最大多數，把走向成熟看作不僅是困難的，而且是非常危險的。

這些看護人首先使他們的溫馴的動物們保持沉默，并小心翼翼地防止這些安靜的奴才們膽敢邁出韁繩所許可的范圍一步，然后便展示給他們看試圖獨自行走將面臨的危險。事實上這種危險并不那么可怕，因為在跌倒幾次后他們很可能就學會了走路。但是，這種失敗的例子使人們望而生畏，不敢做任何進一步的嘗試。

對于孤立的個人來說，想要掙脫那幾乎已成為自己天性的不成熟狀態是困難的。他甚至愛上了這種狀態，而且眼下他也沒有能力使用自己的理智，因為他從未被容許去做這樣的嘗試。法則、公理這類與其說利用還不如說誤用其天賦的機械工具，是持久不成熟狀態的腳鐐。 任何拋棄腳鐐的人連最小的溝坎都無法穩步跨過，因為他已不習慣這樣自由地移動。因此，只有少數幾個人能通過修煉自己的心智，探索出一條堅固的道路，并成功逃離不成熟狀態。

然而，公眾要啟蒙自己卻是更有可能的：可以說只要給予公眾自由，這甚至是不可避免的;因為即便是在那些以大眾看護人自居的人們當中，總會有一些獨立思考的人，他們在自己擺脫不成熟狀態的桎梏之后，便會向周圍傳播一種精神，既合理評估他們自身的價值，又激勵每一個人開展獨立思考。……

大眾只能緩慢地達到啟蒙。通過革命，可以鏟除個人的****統治，可以結束貪婪與霸道的壓迫，但卻決不可能帶來思想狀態的真正革新。相反，新的偏見就像舊的偏見一樣，會成為引導那些沒有思想的蕓蕓眾生的韁繩。

啟蒙所要求的唯一條件就是自由，尤其是所有自由中最無害的那種，即人在任何問題上公開運用理性的自由。可是我卻處處聽到人們大聲呵斥：不許爭辯!軍官說：不許爭辯，操練!稅吏說：不許爭辯，交錢!牧師說：不許爭辯，相信!…… 到處都是對自由的限制。那么，到底哪一種限制會妨礙啟蒙，哪一種不會或甚至促進啟蒙呢?我的回答是：對人的理性的公開運用在任何時候都必須是自由的，而這就足以給人們帶來啟蒙。……

于是人們可能要問：我們現在是否生活在一個已經啟蒙的時代?答案是否定的：我們正處于啟蒙時代。依然有許多障礙使人們不能在宗教問題上安全有效地使用自己的大腦。不過，的確有種種清晰的跡象表明，此一努力的領域正在被打開，以便人們自由地探索，從而逐步減少那些阻止普遍啟蒙與擺脫自我導致之不成熟狀態的障礙。-

伊曼努爾?康德(1724-1804)是啟蒙運動時期最重要的思想家之一，德國古典哲學的創始人。康德哲學理論結合了英國經驗主義與歐洲大陸的理性主義。他認為，知識是人類同時透過感官與理性得到的;經驗對知識的產生是必要的，但不是唯一的要素;把經驗轉換為知識，就需要理性(康德與亞里士多德一樣，將這種理性稱為“范疇”)，而理性則是天賦的;人類通過范疇的框架來獲得外界的經驗，沒有范疇就無法感知世界;但人類的范疇中也有一些可以改變人類對世界的觀念的因素，因此事物本身與人所看到的事物是不同的，人永遠無法確知事物的真正面貌。在倫理學上，康德提出的“絕對命令” 至今依然是道德哲學中的一條基本準則。在宗教上，康德承認無論是經驗還是理性都無法證明上帝的存在。但是他認為，為了維護道德的緣故，我們必須假設上帝與靈魂的存在。在自然科學方面，康德提出了關于太陽系起源的星云假說。康德的代表作是他的“三大批判”，即《純粹理性批判》、《實踐理性批判》和《判斷力批判》。康德同情法國大革命，他的《什么是啟蒙?》一文是對啟蒙運動的經典辯護。本文是該文的節選，作者對人類理性寄予了絕對信心，主張社會的每一個人都應該獨立運用自己的理性，對一切問題進行公開的、自由的探究。康德在主張個人自由的時候并沒有滑向無政府主義，他提出用“公共安全”作為底線來約束自由辯論。他的那句引起爭議的名言可以為證：Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!