Enlightenment means that a person comes out of a state of self-created immaturity.

Immaturity means being unable to use your own understanding without someone else telling you what to think or do. This immaturity is self-created when the problem is not that you lack intelligence or understanding, but that you do not have the courage or determination to think for yourself.

“Sapere Aude!” means “Dare to know!” or “Have the courage to use your own understanding.” This is the main motto of Enlightenment.

2. Why do people remain immature?

The main reasons people remain immature are laziness and cowardice.

Even after nature has given people the ability to think for themselves, many people happily remain dependent on others throughout their lives. This makes it easy for other people to become their guardians and control their thinking.

It is very easy to remain immature. For example, if I have a book that tells me what to think, a religious leader who tells me what to believe, a doctor who tells me exactly what to eat, and other people who make decisions for me, then I do not have to make much effort myself.

I do not need to think for myself if I can simply pay someone else to think for me. Other people are willing to do the difficult work on my behalf.

These guardians then make people believe that becoming independent is dangerous and difficult. They make people afraid of thinking and acting on their own.

Kant compares these people to domestic animals that have been trained to depend on their owners. The guardians make people so dependent that they are afraid to take even one step without someone guiding them.

Then the guardians warn them about the dangers of trying to walk alone. Of course, the danger is usually not as great as they claim. A person may fall a few times, but eventually they will learn to walk by themselves.

However, seeing others fail or fall can make people afraid and timid, so they stop trying to become independent.

Therefore, people remain immature not necessarily because they cannot think, but because they lack the courage to think for themselves.

In one simple sentence: Kant is saying, “Do not blindly depend on others to think for you; have the courage to use your own mind.”

3. Why is it difficult for individuals to become enlightened?

It is difficult for an individual person to escape from immaturity because this condition has almost become a part of their nature.

A person may even become comfortable with being dependent on others. Over time, they may lose the ability to think independently because they have never been given the opportunity to try.

Rules and fixed formulas can become like chains. Instead of helping people use their reason freely, they can make people permanently dependent on established ways of thinking.

Even if someone suddenly removes these chains, they may still find it difficult to think independently. It is like a person who has never learned to walk without support. When they finally try to walk alone, they may fall many times because they are not used to moving freely.

Therefore, only a small number of people have succeeded in becoming independent thinkers. They have done so by developing and exercising their own minds.

4. Can society become enlightened?

Although it is difficult for an individual to become enlightened, it is much more likely that society as a whole can become enlightened.

If society is given freedom, enlightenment is almost certain to develop.

Even among the people who control or guide the masses, there will always be a few who begin to think for themselves.

Once these people free themselves from intellectual dependence, they can encourage others to recognize their own worth and understand that every person has the right and responsibility to think independently.

However, there is an important danger.

People who have been kept under the control of guardians may develop strong prejudices and false beliefs. If these beliefs become deeply established, they can eventually control not only ordinary people but even the guardians themselves.

In other words, the prejudices created by those who control society can eventually turn against the people who created them or their successors.

Therefore, society does not become enlightened suddenly. Enlightenment happens slowly.

A revolution may overthrow a dictator, an oppressive government, or people who exploit others for power and profit. But simply changing the government does not necessarily change people’s way of thinking.

Old prejudices may disappear, but new prejudices can take their place. These new prejudices can become another kind of chain, controlling people who do not think for themselves.

Kant’s main point: A revolution can change who has political power, but true enlightenment requires a change in how people think. That change happens through freedom, reason, and the courage to think for oneself.

5. Freedom to Use Reason

According to Kant, the only thing necessary for enlightenment is freedom. More specifically, people need the freedom to use their reason publicly.

But everywhere we hear commands such as:

1. The officer says: “Do not argue. Follow the drill!”

2. The tax collector says: “Do not argue. Pay your taxes!”

3. The pastor says: “Do not argue. Believe!”

These are restrictions on freedom. But Kant asks: Which restrictions prevent enlightenment, and which restrictions can actually help it?

These are restrictions on freedom. But Kant asks: Which restrictions prevent enlightenment, and which restrictions can actually help it?

His answer is: The public use of reason must always be free.

Only through this freedom can society become enlightened.

However, Kant says that the private use of reason can sometimes be restricted without stopping enlightenment.

Public use vs. private use of reason

By public use of reason, Kant means using your reason as a scholar or thinker who speaks to the wider public—for example, through writing, teaching, or public discussion.

By private use of reason, he means using reason while performing a particular official job or duty.

For example, an officer, government employee, or religious teacher may have certain duties that require them to follow rules.

Example 1: Military officer

Suppose an officer receives an order from a superior.

While performing his duty, he must obey the order. If every soldier stopped to debate every command, the military could not function properly.

But the same officer, as a scholar and citizen, should be free to write publicly about problems or mistakes in the military system.

So:

As an officer → obey.

As a scholar → you are free to criticize.

Example 2: Paying taxes

A citizen cannot simply refuse to pay a tax that the government has legally imposed.

He must fulfil his civic duty.

But he is completely free, as a scholar or citizen speaking publicly, to argue that the tax is unfair, unnecessary, or unjust.

So:

Pay the tax → fulfil your duty.

Criticize the tax publicly → exercise your freedom of reason.

Example 3: Religious teacher

Kant gives the example of a pastor or religious teacher.

A pastor is appointed by a particular church. Therefore, while working as a pastor, he has to teach the official teachings of that church.

He cannot simply teach whatever he personally believes during his official duties.

For example, he might say:

“Our church teaches this, and these are the reasons it gives for this belief.”

Even if he personally has some doubts, he can still explain the official teaching because he accepted the position under those conditions.

However, if he believes that the church’s teaching contains something fundamentally contrary to religion or his conscience, he should resign from the position.

But outside his official role, as a scholar speaking to the wider public, he should have complete freedom to discuss and criticize religious teachings.

He can write:

“I believe this part of the church’s teaching is mistaken, and here are my reasons.”

That is the public use of reason.

Kant believes that society cannot become enlightened if even its intellectual and religious leaders are prevented from thinking independently.

If the people who are supposed to guide society are themselves forced to remain intellectually immature, then society will continue to repeat the same mistakes and prejudices forever.

Simple takeaway

Kant does not say “disobey everything.”

He says:While performing your official duty, you may need to obey.

But as a thinking human being and scholar, you must have the freedom to question and criticize publicly.

This freedom of public reason is what gradually allows individuals and society to become enlightened.

6. No Generation Can Stop Future Enlightenment

Kant now asks an important question:

Can a group of religious leaders, such as pastors or a church council, make a permanent agreement that prevents people from questioning their religious teachings?

Kant’s answer is absolutely not.

A church or religious organization cannot make an agreement saying:

“These beliefs can never be questioned or changed.”

Even if such an agreement is approved by the government, parliament, or the most powerful authorities, it would still be invalid.

One generation cannot control future generations

Kant’s main principle is:

One generation has no right to prevent future generations from thinking, learning, and correcting mistakes.

Knowledge develops over time. Future generations may discover that some beliefs of the present generation are wrong.

Therefore, people today cannot create rules that make it impossible for people in the future to:

gain new knowledge,

correct old mistakes,

question established beliefs,

and become more enlightened.

To do this would be a crime against humanity, because human beings are naturally capable of learning and improving.

So future generations have the right to reject such agreements.

Can people make laws for themselves?

Kant gives a useful test for deciding whether a law is legitimate:

“Can a people impose this law upon itself?”

If a law permanently prevents future citizens from thinking or improving it, then the people should not impose such a law upon themselves.

A temporary arrangement may sometimes be acceptable.

For example, a society might temporarily keep an existing religious system while allowing scholars and religious teachers to publicly criticize its weaknesses and suggest improvements.

Over time, people’s understanding may develop. Eventually, society may decide to change its religious institutions.

But there must always be room for public criticism and improvement.

Enlightenment cannot be permanently rejected

A person may temporarily postpone enlightenment.

For example, someone might say: “I am not ready to question this belief yet.”

Kant allows this for a limited time. But a person cannot permanently give up their right to think for themselves.

More importantly, they cannot make the decision on behalf of future generations. In Kant’s view, doing so violates humanity’s fundamental right to intellectual and moral development.

What about the monarch?

Kant then applies the same argument to the ruler.

If the people themselves cannot permanently impose such restrictions on future generations, then a monarch has even less right to impose them.

The authority of a ruler comes from representing the collective will of the people. Therefore, the ruler should not interfere unnecessarily in people’s intellectual or religious development.

The ruler’s responsibility is mainly to maintain civil order and prevent people from forcibly interfering with one another.

People should be free to seek what they believe is best for their intellectual and spiritual well-being.

If someone asks, “Do we live in an enlightened age today?” the answer is, “No. But we do live in an age of enlightenment.”

People as a whole are still not mature enough to confidently use their own understanding without depending on others, especially when it comes to religious matters. Much still needs to be done before people can think independently in these areas.

However, there are clear signs that the path toward enlightenment is now opening. People are gradually being given more freedom to think for themselves, and the obstacles that keep them dependent on external guidance are slowly disappearing.

In this sense, the present age can be called an age of enlightenment—a time when humanity is gradually moving toward freedom from its self-imposed immaturity. Kant therefore calls it the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.

A prince who believes that it is his duty not to impose anything on people in matters of religion, but instead to give them complete freedom, is truly enlightened.

He does not proudly claim to be “tolerant”; rather, he respects people’s freedom of conscience. Such a ruler deserves to be praised by both the people of his time and future generations. He is among the first rulers to help free humanity from intellectual immaturity and to allow everyone to use their own reason in matters of conscience.

Under such a ruler, respected pastors can, in their role as scholars and without neglecting their official duties, freely and openly present their opinions and judgments to the public, even when their views sometimes differ from the official teachings of their church.

People who do not hold an official position have even greater freedom to express their thoughts.

This spirit of freedom is gradually spreading, even in places where it has to struggle against governments that do not properly understand their own responsibilities. Such governments can learn from the example that freedom does not have to threaten public order or peace in society.

If governments simply stop creating artificial restrictions that keep people dependent on others, people will gradually develop the courage and ability to free themselves from ignorance and intellectual dependence.

I have mainly discussed religious matters when explaining enlightenment—that is, humanity’s emergence from self-imposed immaturity.

I focused on religion for two reasons. First, our rulers generally have no interest in becoming the guardians of their subjects when it comes to arts and sciences. Second, dependence in religious matters is perhaps the most harmful and shameful form of immaturity.

But the way a ruler thinks when he supports religious enlightenment goes even further. Such a ruler understands that there is no danger to his government or laws in allowing his subjects to use their reason publicly and to share their ideas about how his laws could be improved—even when this means openly criticizing laws that are currently in force.

We have before us a brilliant example of such a ruler, and in this respect, no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.

But only a ruler who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of criticism, and who has a large and well-disciplined army to maintain public peace can say something that no republic would dare to say:

“Argue as much as you want, and about whatever you want—but obey!”

Here, as in many other areas of human life, we can see a strange and unexpected pattern. When we look at things broadly, human affairs often appear full of paradoxes.

A greater degree of civil freedom seems beneficial for people’s intellectual and spiritual freedom. Yet too much civil freedom can sometimes create limits on how freely people can think and act. On the other hand, a smaller degree of civil freedom may provide enough space for people to fully develop their abilities to think.

Once nature removes the hard outer shell that has protected humanity’s most important potential—the desire and ability to think freely—people gradually begin to develop a freer way of thinking.

This new way of thinking eventually influences society and makes people increasingly capable of acting freely. Finally, it can even influence the principles of government itself. The government then discovers that it benefits from treating human beings not as mere machines or tools, but as beings who possess reason, freedom, and dignity.