I immediately get a strong feeling that the first statement Kant makes is the most central to the entire paper.
Kant defines immaturity immediately as something that comes from a dependance on other people.
Kant furthermore lays blame on the ”general” individual (whoever might be reading) for being riddened with immaturity in the case that they do not use their intellect in the way Kant puts forward.
Sapere aude = dare to know
Naturaliter maiorennes I think refers to guidance by principles that are outside the human sphere, so he means that even though we’re free from God or Nature or whatever, we still choose to be led on by other people.
(Feel like an objection to this general argument is something along the lines of ”Well why should I listen to your conception of the enlightenment as something that is as you say it? That would be me getting led on by you”.
Feels like he doesn’t directly define maturity yet whilst still bringing it up as a concept, however I guess it is implicitly defined as the opposite immaturity.
His first argument seems to be that people probably have attempted to ”walk on their own two legs” before but most people fail in the beginning and are thereafter scared to try again.
→ leads to not being able to use reason
People are ”not used to the freedom which they have, or are beginning, to attain (remember that the Enlightenment is a process).
Also it is rare for people to actually take this leap into maturity by themselves, therefore the public ”in general” should become enlightened.
This is considered a natural process by Kant.
”What is particularly noteworthy here is that the public that had previously been placed under this yoke may compel its guardians themselves to remain under this yoke, if it is incited to such action by some of its guardians who are incapable of any enlightenment. So harmful is it to instill prejudices, for they ultimately avenge themselves on their originators or on those whose predecessors invented them. Hence a public can only slowly arrive at en-lightenment.”
Difficult part but my general outtakes: There is a back-and-forth relationship between the immature general peer and guardians, that keep them both stuck within an immature way of life. Guardians of the ”yoke”-age (whenever that may be, ie. It can come and go) cannot be enlightened.
The part about prejudice I do not understand and I do not see how it leads to people only being able to ”slowly” become enlightened.
Okay, maybe he means that prejudice is the mode through which the public maneuvers and therefore enlightenment can only be reached by slowly replacing the values of the general population with those sort of values that the enlightenment would naturally produce.
Freedom breeds enlightenment.
Defines freedom very broadly, ie. Being allowed to use reason in ”a public way”.
I think Kant is arguing that the king of Prussia is the only monarch or leader who allows public use of reason, whilst everyone else wants to avoid argument.
Private reason can be restricted and public reason will still be able to bring about enlightenment.
Public reason: that reason which is used academically and for a ”reading peer” and happens within a civil service institution (I guess?).
Okay so public reason must happen in a way that it does not harm the institution in which it is being made, or at least not impede its goals.
Kant uses the example of a soldier. The soldier is not allowed to not follow orders because that would break down the entire soldiering institution, but the soldier might be able to appeal to the masses through for example a paper on eg. everything wrong with the officer corp.
Private use of reason: that reason which is done in front of a closed assemblage of people, eg. it would be private if I chastised my commanding officer for doing something wrong.
It is in our role as a scholar (which everyone can access by becoming mature) that we can be free, but in our general societal ”jobs” given to us, we must still obey.
Kant finds it very important for a king to exist simultaneously as public reason, whilst also not interfering with it.
Kant reflects on the unexpected way in which Frederick’s Prussia has become the case.