Immanuel Kant On Public Use Of Reason

Public use of reason has become a cornerstone of German thought with philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, arguing that reason is a public matter that should be done for the betterment of society, but others such as Moses Mendelssohn believe the key to achieving an individual’s felicity is through their own private use of reason. Both agree reason is absolutely necessary in the pursuit of enlightenment, but each hold reason in their own unique regards as to how it should be used to achieve enlightenment.
Immanuel Kant’s argument that public reason is supreme stems from his ideas on how to achieve enlightenment. Kant believes man is stuck in what he calls, “ self-imposed nonage,” (“What Is”) nonage being an individual’s dependence on another
for guidance. It is self-imposed because man is capable to release himself from this prison but it is entirely up to him. Kant derives his definition of enlightenment from this as he sees enlightenment as man’s emergence from this state on nonage. A man can only break free from his self-imposed nonage if he stands up and finds the courage in himself to use his own reasoning. For this reason, Kant considers laziness and courage to be the greatest sin as it is responsible for men holding off enlightenment and making it easier for others to take advantage of their state. Those that set themselves to exploit men in their nonage, Kant calls guardians. These guardians take it upon themselves to ensure men remain in this state of laziness and cowardice as they consider maturity to be a step too difficult and dangerous for man. Men often fall for the guardian’s trap to keep them docile, thus creating it hard to escape this pit the guardians have dug for them. Much of society has never experienced enlightenment because of this, but it is necessary that people break their chains and take that step towards freedom if they ever want to improve the world around them.
Immanuel Kant reasons the only way to overcome these guardians and become enlightened is for the people to be free to use their public use of reason in all aspects of their lives.
Freedom plays an important role in enlightenment, as the public use of reason is only possible through freedom. Kant sees that there are many restrictions on freedom and their effects on enlightenment vary, but he holds, that regardless of these, the preservation of man’s right to public reasoning is of the utmost importance. Man must not be hindered in its ability to debate and be critical of society because it is only through this that man can progress toward enlightenment. According to Kant, public discussion allows for men to use their rational minds in the formation of new ideas and the debate of communal matters. It is through enlightened debate that man can construct the rational laws with which it chooses to live by. Also, Kant finds it easier to bring enlightenment to society rather than a single individual. He is a firm believer that thought requires the effort of the community because it allows for the pooling of intellectual resources. And since man is a member of society, it is only right that he comes together to discuss communally. Man must thrust the role of scholar upon himself and argue such that he addresses the public, and there shall be no such constraints limiting the extent that he does this. As stated before, it is freedom that allows for public use of reason, which is why
Kant believes reason should not be dictated by any entity. Public reason should be free, and any position set up to regulate reason is only inhibiting it.
While Kant promotes the use of public reason and sees it capable of bringing enlightenment to man, he does not justify its use to make decisions.
He believe public debate is a great gift that should not be sacrificed, but whatever decisions or conclusions that are a product of it should not be directly implemented into society. Kant writes, “Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!” (“What Is”) meaning the people are free to debate and argue whatever they choose but all final decisions are to be made by a single governing leader. According to Kant, it is necessary that this individual is enlightened, and that he listens to his people and the ideas they produce in their public debate. A smart leader will take heed to what his people want, but it is up to him to decide what is best for the people. This presents what Kant describes as a somewhat paradoxical and surprising course of events in which a population given a large amount of freedom appears to take advantage of this intellectual space, but in actuality it is barring the advancement of thought. While on the other hand, a population with a lesser degree of freedom has room to allow their craving for enlightenment to flourish. The optimal relationship between a ruler and his enlightened subjects is one that creates a balance of power and free discussion in the society. It is imperative this relationship is a reflection as the one above described by Kant because it is through this that public reason
creates change in society and the state finds man is more than a machine and treats him with dignity.
While Kant believes public reason is the key to enlightenment, Moses Mendelssohn believes enlightenment can only be achieved through an individual’s private use of reason. This belief originates from his view that enlightenment for man is reaching felicity. Mendelssohn describes felicity as an individual reaching true happiness, and according to him, “ all the inhabitants of the earth are destined to felicity,” (Pg. 94). Unlike Kant, who believes the focus of enlightenment should be society; Mendelssohn concentrates on the individual. He feels steady progress in humanity is impossible because for every couple steps it takes forward it always redoubles back to its original position. Due to this, Mendelssohn believes the advancement of the individual is of greater significance.
Mendelssohn views felicity as something unique to the individual. Felicity is not the same for everyone as he states, “One man’s path takes him through flowers and meadows, another’s across desolate plains, or over steep mountains and past deep gorges. Yet they all proceed on their journey, making their way toward felicity.” (Pg. 96) For this reason, he states, “ Progress is for the individual man.” (Pg. 96) This is why a man must use his own individual reason, his private use of reason, because he alone can reach his felicity. It is up to him to make his decisions that will ultimately lead him to his goal of ultimate happiness. This man must choose for himself where he wants to go and what he wills to accomplish. For these reasons, Mendelssohn believes any form of authority over another man is detrimental to his search for felicity. If an office of authority were to impose itself on an individual and force him to obey, he might never reach true happiness. Also, imposing a set of restrictions will limit one’s private use of reason, as he will not be able to exercise his ability to understand to the full extent of his capabilities. Therefore, all avenues to felicity must be maintained because any number of them might lead him to his destiny.
While both philosophers provide detailed support for their preferred mode of reason, Immanuel Kant’s claims for public reason stands as the more reasonable and beneficial of the two. Kant argues that one’s use of public reason is favorable not just for the individual but also the society as whole. Public discussion is the channel through which men can pool together their thoughts, idea, and criticisms to formulate new groundbreaking advancements and paths to enlightenment. It is also through public reason that men are capable of forming that laws with which we choose to govern ourselves, and also leads to the formation of republics. Some of the most powerful and freethinking nation’s governments are rooted in republics, a form of government of which Kant supported. Mendelssohn’s claims to an individual’s private use of reason presents an overly romanticized view of thinking. He supports an individual who should, almost selfishly, searches for happiness without directly contributing back to society. Mendelssohn tries to justify this arguing that humanity is never going to make any substantial progress, thus it is better to focus on the individual, but this is not true. He blindly turns his eye on much of the advancement humans have indeed made since their conception. This progress continues on today and much of it either depends or is a result of public discussion. For example, the United Nations promotes good in the world by bringing together leader of nations around the world to discuss and look for solutions to problems that plague humanity.
Whereas Kant’s views create a free thinking environment where an individual can achieve enlightenment while contributing to better society.