"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk ventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts. (...)

Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating their own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.
There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself. This is indeed almost inevitable, if only the public concerned is left in freedom. For there will always be a few who think for themselves, even among those appointed as guardians of the common mass. Such guardians, once they have themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will disseminate the spirit of rational respect for personal value and for the duty of all men to think for themselves. The remarkable thing about this is that if the public, which was previously put under this yoke by the guardians, is suitably stirred up by some of the latter who are incapable of enlightenment, it may subsequently compel the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke. For it is very harmful to propagate prejudices, because they finally avenge themselves on the very people who first encouraged them (or whose predecessors did so). Thus a public can only achieve enlightenment slowly. A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones they replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass.

Immanuel Kant: An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" Konigsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784

>stop being guided!
>make your own truth!

Is Kant a post-modernist? What a huge fucking fag

...

>u can do nething you want! be urself, ur the best! praise jesus

This essay is one of the worst things I've ever read, it's a shitpost from your retarded 12 year old cousin except written in that ridiculous 18th C German style.

>Kant
>post-modernist

Are you retarded?

Your ignorance towards history and the significance of the European Enlightenment pretty much speaks for itself.

Using your own head is hard work, right? Better have someone tell me what to think. Fucking idiot.

Only if it's environmental can they be "fixed" of their ignorance and sloth. Most kids were severely neglected and abused; even verbal abuse can kill a child's spirit to feel they can be useful members of society, so they have no hope. And it's easier for cowards to terrorize others than face their own fears. And the more people ignore other people--staring at their cell-phones--the more ignorant and brain-damaged they become because they "fail" to understand through observation.
I can understand, but still the ignorant masses are so disgusting it's depressing.

I think in front of the background of the rise of what social scientific commentary likes to call the "post-factual", Kant's thoughts might not be the most practical lense anymore.

>the rise of what social scientific commentary likes to call the "post-factual"

What did they mean by this? Media agencies just started to learn that they can lie?

SAPERE AUDE

Most of the replies to this thread are testament to the number of ignorant plebs on this board.

They learned that needing to present sources for their claims apparently isn't necessary or relevant anymore to make an impact on people when you publish stuff in the changed landscape of the 'new' media

Care to explain how you mean that?

>They learned that needing to present sources for their claims apparently isn't necessary or relevant anymore to make an impact on people when you publish stuff in the changed landscape of the 'new' media

So everything can be a shade/layer of The Onion?

This is your brain on protestantism.

Lol what?

Have you read the essay?

>I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment--man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage--primarily in religious matters

It's pretty fucking clear what he's talking about. You know what protestantism is, right? And the nonsense re: commoners reading the bible that protestants promoted?

what do you think of this: Anyone who publishes an article or journalism on an Official (Philosopher King Approved) Site, without a source gets life in jail? If the team of philosopher kings discover the source turns out to be wrong the article is simply stored in the "source turned out to be wrong section"?

>Philosopher King Approved
Are you obstructing the point I make on purpose with this blatant generalization/overdramatization? Yes I think people should check the credibility of the things they publish and people found to simply make up stuff should be held acountable. Same with the food and supplement industry.

People like you don't know how entitled and lucky their existence is and how many people actually bled for their freedoms, nor when these freedoms and accomplishments are being threatened.

No I was being serious. What is the best way to stop people in powerful positions (news, media, whatever) from lying?

Especially when many people might prefer clickbait and The Onion and Echo Chamber inc. than The Real News

Control instances and institutions that operate financially independent? That plus anti-lobbying politics. Maybe a reinstallment of some sort of work ethics in journalism plus investing in transparency of those institution and into informing the public that there is no such thing as objective news, but ever only a subjective selection at best and that they have to puck who to trust to not produce fake stuff. Hard to say.

>puck
*pick

>Control instances and institutions that operate financially independent?
Thats kinda anti free market dont you think? What do you think of National Enquirer and tabloid mags like that? (personally I think there should be a button at every cash register, and when someone buys one they should be arrested).

>into informing the public that there is no such thing as objective news

But thats not true...

"there was a robbery at this gas station today"

>"there was a robbery at this gas station today"
Depending on your radical ideological viewpoint all property is theft, user.

>Depending on your radical ideological viewpoint all property is theft, user.

Depending on your radical ideological view point Gakg745 lsghsdkfj aslfshdgds 845843 = sldgjd 848484 ldshsf

>>"there was a robbery at this gas station today"
>Depending on your radical ideological viewpoint all property is theft, user.

"Here is surveillance showing a man take a can of beens from this store and leave, we are not calling this robbery for you ideologues out there, just pointing out this fact"

But we could be brains in a vat... or that video might be doctored...

Ok, sorry I just saw you thought of this yourself. Never mind. It's late over here.

Bump.

>or that video might be doctored

There's your argument right there.

>>or that video might be doctored
>There's your argument right there.

*Breaking news: Scientists after long deliberation, and a month long (millennia long) experiment, discussion and debate, have concluded, that there is a decent chance, something exists rather than nothing: more at 11: BK Whopers are now $3.99*
(omgomg...[i]are they?[/i]... can we be sure.....)

Ya happy now?

>Breaking news: Scientists after long deliberation, and a month long (millennia long) experiment, discussion and debate, have concluded, that there is a decent chance, something exists rather than nothing

We were talking about the problem of objective and/or absolute truth in a news statement here (or any statement whatsoever for that matter), so just to make the point again:
>a decent chance, something exists rather than nothing
That's debatable then. Extremist view might go so far as to call it propaganda and a 'mere theory' (- Just like them evil "Evilutionists", being busy having their homosexual sex with Satan).
Everything to do with communication is convention. And if you look closer everything is built on foggy grounds or on definitions set into thin air for us. Not only the reactionary left and their interest groups are using this tool. Governments do. Deconstructivism is a tool and a weapon in the right hands.

"Enlightenment is emergence from immaturity," so sayeth the Grand Virgin who got turned down by his cleaning lady

>Thats kinda anti free market
Free market doesn't exist. Even Trump recently stated that. If there's 'freedom' in the market it's always just in some corners of it.
>I think there should be a button at every cash register, and when someone buys one they should be arrested
I see your point. The problem is that -from my point of view- every society is built on certain virtues. Nothing is perfect here, so I have to assume these are relative virtues and not universal ones (because critique will always and rightfully so be able to suggest that. I remember hearing some Russian panslavist philosopher once say that 'human rights' are a western conception, that was a few years ago.). So what is the best thing there is to do (or to speak with Churchill: "the least bad")? From my point of view, all you can ever do (at best) is to create freedom of choice for most people; so in practice it will eventually turn out to be moderate freedoms, that still need to be restricted (you can't just kill your neighbor). So a moderate society is the key or the best we can do, imo. What I believe most of the edgelord posers on this site haven't realized is that the alternatives have been tried before and they were all worse for the greater number of people.

So, no I'm not for arresting people because they read certain books or magazines. I am for transparency of the aims of the authors though.
I think of protection of youth from radicalization, and personally, the best thing I can think of is something along the lines of the thoughts of Kant in the OP.
So I guess education is key.
To quote a computationalist scientist I read a while back -As humans we're never tapping into truth, all we have is a gradient of beliefs we can update and optimize.

I think at the extreme end of it, I am not for censorship, but I see the need to fight extremism for moderate (read: least shitty) societies.

Found the Computationalist's full quote:

"Learning in a complex domain cannot guarantee that you'll find the global maximum. We know that we cannot find truth because we cannot recognize whether we live on a playing field or a simulated playing field, but what we can do is we can try to approach a global maximum. But we won't know if that is the global maximum. We will always move along some kind of belief-gradient: We will take certain elements of our belief and give them up for new elements of belief, based on thinking that this new element is better than the one that we give up. So we always move along some kind of gradient and the truth does not matter, the gradient matters.

If you think about teaching for a moment, when I started teaching I often thought 'OK, I understand the truth of the subject, the students don't, so I have to give this to them.' And at some point I realized, oh, I've changed my mind so many times in the past - I'm probably not going to stop changing it in the future- I'm always moving along a gradient and will keep moving along a gradient: So I'm not moving to truth - I'm moving forward. - And when we teach our kids we should probably not think about how to give them truth; we should think about how to put them onto an interesting gradient that makes them explore the world; the world of possible beliefs."

I know it sounds pretty abstract and what I'll say now might sound pretty pathetic, but it gives me hope to read a thought and statement like that. Namely and again because it is inherently a moderate one, imo.

Thanks for the nice discussion

Just wanted to say thanks for this OP.

>Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity.
Surely Immanuel Kant didn't say this.

Look it up. He did.