“But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no far of phantoms, yet who likewise has at hand a well-disciplined and numerous army to guarantee public security, may say what no republic would dare to say: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!”

Words that I relate to “The Prince” by Machiavelli, a how to be a prince guide written by a prince. The main idea behind it is that its better to be respected and feared, than it is to be loved. 

The two are related to me as Kant is saying that a ruler can only say believe, and argue about what you want, as long as by the end of the day you obey my command. Something that at the time, and still to this day can only be done when you have no clear enemies of a certain belief at your doorstep, and have a people to back you, such as the army.

Due to the author being Kant, an Agnostic in a very religious period “religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonorable variety of all” seems like something very suiting he’d say. However I too would have to agree. Although I’m not against religion, the fact that a pure belief is what holds a people back, being that it’s not something physical, nor is it tangible to me is as he would say it, is dishonorable.

The slaves had no choice but to be held back in progression, in religion the people are but forcing it on themselves.

“Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artificial measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it.”

Now a perfect example of this would be of slavery. Slaves were treated like barbarians, and were forced to not work their way out of it. However as history will show, and the world around you as well, once the Emancipation Proclamation was passed, loads of freedmen were roaming around with not much idea of what to do with the new found freedom. However give them some time, and today you have an African American as president.

“Men will of their own accord gradually work their way out of barbarism so long as artificial measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it.”

Now a perfect example of this would be of slavery. Slaves were treated like barbarians, and were forced to not work their way out of it. However as history will show, and the world around you as well, once the Emancipation Proclamation was passed, loads of freedmen were roaming around with not much idea of what to do with the new found freedom. However give them some time, and today you have an African American as president.

Now after I looked up Kant, I realize that Iv’e studied him in philosophy, wikipedia is a great refreshing tool. Kant was a man that didnt believe in religion all too much due to being very skeptic about the whole institution, and was thus an agnostic. All info taken from wikipedia.

In the essay he goes to say royalty, in particular the king should be granting freedom to the people, at the very least freedom of the mind. However even if you disagree with that, you cannot argue as he says that you must give royalty credit for being “the man who first liberated mankind from immaturity”, this speaking of how government is what organized the people in history. With an organized people, came organized thought, and lots of enlightenment be it of culture, technology, the arts, or anything else that had to be developed.

And now a little something about the man behind the work, Immanuel Kant

Kant at a certain point asks if we at present live in an enlightened age, to which he answers “No, but we do line in an age of enlightenment.” Had to read that twice to understand what he said there. However the first question that popped up in my head was WHEN was this written, for Kant is certainly not a modern day philosopher. My question lead me to the answer of 1784, so what he’s saying is that although the people of the time are not YET enlightened, they are on their way.

Why he sees the world in this way at that time I couldn’t really figure out, as I don’t know much about German history. A factor that would of course play into why he would say such a thing. However I do know that 1784 is when the Treaty of Paris was ratified, making America it’s own nation.

That event in and of itself is worth mentioning with this, as it’s a country that fought back against Great Britain which was the strongest nation on earth at the time and  won.

“But to renounce such enlightenment completely, whether for his own person or even more so for later generations, means violating and trampling underfoot the sacred rights of mankind”

This brings to my mind in the book “1984” by George Orwell, and the scene of which the whole plan, and end goal of thought crime is revealed. Where the whole world for the most part is participating in. Which if you haven’t read before is actually quite a genius concept, where every continent is at a constant state of war. However a war of which where every country involved is neither loosing nor winning, thus always keeping a mindset of nationalism in the country. Of course however people are bright so eventually one would figure that such a war is pointless. However that’s where thought crime comes in, and doublethink. Doublethink a language that promotes no thought whatsoever with no grey area in the language. Thought crime being a system in the novel where your very brain is being monitored.

Before I go any deeper into the explanation of the grand scheme of “1984” it should be said that Kant also says that “preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void.” Of course the novel 1984 is of fiction, but in it I would say George Orwell did a fantastic job of making a society and world that manages to do just that.

However in reality, the way the world is today I cant picture something just halting all human enlightenment.

“Thus the use which someone employed at a teacher makes of his reason in the presence of his congregation is purely private, since a congregation, however large it is, is never any more than a domestic gathering. In view of this, he is not and cannot be free as a priest, since he is acting on a commission imposed from outside.”

Words I can agree with, for with most jobs that you are being paid on a salary would not let you do what you please, of course within reasonable confines of the job description. In particular being say a public high school teacher in the state of New York for history. The state puts forth regents so that you have to make a curriculum to follow. With that comes the fact that you can’t just preach religion because of separation of church and state. the public school system being a part of the state.

“Thus it would be very harmful if an officer receiving an order from his superiors were to quibble openly, while on duty, about the appropriateness or usefulness of the order in question” Above is a long scene that I thought of from the only cartoon/ anime I watch on a weekly basis named “Attack on Titan” that shows just that.