[Child of God]: 416.Reflections.On Immanuel Kant's "What is Enlightenment?"

      Immanuel Kant makes a very bold statement in this 'declaration', as it could be rightfully called, in attacking the censorship and restriction of the church on thought and academia. He makes the valid claim that, though living in an enlightened age, this it is not an age of enlightenment. The period in which he lives is one of enlightenment, with new discoveries which allow for a deeper understanding of human nature and of the natural world, but restrictions and boundaries set by institutions and society of the time prevent enlightenment from unfolding in full. The essence is present but the people are prevented from obtaining it, which Kant blames on religious intoleration and censorship, dictated by the church and enforced by the government.
      Praising Prince Frederick for reducing these boundaries and restrictions, Kant appears to be promoting the idea of “Are as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey!” In theory, this would indeed be a liberating desire during a time, and considering prior history of, church oppression, but would not last of long in practice. Challenging of a person’s beliefs brings about conflict and prejudice with those who are not as educated, whether formally or by predisposition (high IQ as a result of genetics). It is very reasonable to believe the academic elite would be able to rise above the natural reaction of offense, which instinctively occurs when beliefs are challenged. However, as seen can be seen today, when the academic elite has drastically increased from Kant’s time, conflicts of this nature still arise continuously.
     Kant argues for release from self-incurred tutelage, where he defines tutelage as “a man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.” None argue the dictorial control of the church to be justified or appropriate, nor the continuous abuse of both church authority and government authority in enforcing church authority over public and academia prior to and during Kant’s time. However, giving such social freedoms, such as freedom of speech, to a largely uneducated mass would only result in civil conflict. It should also be noted that Kant’s definition of self-incurred is insufficient, even slightly contradictory. He calls for man to use his understanding without direction from another, though this is impossible, since understand comes from another’s instruction and direction. Forced direction indeed must be cast off, but one does not have resolution and courage without even the most minute, indirect influence and direction of another upon one’s self. To completely remove all direction would lead to societal breakdown and chaos. Though it may be possible for the scholarly elite, as they consist of but a small portion of the population, the remainder could, and is plausible, over time to result in a social anarchy, very much similar to what the current societal state found in North American is approaching.