A Confucian Refutation of Kant’s “Enlightenment” Doctrine
In the roots of the enlightenment were implanted a dark fate—a flowering counter-enlightenment and new barbarism.
The irony in the modern philosophy of “our opinions are better than knowledge and tradition” is that it prevents people from studying the history of this very philosophy which they are embodying, let alone any other. Thus, it becomes the opposite of progress and enlightenment, the original intention of Kant and others, but rather stagnation and ignorance. And so in the roots of the so-called “Enlightenment” were found the growths of the current counter-enlightenment and descent into barbarism.
For understanding this, there is no piece of literature which more concisely summarizes the roots of the current Western social and philosophical problems than Kant’s criminally irresponsible essay “What is Enlightenment,” which I shall now refute.
Quote A: Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority [i.e. immaturity, like a minor]. Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This minority is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.
Kant’s famous first paragraph disparages tradition. But what is tradition but what nature has selected as functional knowledge? A newborn, with their immature small perspective, cannot know this. Hence why we have traditions, religions, philosophy, and teachers!
Quote B: It is because of laziness and cowardice that so great a part of humankind, after nature has long since emancipated them from other people’s direction, nevertheless gladly remains minors for life, and that it becomes so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book that understands for me, a spiritual advisor who has a conscience for me, a doctor who decides upon a regimen for me, and so forth, I need not trouble myself at all. I need not think…
Kant continues by disparaging society itself? But is it not the nature of functional civilization for one to trust doctors, spiritual advisors, and such? How antisocial, arrogant, and ignorant to imagine that one just born could be all, and know all!
Quote C: Thus it is difficult for any single individual to extricate himself from the minority that has become almost nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really unable for the time being to make use of his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Precepts and formulas, those mechanical instruments of a rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of an everlasting minority. And anyone who did throw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over even the narrowest ditch, since he would not be accustomed to free movement of this kind. Hence there are only a few who have succeeded, by their own cultivation of their spirit, in extricating themselves from minority and yet walking confidently.
Now this part is important, because Kant himself admits that “it is difficult for any single individual to extricate himself from the minority” (society), and that “it has become almost nature to him.” But this is the nature of man, hence the need for guardians!
Quote D: But that a public should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed this is almost inevitable, if only it is left its freedom. For there will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the established guardians of the great masses, who, after having themselves cast off the yoke of minority, will disseminate the spirit of a rational valuing of one’s own worth and of the calling of each individual to think for himself.
And yet despite Kant’s own assertion of the difficulties, he continues by forecasting an “almost inevitable” utopian future where society is “enlightened” by “freedom” (from society) by way of disparaging tradition (proven knowledge). Stop! Does it actually make sense?
Quote E: What should be noted here is that the public, which was previously put under this yoke by the guardians, may subsequently itself compel them to remain under it, if the public is suitably stirred up by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment; so harmful is it to implant prejudices, because they finally take their revenge on the very people who, or whose predecessors, were their authors. Thus a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may well bring about a failing off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one’s way of thinking; instead new preiudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses.
Yet having just said this public “enlightenment” is “almost inevitable,” Kant describes a path which is highly precarious and unlikely by his own characterization. In fact, he himself admits that man’s (own nature) may compel itself back to the guardianship.
Quote F: For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the least harmful of anything that could even be called freedom: namely, freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.
Having not demonstrated a clear and probable path to this “enlightenment,” Kant finally gives us a simple focus: “freedom!” He says, freedom of the masses in “the public use of their reason” is “the least harmful.” But this has since proven false — it is very harmful!
Quote G: The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings…
Kant says the “public use of one’s reason” will bring the “enlightenment of human beings.” But the people do not have good reasoning, and what they have is (now) used for “making up reasons” for their self-interest and that of their tribe. Is this an enlightenment?
Quote H: Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you will and about whatever you will, but obey! Everywhere there are restrictions on freedom.
Here is where our new “one ruler” (Kant) unleashed the masses of mindless arguing fools. He said “argue about everything, but obey!” But what is the point of “courageous arguing” when it does not change anything? Is this deafening chatter of idiots our enlightenment?
Quote I: But should not a society of clergymen, such as an ecclesiastical synod or a venerable classis (as it calls itself among the Dutch), be authorized to bind itself by oath to a certain unalterable creed, in order to carry on an unceasing guardianship over each of its members and by means of them over the people, and even to perpetuate this? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment away from the human race forever, is absolutely null and void, even if it were ratified by the supreme power, by imperial diets and by the most solemn peace treaties.
In Kant’s next deceit, he tries to turn it around, pretending that guardianship and tradition are the “impossible” tasks. But they are the proven ways for all recorded history, while Kant’s way of “enlightenment” by freedom from these has never before occurred.
Quote J: One age cannot bind itself and conspire to put the following one into such a condition that it would be impossible for it to enlarge its cognitions (especially in such urgent matters) and to purify them of errors, and generally to make further progress in enlightenment. This would be a crime against human nature, whose original vocation lies precisely in such progress; and succeeding generations are therefore perfectly authorized to reject such decisions as unauthorized and made sacrilegiously.
Kant says “One age cannot bind itself and conspire to put the following one into such a condition that it would be impossible for it to enlarge its cognitions.” Yet this is exactly what Kant and the moderns have conspired to do to us.
And that is why I reject Kant, as he properly said I should. By Kant’s own admission, his was a crime against human nature. And we, succeeding generations, are “therefore perfectly authorized to reject such decisions as unauthorized.”
Quote K: If it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightened age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand, a good deal more is required for people on the whole to be in the position, or even able to be put into the position, of using their own understanding confidently and well in religious matters, without another’s guidance. But we do have distinct intimations that the field is now being opened for them to work freely in this direction and that the hindrances to universal enlightenment or to humankind’s emergence from its self-incurred minority are gradually becoming fewer. In this regard this age is the age of enlightenment or the century of Frederick.
The fact is that despite no historical evidence nor coherent logic, this dangerous experiment of Kant was conducted on society. What happened in America by this doctrine of “freedom to courageously argue about everything” from one’s own ignorant opinion? Enlightenment?
Quote L: A prince who does not find it beneath himself to say that he considers it his duty not to prescribe anything to human beings in religious matters but to leave them complete freedom, who thus even declines the arrogant name of tolerance, is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful world and by posterity as the one who first released the human race from minority…
But “prince” Kant says, “Do not prescribe anything to humans: leave them complete freedom.” This is terrifyingly irresponsible, and arrogant to the utmost. Ultimately Kant burned our tradition, killed our guardians, and left us alone in darkness with nothing. And this “enlightened” one “deserves to be praised by a grateful world”?
Quote M: People gradually work their way out of barbarism of their own accord if only one does not intentionally contrive to keep them in it.
Leave the people with nothing and they will eat each other alive like animals. Kant said, “People gradually work their way out of barbarism on their own.” But is not the discarding of proven tradition, in favor of immature opinions and argument, the nature of the new barbarism?
Read Kant’s quite brief and highly influential essay “What is Enlightenment,” translated by Mary J. Gregor.
