Enlightenment Kant Analysis

In regards to enlightenment, Kant says this, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity” (IN TEXT). This definition of enlightenment is the focal point of his philosophical idea of what it takes for someone to become enlightened. The idea of enlightenment by Kant is an interesting concept because of the many different sectors of a man’s life. Kant breaks a man’s life into the private sector and the public sector. He makes very specific claims about how one should act in both of these sectors, which will be discussed at a later time. Immanuel Kant’s idea that one can be free in the public use of reason, but must always obey in the private use of reason is a contradiction because a person cannot become enlightened …show more content…
He then goes onto say how man has become complacent and happy with their own state of immaturity and stepping out of this immaturity will threaten the so called “guardians”. What he is trying to say is mankind has become so hindered by immaturity and laziness that it takes so much courage to step out of this state, therefor it is rare that anyone does and is able to become enlightened. Next, he begins to discuss man’s private use of reason versus his public use of reason. I fundamentally disagree with the following statement made by Kant, “The public use of man's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment” (IN TEXT). In this quote, Kant makes the claim that two different sectors of the same man’s life can be lived differently without having an effect on his enlightenment, but in fact enhances it. This claim may seem steadfast on paper, but applying it to reality is why I do not agree with Kant’s reasoning of enlightenment. Also, in his text, Kant mostly applies this reason to religious matters, disregarding all other matters in a man’s life. After making this claim, Kant goes on to talk about whether we are living in an enlightened age or not. He is clear that we are not yet enlightened as a whole, but …show more content…
I believe that Kant is under the assumption that all forms of authority ultimately have good intentions or have the best interest of others in mind. Knowing that this is not the case in the world, it is true that those of authority – bosses, pastors, or political leaders – will take actions that require disobedience, by the subordinate, in light of the pursuit of enlightenment. With that said, I do not believe authority figures should be disregarded by their subordinates, but bad ideas or wrong actions should not be ignored by the subordinate just because they are done by a superior. I believe that by limiting one’s self to not speak up in the private sector of life, when one knows something is not right, leads to complacency. While Kant completely separates a man’s public and private life, I believe that is far too black and white for reality. If a man becomes complacent and lazy in his private life by not speaking up, will that not pour over into his public life as well? That is, in Kant’s writing the two are completely separate, but I do not believe that is the case. If one is going to become enlightened, I believe that they have to work towards that in all sectors of their life, even if that means sometimes disobeying their authority using their own