Dr. Hale's recorded lecture, Part 1 & Part 2 are both here
Kant on Enlightenment
I. Historical Background: The Enlightenment was a European event, centered on new ideas of Reason, defense of modern science, advocacy of individual Freedom, praise of democratic institutions, and aspiring towards Progress. But neither the French philosophes (literary intellectuals, like Voltaire, Condorcet, Turgot, & Diderot) nor the Scottish moralists (like Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson), but only the Germans raised the question, ‘What is Enlightenment?’ Older characterizations tended to identify Enlightenment thought with anti-religious zealotry, but more nuanced accounts recognize that some French Enlighteners, such as Holbach and Condorcet, ridiculed religion in their anti-clericalism (but recall Descartes and Pascal, who remained devout Catholics till their deathbeds). English, Scottish, and German Enlighteners remained theists, of one sort or another, even as they criticized religious institutions as defenders of an obsolete status quo.
Among the Germans who first raise the question was Johann Möhsen, who studied at Halle & Jena (2 premier German universities), then returned to Berlin, eventually becoming the personal physician of Frederick the Great (ruled from 1740-1786). He also belonged to the Berlin Wednesday Society, which was a secret society of Friends of Enlightenment. He first raised questions for his fellow members of the Society in his December 1783 essay. First, what exactly is Enlightenment? Second, we need to investigate how infirmities and prejudices have been promoted, and then how to root them out in our nation. Next, we need to ask ourselves why public Enlightenment has not advanced far, in terms of freedom to think, to speak, and to publish (Frederick relaxed censorship rules in 1740).
II. The Berlin Enlightenment: The German word for Enlightenment is Aufklärung, which literally means a ‘lightening up’. This implies some previous age was endarkened. Presumably the shift towards greater scientific knowledge is a large part of what was meant by Enlightenment. Consider Newton’s great work, Principia (short for Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) published in 1687 – it was regarded as the apex of scientific knowledge, combining the latest physical principles of the day, and explaining how events in heavens and on earth followed the universal principle of gravitational attraction. No wonder that Edmund Halley, England’s Royal Astronomer, declared of Newton, who ‘Unlocked the hidden treasuries of Truth:/So richly through his mind had Phoebus cast/The radiance of his own divinity./Nearer the gods no mortal may approach’ (Halley, “Ode to Newton”, Principia).
Though the term was used regularly to describe the latest scientific knowledge, German intellectuals complained that no one had given a definition of Enlightenment. However, within a year, the Berlin Monthly published responses from both Moses Mendelssohn, a leading Berlin Jewish philosopher, and Immanuel Kant, the Königsberg philosopher. Mendelssohn was a member of the Berlin Wednesday Society, and argued that the German language attains enlightenment through the theoretical use of reason in the sciences, but attains culture by aiming at practical uses through poetry, eloquence, and a sense of refinement in the arts. The enlightenment of man as human is universal in gaining as much theoretical knowledge as possible; but enlightenment of man as citizen changes according to one’s social status and vocation, and the different skills required. So, the enlightenment of a nation is determined by four things: a. the amount of knowledge possessed, b. its importance to individual civic roles, c. how well disseminated that knowledge is through all social classes, and d. how extensive the knowledge is in accord with the various vocations. When enlightenment and culture go forward together, a nation is shielded from corruption and misuses (like hard-heartedness, egoism, irreligion, anarchy). Mendelssohn’s essay was published May 16, 1784.
III. Kant’s Answer to ‘What is Enlightenment?’
In the mid’1780’s Kant began publishing essays in public journals like the Berlin Monthly and German Messenger (continued through 1796). Kant’s essay was published Sept. 30, 1784, without his knowledge of Mendelssohn’s essay (which only appeared as Kant completed his essay). Here is my outline of the key components of Kant’s Enlightenment argument:
1) Enlightenment is the human being’s emancipation from its self-incurred dependency [Unmündigkeit = immaturity, minority, tutelage].
2) This is a dependency because it is assumed one cannot think for oneself without the direction of some other authority, a ‘guardian’ [a Vormünder, a ‘pre-adult’]; it is self-imposed since one does not lack the intellect, but the courage and resolve (of will) to think for oneself.
/3) So, sapere aude! is the motto of Enlightenment: ‘dare to be wise!’ [This phrase is from Horace, Epistles 1.2.40; it was used on a medal in Berlin in 1736 for Society of Friends of Truth.]
4) Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so many humans remain in a state of childish dependency, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy to depend on others: if I have a book that understands for me, a pastor having a conscience for me, a doctor who prescribes my diet, I have no need to think, only to pay these others to do this irksome task for me.
5) Those guardians who so ‘kindly assume such supervisory responsibility’ insure that the greater part of humankind, especially women, regard the step toward independence (maturity) as not only exhausting but also risky [Kant’s rhythmic wordplay: beschwerlich and gefährlich – perhaps best English parallel is ‘difficult’ and ‘dangerous’]. After making their domesticated animals dumb, they prevent these tame creatures from taking a single step without the ‘walker’ or ‘harness’ they affix to the young, when in reality, by falling a few times, they would learn to walk alone. [Notice Kant, like Rousseau, advocates a progressive view of education: let the young step out on their own early, and they will figure out things for themselves.]
/6) In these ways, it becomes hard for the individual to work oneself out of the dependency which almost has become second nature to one. Accordingly, one is unable to use one’s own reason because one has not been permitted to try it. Rules and regulations become the shackles of a permanent state of dependency.
7) Still, there will always be some who think for themselves, even among the established Guardians, and who have thrown off the yoke of dependency; and these will inspire others the spirit of rational assessment of one’s own worth and the duty of every human to think for oneself.
/8) Hence, it is possible and even likely (if granted Freedom) that an entire Public should become Enlightened, though it may slowly arrive at this new condition. Perhaps a revolution could break us free of personal despotism and Guardian oppression, but it is less likely to bring genuine reform in thinking than in instilling new prejudices for the thoughtless masses.
9) So, nothing but Freedom is required for this Enlightenment; and it is the harmless Freedom of making Public use of one’s reason in all matters. Yes, the private use of one’s reason may often be highly restricted; one has a civil office to perform under the supervision of others. Of course then, one may not argue but must obey. However, in the public use of one’s reason – as a scholar before the reading world – one can raise critical questions or suggestions for reformation. As a private citizen, one must pay one’s taxes, but as a public scholar, one can raise questions about the propriety or injustice of how one’s taxes are redistributed. Similarly, a clergyman serves his congregation by teaching the young the catechism; but as a public scholar, one has full freedom to challenge the ways the symbols of one faith are interpreted and to suggest reforms of its institutions.
So, as scholar, the clergyman enjoys unrestricted Freedom in the Public Use of his reason speak and write openly. One cannot demand that the Guardians of the people should themselves be dependent or immature, since they would thereby perpetuate dependency among all. The real touchstone for a law is: can a people impose such a law on itself? One can postpone Enlightenment for one’s own self for a time. But to renounce it for one’s own personhood, and yet more for one’s descendants, amounts to violating and trampling underfoot the sacred rights of humanity.
/10) Thus, dependency in matters of religion is the most harmful and the most degrading sort of immaturity. When we honor free thinking in terms of Religion among the people, they become more capable of Freedom of action (toleration of other ways of belief/practice), and we begin to treat the human being in accordance with his/her true dignity. To become truly Free in one’s Religion is to learn to think for oneself, become tolerant of a diversity of ways to be religious, and aspire to be consistent morally in one’s religious ideals and actions.
Critical Questions for Kant on Religious Freethinking:
Objection 1. Is Thinking for Oneself Self-Defeating? Believers belong to a religious Tradition – community of fellow believers – so how can one really believe for oneself? Does not this insure individual anarchy?
Objection 2. Is Religious Independence Feasible? Even if one concedes one’s faith is formed in a community, can one ever become independent of a religious Tradition that provides certain rules & regulations for what counts as being Methodist, Baptist, Jewish, or Muslim?
Objection 3. What about Practical Effects of Enlightenment? The jurist Ernst Klein objected that, though all truth is useful and every error harmful, still for a certain class of people, a “useful error” does more to promote the public good than the truth. The general public has moral beliefs that are uncertain, doubtful, or completely wrong; for them, enlightenment (with its stress on truth and reasonable beliefs) is dangerous, since it challenges them to give up beliefs they value (even if wrong-headed), and thus it makes the social order less stable. What does religious thinking for oneself provide for those who are happy with their mistaken beliefs?
Reply 1: Kant stresses the need to apply Reason to one’s beliefs; he describes his view as Moral Theism, which implies that one does not fear using Reason to think through one’s religious views.
Reply 2: In other essays from this time period, Kant stresses how one learns to think for oneself in community with others; so he’s not arguing for absolute independence in one’s thought. We first get a sense of what a tradition is by being raised in some tradition or other, but one should be able to question or challenge some of that tradition’s beliefs; otherwise, that tradition is dying; traditions remain vibrant by entertaining challenges to their core principles. There are several ways one can become a progressive Methodist, Baptist, Jew or Muslim.
Reply 3: As we have seen in recent political endeavors, “useful errors” or intentional lies do not promote, but destroy, the public good, since they are based primarily on mistaken desires for prestige, power, or corrupted self-interest. This in fact is what makes the social & political order unstable and leadership based on such corruption unreliable.
Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress [Penguin 2018]
Pinker begins by quoting from a theme Kant’s essay on Enlightenment, and interpreting it as the motto ‘Dare to understand’. He updates Kant’s advice in light of David Deutsch’s claim (The Beginning of Infinity 2011) that daring to understand implies we can solve hard problems with further innovative thought.
1) Enlightenment means that we ‘Dare to understand’. [Nota bene: Kant actually understands Sapere aude! to mean ‘Dare to be Wise!’; the word ‘wisdom’ comes from the Latin sapientia, long used by ancient & medieval thinkers as a higher form of awareness than mere scientia, the Latin word for ‘knowledge’ or understanding.]
2) Daring to understand means that we can solve any hard problem simply by working harder for innovative solutions. ‘Each particular evil is a problem that can be solved’ (Pinker 7; from Deutch 221-2). [Again, a question about this claim: are particular evils merely problems to be solved? Philosophers and scientists have a tendency to treat all issues as problems or puzzles crying for a solution; but don’t some issues seem more complex than that, especially the notorious problem of evil? Might not real evils require communal resources in empathy, compassion, moral insight, and working together, not mere problem-solving?]
/3) We are an optimistic civilization, one that is not afraid to innovate, thereby improving our knowledge and our institutions. [DLH: This seems a very good observation on the American inclination to innovate and re-think, thus improve life, as the recent pandemic showed through the scientific cooperation resulting in vaccines.]
After this introduction, Pinker argues for four themes that will guide his discussion of Enlightenment. Let’s break them down into 4 premises to add to his opening argument.
4) Foremost is Reason: whatever question we are presented with (even ‘What are we to live for?’), we commit ourselves to Reason, and thus to holding ourselves accountable to objective standards.
a) He contrasts this strongly with faith, dogma, revelation, authority, mysticism, and ‘the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts’. So it’s clear that he mistrusts all of these. [DLH: Why assume that ‘hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts’ does not invoke Reason? The great medieval theologians, like Augustine & Aquinas, came up with reasoned arguments, and nuanced distinctions, to recognize how some ways of interpreting the biblical text fit more coherently and holistically than others. And is Reason ALONE enough to help us through life-transforming dilemmas?]
b) Pinker goes further in his claim that, though not all Enlighteners were atheists, some were Deists (in opposition, he asserts, to being theists), and yet others pantheists. ‘But few appealed to the law-giving, miracle-conjuring, son-begetting God of scripture’ (8). [DLH: We should note that many challenge this claim; careful readings of Descartes, Locke, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz & Kant reveal them to be Christian theists of one sort or other: see Firestone & Jacobs, ed. The Persistence of the Sacred in Modern Thought 2012. Even Spinoza might actually be more of a Jewish theist than pantheist, according to some commentators. At any rate, is Pinker’s claim that all Enlighteners are agnostics, Deists, or pantheists simply a postmodernist projection for seeing all previous great thinkers as proto-atheists?]
c) He rightly notes that an endorsement of reason by Hobbes, Kant, Hume, and Adam Smith does not imply unawareness of the powers of irrational passions. Reason was highlighted to counter the foibles of humans embroiled in passions. No Enlightener claims that humans are perfectly rational agents; we are also encumbered with emotional ties, passions that sway us from making clear judgments.
5) Science is the refinement of Reason that empowers us to understand the world. Early modern scientists showed us why we no longer need believe in witches, werewolves, alchemy, or geocentrism. The methods of the new science – skeptical inquiry, fallibilism, open debate, and empirical testing – made possible reliable knowledge that superseded the ignorance & superstitions of the past. Hence, the new science of nature also gave Enlighteners a science of human nature, what we now call cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and cultural anthropology.
In Ch. 12, Pinker extends his optimism about science to argue that, contrary to what the daily news reports about rampage killings might lead us to believe, we live in a relatively safe time period and culture. More people die from homicides than in wars, in contrast to earlier times; and even of those dying from homicides, those deaths are no longer those of serfs murdered by lords, nobles or kings. In fact, Pinker goes even further to claim that Western Europeans are inheritors of the Civilizing Process (since the 14th century), whereby disputes are resolved in less violent ways than in the past. This is one of Pinker’s real strengths, his optimism about progress made in light of scientific developments. This chapter summarizes succinctly (note the number of charts & tables) his argument earlier given in The Better Angels of our Nature. Accordingly, due to advances in technology (auto safety is optimum now, smoke alarms in homes), criminal justice system reform, reductions in murder rates, & better medical care, we live longer, healthier lives due to these scientific improvements.
/6) Due to these scientific advances then, Enlighteners also showed us how to defend secular Humanism. After centuries of religious wars and carnage, they defended the sentience of individual men, women & children by recognizing the universal sentiment of sympathy. This then calls forth our benevolence and move towards cosmopolitanism. It is this humanistic sensibility that condemned not only religious violence but also secular cruelties, like slavery, despotism, burning at the stake, and capital punishment. [DLH: Here again, Pinker only assumes that secular sources need be consulted for Humanism. There’s a long tradition of Christian Humanism (and Jewish, Islamic, other traditions of Religious Humanism) that Pinker ignores or dismisses. Why assume one has to be anti-religious in order to care about human interests and goals? Not all theists are inhumane; many argue that it is their belief in God that gives them even stronger reasons to care about earthly, human concerns. In fact, many abolitionists, such as William Wilberforce and Adam Smith, came to their position from an enlightened Christian position.]
7) Finally, Progress was shown through the advances in the sciences, more humanized treatments of fellow humans, and the use of Reason to solve problems. Human institutions, like government, education, laws, and markets became targets for the humanized use of science and reason. Rational analyses of criminal punishment, economic prosperity, representative republics for governance, and strategies for global peace abounded.
In Ch. 14, Pinker makes an argument for the world becoming more democratic, thus contributing to human flourishing, since it protects us from the violences of both anarchy and tyranny. One indicator of progress, one legacy of the Enlightenment, is the abolition of capital punishment and of torture. Increasingly, modern democratic states have abandoned older methods of execution, such as lynching, public executions, and beheading as simply inhumane. [DLH: In some ways, we have become more democratic, the origins and goals of movements like Occupy the Economy, Me Too, Black Lives Matter are highly democratic, arguing for Equality as a key component of any democratic form of life. BUT, the fact that such movements are needed raises the objection that our society is not truly democratic, since it is dominated by corporate banks that caused the housing market collapse in 2008, that women still fear intimidation by wealthy white male leaders, and that people of color do not get their fair treatment in many contexts in current American life. So the best we can say is that democratic ideals are being pursued, all while they often lack realization in many contexts in the postmodern global age.]
The next part of Pinker’s argument builds on Enlightenment ideas by adding on what we have learned in the sciences since their time. He highlights the key developments as Entropy, Evolution, and Information (‘Entro, Evo, and Info’ are his abbreviations heading the 2nd chapter). Entropy or disorder is a reminder from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the universe is becoming less organized -- hot things cool, rust never sleeps.
Still, the natural world is not a completely dismembered mass of chaotic particles. We also experience planets, galaxies, mountains, snowflakes, and long-lasting oak trees. This is due to a process of self-organization that counterpoises with the entropy; we get to see spirals, crystals, and fractals emerge in Nature as well, giving us an experience of elegance, symmetry, and beauty.
/8) Entropy, Evolution, and Information are basic postmodern scientific principles that build on Enlightenment insights of Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. a) The Second Law of Thermodynamics dominates the natural world: heated things cool down, closed systems become less ordered, beaches wash away, rust never sleeps. Still, this tendency is counter-balanced by the self-organizing arrangement of various parts of Nature – mountains, planets, galaxies, snowflakes, crystals, humans.
b) Organisms are open systems: they capture energy from the sun, food to carry out temporary pockets of order, and use this energy to maintain their integrity (note organism’s tendency, conatus, to continue persisting and to flourish) against the entropic pressure. Nature is a war and the natural world is an arms war. Prey animals protect themselves with shells, spines, claws, horns, or other means of self-defense.
c) Information is the 3rd keystone of modern science. Some physicists enshrine information as a basic constituent of the universe (along with matter & energy). But we collect information through the senses, and sort out the orderly configurations from disorderly ones. Our brains process inputs into orderly, significant pieces of information so that they are useful to us. When we transform the information from these in ways that mirror the laws governing Nature, then we call it ‘knowledge’. 9) Pinker proposes several counter-Enlightenment cries that tried to undermine Enlightenment insights.
a) The Romantic movement’s reaction: Herder, Schelling & others proposed heroic struggle as the greatest good, and violence as inherent in Nature.
b) Religious faith always clashes with Humanism, since they constantly elevate some moral good (a divine savior, or a ritual) above the well-being of humans, or they value souls above human lives. Holding on to belief in an afterlife denigrates health and happiness in this life; thus coercion of others to believe is part of their belief system; and martyrdom is seen as the highest honor for a believer. [DLH: Does this seem to simplistic a presentation of Religion? Yes, some believers think/act this way, but it leaves out a whole strand of Religious or Integral Humanism that sees authentic religious faith as supportive of humanistic ends, such as eliminating/diminishing human suffering here and now. Martyrdom seems a goal of obsolete versions of Religion, occupying a diminishing minority of believers, given the recent Pew Research Center for Religion in Public Life surveys.]
c) By contrast, in Chs. 12-16, Pinker presents numerous graphs/charts to show the progress we have made in modern times with regard to safety (actually, less threatened by terrorism – more likely to die in car accident than shot by terrorist), more democratic (greater respect for human rights than in past), more egalitarian (banning child labor, no one calling for reinstating Jim Crow laws), and more educated/knowledgeable than our forebears (we unlearn dangerous superstitions & become less racist or authoritarian).
/d) So, Pinker concludes, we have a greater quality of life now, one that goes beyond superficial measures like careerism, mindless consumption, and thoughtless entertainment. He also highlights how retirement and its quality of life is a huge improvement over past ages, the fact that we can use our Social Security funds to travel globally in our golden years, and not spend so much time on housework, maintaining vehicles, and benefit from artificial light (reading, social activities after dark).
/10) However, the ultimate good of Science is to use knowledge to enhance human welfare. Instead of magic, we give deep explanations of the universe, the planet, the brain, and life. But due to Science, we have made incredible Progress over our predecessors – eradicating disease, saving billions of lives, and feeding the hungry. What more can be asked of it?
Dr. Daryl L. Hale, retired Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy, Western Carolina University, now of Sylva, NC
