Kant's Definition Of Enlightenment

Unsurprisingly, during the eighteenth century theologian Johann Friedrich Zöllner received a huge response from his contemporaries when his article first appeared in the Berlinische Monatsschrift in which he rather daringly pondered ‘What is Enlightenment?’ This response included attempts at fully answering the challenging, yet vital question from the Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, Friedrich Schiller and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. For Mendelssohn ‘Enlightenment’ was the uncompleted process of education in the use of reason, whilst Schiller and Lessing tended to focus more intently on the importance of aesthetics with reference to the definition of Enlightenment in their works. However, it was Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant’s essay

The collection of ideas relating to the Enlightenment that swept across Italy became known as the Illuminismo, denoting something rather different than the Lumières that occurred in France and the Aufklärung that took place in the German states. At the very beginning of Kant’s essay, he defines the Aufklärung as ‘der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit.’ and he truly believes that the key to emergence from one’s self-incurred immaturity is to have the courage to embrace one’s own understanding without the guidance from others. Moreover, Kant almost sympathises with those affected by this immaturity as he recognises that it is much more straightforward to follow and abide by rules given by a guardian than to use the power of reason. Kant cleverly emphasises this inability to break free from authority by the use of a metaphor to create a powerful image of dim-witted house cattle unable to walk independent of the carts to which they are attached ‘Nachdem sie ihr Hausvieh zuerst dumm gemacht haben, und sorgfältig verhüteten, dass diese ruhigen Geschöpfe ja keinen Schritt ausser dem Gängelwagen…’ At this point in the essay it could be said that Kant regards the power of reason to be superior to that of authority and religion, which denominated absolutist Prussia at this time but he continues

Lessing had a particular talent for making these philosophical ideas come to life on the stage: “whereas Kant was the greater theoretician, Lessing was the greater practical enlightener.” Critics note the way the play portrays the difficulty that arises when different moral philosophies co-exist in the same community: “besides promoting toleration and eulogizing reason, the play dramatizes the collision between Enlightened Despotism (symbolized by ‘Saladin’) allied to conventional religion and what Lessing deemed the Enlightenment’s true values.” The paradox that this play illustrates is the fact that a ruler, whether it be a Muslim ruler in Jerusalem in the thirteenth century or a Prussian ruler in the eighteenth century, can both foster enlightenment in a small way, and prevent the full blossoming of enlightenment by using his authority to contain any developments which might destabilise the population or curtail his own