Immanuel Kant--"What is Enlightenment?"

Enlightenment: "man's emergence from self-incurred immaturity"

If you're immature you depend on the guidance of others. Kant implies here that we're naturally mature and capable of rational, independent thought.

People aren't freed from immaturity because they're lazy or scared. Others gladly assume the mantle for the unthinking people.

Ignorance is blissful and profitable. People use fear to keep people from enlightenment, for they're more easy to control in this state.

Inflexible "dogmas and formulas," which are in and of themselves implements for rationality can also become the chains of ones own self-incurred immaturity.

Enlightenment can happen on a large, public scale, but never through revolution. Enlightenment is a SLOW process. In revolution, prejudice in one shape or form overtakes the masses. Though they might overthrow tyranny, they only replace one form of prejudice with another.

Enlightenment comes through freedom, which is the ability "to make public use of one's reason in all matters." This is not to say, however, that civility and rule of law impose on freedom. Kant believes the ability to disagree within the bounds of obedience is foundational for enlightenment's success.

Public use: a man addressing a reading public (Habermas)
Private: civil post or government office

Those holding office can argue as a citizen without "harming the affairs in which he is employed." Kant uses a tax paying analogy. While it's wrong for someone to withhold taxes, it's permissible for that person to pay taxes and argue vehemently against paying. It's right for a clergyman to lead his congregation in the doctrines and publish scholarship about his questioning those doctrines. Uphold the position and express freedom in thought.

Kant believes it is wrong and impossible to have a human commit to the veracity of one document, doctrine, belief, etc. throughout time. "A contract of this kind, concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void, even if it is ratified by the supreme power, by Imperial Diets and the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot enter into an alliance on oath to put the next age in a position where it would be impossible for it to extend and correct its knowledge, particularly on such important matters, or to make progress whatsoever in enlightenment."

Laws, then, have legitimacy as long as the people will them.

"it is absolutely impermissible to agree, even for a single lifetime, to a permanent religious constitution which no-one might publicly question. For this would virtually nullify a phase in man's upward progress, thus making it fruitless and even detrimental to subsequent generations."

"there is no danger even to his legislation if he allows his subjects to make public use of their own reason and to put before the public their thoughts on better ways of drawing up laws, even if this entails forthright criticism of the current legislation"

At the end, Kant recognizes a paradox in freedom as an intellectual right and freedom as denoting unfettered ability to do whatever. He writes: "A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent." In essence, There must exist mandated civility (rule of law) for intellectual freedom to occur and expand.