What Is Enlightenment

　　Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.

　　Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.

　　Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is because of laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book which provides meaning for me, a pastor who has conscience for me, a doctor who will judge my diet for me and so on, then I do not need to exert myself. I do not have any need to think; if I can pay, others will take over the tedious job for me. The guardians who have kindly undertaken the supervision will see to it that by far the largest part of mankind, including the entire "beautiful sex," should consider the step into maturity, not only as difficult but as very dangerous.

　　After having made their domestic animals dumb and having carefully prevented these quiet creatures from daring to take any step beyond the lead-strings to which they have fastened them, these guardians then show them the danger which threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not really so very great; for they would presumably learn to walk after some stumbling. However, an example of this kind intimidates and frightens people out of all further attempts.

　　It is difficult for the isolated individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost natural for him. He has even become fond of it and for the time being is incapable of employing his own intelligence, because he has never been allowed to make the attempt. Statues and formulas, these mechanical tools of a serviceable use, or rather misuse, of his natural faculties, are the ankle-chains of a continuous immaturity. Whoever threw it off would make an uncertain jump over the smallest trench because he is not accustomed to such free movement. Therefore there are only a few who have pursued a firm path and have succeeded in escaping from immaturity by their own cultivation of the mind.

　　But it is more nearly possible for a public to enlighten itself: this is even inescapable if only the public is given its freedom. For there will always be some people who think for themselves, even among the self-appointed guardians of the great mass who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own value and of the need for every man to think for himself...

　　A public can only arrive at enlightenment slowly. Through revolution, the abandonment of personal despotism may be engendered and the end of profit-seeking and domineering oppression may occur, but never a true reform of the state of mind. Instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as the guiding reins of the great, unthinking mass.

　　All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all matters. But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, drill! The tax collector: Don't argue, pay! The pastor: Don't argue, believe!... Here we have restrictions on freedom everywhere. Which restriction is hampering enlightenment, and which does not, or even promotes it? I answer: The public use of a man's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment among men....

　　The question may now be put: Do we live at present in an enlightened age? The answer is: No, but in an age of enlightenment. Much still prevents men from being placed in a position to use their own minds securely and well in matters of religion. But we do have very definite indications that this field of endeavor is being opened up for men to work freely and reduce gradually the hindrances preventing a general enlightenment and an escape from self-caused immaturity.

什么是启蒙

　　启蒙乃是人脱离其自我导致的不成熟状态。不成熟状态就是没有他人引导便无法使用自己的理智。如果不是因为缺少理智，而是因为在无人引导时缺少使用自己理智的决心和勇气，那么此种不成熟状态就是自我导致的。因此，“敢于运用你自己的理智！”就是启蒙的座右铭。

　　由于懒惰与懦弱，人类的很大一部分在大自然把他们从外界的引导下释放出来后，依然甘愿处于不成熟状态。正因为懒惰与懦弱，别人便得以轻而易举地以看护人自居。做未成年人是多么安逸！假如有书本为我释疑解惑，有牧师为我提供良知，有医生为我鉴别食谱，如此等等，那么我自己便不必劳神费力。我没有任何思考的必要；假如我能够支付报酬，别人会接替我那份乏味的苦差事。那些好心承担了监督任务的看护人将确保包括所有女性在内的人类的最大多数，把走向成熟看作不仅是困难的，而且是非常危险的。

　　这些看护人首先使他们的温驯的动物们保持沉默，并小心翼翼地防止这些安静的奴才们胆敢迈出缰绳所许可的范围一步，然后便展示给他们看试图独自行走将面临的危险。事实上这种危险并不那么可怕，因为在跌倒几次后他们很可能就学会了走路。但是，这种失败的例子使人们望而生畏，不敢做任何进一步的尝试。

　　对于孤立的个人来说，想要挣脱那几乎已成为自己天性的不成熟状态是困难的。他甚至爱上了这种状态，而且眼下他也没有能力使用自己的理智，因为他从未被容许去做这样的尝试。法则、公理这类与其说利用还不如说误用其天赋的机械工具，是持久不成熟状态的脚镣。 任何抛弃脚镣的人连最小的沟坎都无法稳步跨过，因为他已不习惯这样自由地移动。因此，只有少数几个人能通过修炼自己的心智，探索出一条坚固的道路，并成功逃离不成熟状态。

　　然而，公众要启蒙自己却是更有可能的：可以说只要给予公众自由，这甚至是不可避免的；因为即便是在那些以大众看护人自居的人们当中，总会有一些独立思考的人，他们在自己摆脱不成熟状态的桎梏之后，便会向周围传播一种精神，既合理评估他们自身的价值，又激励每一个人开展独立思考。……

　　大众只能缓慢地达到启蒙。通过革命，可以铲除个人的专制统治，可以结束贪婪与霸道的压迫，但却决不可能带来思想状态的真正革新。相反，新的偏见就像旧的偏见一样，会成为引导那些没有思想的芸芸众生的缰绳。

　　启蒙所要求的唯一条件就是自由，尤其是所有自由中最无害的那种，即人在任何问题上公开运用理性的自由。可是我却处处听到人们大声呵斥：不许争辩！军官说：不许争辩，操练！税吏说：不许争辩，交钱！牧师说：不许争辩，相信！…… 到处都是对自由的限制。那么，到底哪一种限制会妨碍启蒙，哪一种不会或甚至促进启蒙呢？我的回答是：对人的理性的公开运用在任何时候都必须是自由的，而这就足以给人们带来启蒙。……

　　于是人们可能要问：我们现在是否生活在一个已经启蒙的时代？答案是否定的：我们正处于启蒙时代。依然有许多障碍使人们不能在宗教问题上安全有效地使用自己的大脑。不过，的确有种种清晰的迹象表明，此一努力的领域正在被打开，以便人们自由地探索，从而逐步减少那些阻止普遍启蒙与摆脱自我导致之不成熟状态的障碍。-

　　伊曼努尔·康德(1724-1804)是启蒙运动时期最重要的思想家之一，德国古典哲学的创始人。康德哲学理论结合了英国经验主义与欧洲大陆的理性主义。他认为，知识是人类同时透过感官与理性得到的；经验对知识的产生是必要的，但不是唯一的要素；把经验转换为知识，就需要理性(康德与亚里士多德一样，将这种理性称为“范畴”)，而理性则是天赋的；人类通过范畴的框架来获得外界的经验，没有范畴就无法感知世界；但人类的范畴中也有一些可以改变人类对世界的观念的因素，因此事物本身与人所看到的事物是不同的，人永远无法确知事物的真正面貌。在伦理学上，康德提出的“绝对命令” 至今依然是道德哲学中的一条基本准则。在宗教上，康德承认无论是经验还是理性都无法证明上帝的存在。但是他认为，为了维护道德的缘故，我们必须假设上帝与灵魂的存在。在自然科学方面，康德提出了关于太阳系起源的星云假说。康德的代表作是他的“三大批判”，即《纯粹理性批判》、《实践理性批判》和《判断力批判》。康德同情法国大革命，他的《什么是启蒙？》一文是对启蒙运动的经典辩护。本文是该文的节选，作者对人类理性寄予了绝对信心，主张社会的每一个人都应该独立运用自己的理性，对一切问题进行公开的、自由的探究。康德在主张个人自由的时候并没有滑向无政府主义，他提出用“公共安全”作为底线来约束自由辩论。他的那句引起争议的名言可以为证：Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!