Summary
To identify the third path, the correct path, that leads to enlightenment, Kant distinguishes between the public and private uses of reason. The public use of reason occurs when one, as a scholar, speaks up freely about social affairs before the entire public. Anyone is a scholar insofar as they argue openly, for the sake of expressing their opinions on their own merit. Reason should be exercised fully in public space. People can question religious rules and discuss all domains of knowledge. They must be allowed to express their thoughts without fear. This kind of freedom that allows reasoning publicly in all affairs, as Kant sees it, is the most valuable kind of freedom.
While Kant argues that the public use of reason must be unrestricted, he suggests that the private use of reason should be constrained. Here, the private use of reason does not refer to one’s psychological thoughts. What is private are the roles and occupations one holds in society. The private use of reason, then, still involves social and public space. We can distinguish these two kinds of uses based on whether or not they function to address the general public. The public use of reason addresses the entire written world, whereas the private use doesn’t. The freedom of the private use of reason should be limited, as it doesn’t involve a realm for debate; without such limits, it’s difficult for society to achieve collective goals. If the motto for public freedom is “Argue, but obey,” then that for private freedom is, “Do not argue, obey.”
Here, we see that Kant gives the opposite treatment to these two kinds of freedoms. He then uses a few examples to show how they can coexist, and why a restriction on the private use of freedom is necessary. Soldiers should obey orders, even if they disagree personally, since their role isn’t to debate the orders. However, when they share their opinions about the order with the public, they take on a different role and become scholars. As scholars, soldiers have the right to question the order, pointing out any problems they see with it. This is true as long as they separate their professional obligations from their opinions as scholars. Citizens have to pay taxes. Yet, insofar as citizens act as scholars, they can challenge the fairness of these taxes. Similarly, a pastor should always preach according to his church’s rules. As a scholar, however, he can freely suggest improvements to the church. To sum up, when someone is at their job, they comply, but as a scholar, they enjoy complete freedom of challenging any orders and rules.
Kant goes on to explain why enlightenment is inevitable due to human progress. He first warns that it is unjustified for guardians to impose paternalistic guardianship over people and future generations. He believes that any attempt to smother future enlightenment is inherently “null and void,” no matter how much the authorities try to endorse it. Future generations have the right to question and reject these attempts. One generation cannot restrict future generations from moving toward enlightenment. Doing so would be a crime against human nature, which is intrinsically inclined toward progress.
People can choose to delay their enlightenment, but only temporarily. Denying enlightenment, either for oneself or one’s descendants, is a violation of fundamental human rights. A monarch has no right to prevent enlightenment for his subjects. Moreover, they should avoid intervening in religious matters. They must prevent the forceful imposition of religious views. They should especially refrain from aiding tyrants who seek to oppress the people. Monarchs should live with the principle that “Caesar non eat supra grammaticos,” meaning “Caesar is not above the grammarians,” and remind themselves of the limits of monarchical authority.
Analysis
Kant notably argues for a limit on civic freedom, suggesting that the private use of reason must be constrained. He believes that for enlightenment to occur, society needs both unlimited freedom of independent thought, and limited freedom in the civic realm. While he himself admits that this can sound “paradoxical,” he believes that an unconstrained civic freedom would impair enlightenment. Although Kant doesn’t clearly specify the reasons for this belief, we can try to grasp his rationale. While criticism and debate can remain harmless in the public sphere, unlimited private use of reason would allow people to defy orders, thus disrupting the very social stability that allows enlightenment to flourish.
Kant’s support of a limitation on civic freedom might raise some questions, such as whether one is expected to follow an unjust order. A Kantian reply to this problem might be that, given the definition of the private use of reason, which is directed toward societal unity, such obedience should only be required when the order ultimately serves public ends, not the superior’s personal wishes.
We should also consider the social context of the essay if we want to better understand Kant’s motive for espousing a restriction on civic freedom. When Kant wrote his essay, as scholar Steven Lestition points out, many in society were hostile to philosophical debates, and even to philosophy itself. One of Kant’s goals in writing this essay is to support philosophy, defending the use of reason and rejecting the notion that philosophy might incite chaos or pose a direct challenge to political power. His support for the restriction of civic freedom is part of a vision in which the freedom of independent thought, exemplified by philosophy itself, is consistent with social order and unity.
Kant places great importance on the freedom of public reason, and on the public space itself. For one thing, enlightenment depends on people being able to express their opinions publicly. We can discern the rationale behind his argument: public discussion, accessible to everyone, is a means to educate the general public on social, political, and moral matters. In this sense, Kant assigns a pivotal role to public space, the arena in which enlightenment can take place. As Jürgen Habermas points out, it is with Kant that the concept of publicity takes on its full significance for the first time. The public space is the space where people become mature. It is also where this maturity has the potential to influence political power.
