Some scholars have argued that, in Kant’s account, there seems to be an ambiguity in the process of enlightenment. These critics note that the free public use of reason seems to be both a prerequisite and an outcome of enlightenment. In his discussion of human progress, Kant claims that enlightenment is inevitable, as it is built into human nature. This implies that enlightenment, characterized as an organic process, is not something that one can generate or control. At the same time, however, enlightenment “requires nothing but freedom,” making it contingent on wider historical conditions and environmental factors. We can observe the tension in the following passage:
“But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress.“
From this viewpoint, the progress of enlightenment, an intrinsic aspect of human growth, seems inevitable. Therefore, attempts to hinder this progress, through suppression or other means, are bound to fail. However, the characterization of enlightenment as a natural, inevitable progression prompts questions about the role of intellectuals. How does intellectual freedom come into play if enlightenment is a definite outcome of humanity's progress? Is this freedom a catalyst for this evolution, or a product of an already ongoing enlightenment? In other words, does intellectual freedom shape the Enlightenment, or emerge because of it?
