【康德】何谓启蒙(中英文版)--何兆武(译)

福柯: 什么是启蒙？福柯: 什么是启蒙？（1984年）译者：李康校者：王倪[MS按：福柯的这篇名文有多个中文译本，在我看来，李康先生的这个译本是最好的，但在网上并不多见。

现在我对它又做了一点编辑加工，自认为这是迄今为止网上能找到的最佳版本了。

]题注：本文根据Catherine Porter的英译本“What is Enlightenment?”（收于Paul Rabinow编的M. Foucault, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, The New Press, 1997, pp. 303-319.）译出，根据法文本校订（Dits et ecrits，vol. IV., pp. 562-578, …Qu‟est-ce que les Lumieres?‟, Paris, Gallimard, 1994）。

I.今天，如果有家杂志向自己的读者们提出一个问题，那它这么做的目的，就只是针对每个人都已经有所见解的某一项主题来征询意见，所以，想借此得出什么新东西是不太可能的。

而18世纪的编辑们则更喜欢向公众提些尚无解决办法的问题。

我也不知道这种习惯是否更为有效，但有一点可以肯定，它会更加吸引人。

不管怎么说，反正与这种风尚相顺应的是，1784年的11月，有这么一家德国期刊，即《柏林月刊》，刊载了对一个问题的答复。

问题是：什么是启蒙？答复者：康德。

这或许只是篇小文章。

但是，在我看来，它标志着悄然切入某个问题的思想史。

对于这个问题，现代哲学既没有能力作出回答，可也从未成功地予以摆脱。

就是这个问题，迄今两百年来一直被以多种不同的形式重复着。

自黑格尔开始，中间经过尼采或马克斯·韦伯，然后到霍克海默或哈贝马斯，几乎没有一种哲学能回避这同一个问题，都不得不以某种直接或间接的方式面对它。

那么，这个被称为启蒙（Aufkl?rung）的事件，这个至少在一定程度上决定了我们今天所是、所思、所为的事件，又是什么呢？我们不妨设想一下，如果《柏林月刊》今天依然存在，并正在向它的读者们征询这样一个问题：什么是现代哲学？或许我们也会以类似的方式答道：现代哲学就是这样一种哲学，它一直在尽力试图回答两百年前非常贸然地提出来的那个问题：什么是启蒙？我们不妨先费点工夫，来看看康德的文章。

康德:何谓启蒙(何兆武译)康德:何谓启蒙(何兆武译)“在一切事情上都有公开运用自己理性的自由”启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态，不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

当其原因不在于缺乏理智,而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时,那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。

Sapere aude! 要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动的口号。

懒惰和怯懦乃是何以有如此大量的人,当大自然早己把他们从外界的引导之下释放出来以后(naturaliter maiorennes）时,却仍然愿意终身处于不成熟状态之中,以及别人何以那么轻而易举地就俨然以他们的保护人自居的原因所在。

处于不成熟状态是那么安逸。

如果我有一部书能替我有理解,有一位牧师能替我有良心,有一位医生能替我规定食谱,等等；那么我自己就用不着操心了。

只要能对我合算,我就无需去思想:自有别人会替我去做这类伤脑筋的事。

绝大部分的人(其中包括全部的女性)都把步入成熟状态认为除了是非常之艰辛而外并且还是非常之危险的；这一点老早就被每一个一片好心在从事监护他们的保护人关注到了。

保护人首先是使他们的牲口愚蠢,并且小心提防着这些温驯的畜牲不要竟敢冒险从锁着他们的摇车里面迈出一步;然后就向他们指出他们企图单独行走时会威胁他们的那种危险。

可是这种危险实际上并不那么大,因为他们跌过几交之后就终于能学会走路的；然而只要有过一次这类事例,就会使人心惊胆战并且往往吓得完全不敢再去尝试了。

任何一个个人要从几乎已经成为自己天性的那种不成熟状态之中奋斗出来,都是很艰难的。

他甚至于已经爱好它了,并且确实暂时还不能运用他自己的理智,因为人们从来都不允许他去做这种尝试。

条例和公式这类他那天分的合理运用、或者不如说误用的机械产物,就是对终古长存的不成熟状态的一副脚梏。

谁要是抛开它,也就不过是在极狭窄的沟渠上做了一次不可靠的跳跃而己,因为他并不习惯于这类自由的运动。

刘向荣：何为启蒙？启蒙，实质就是理性精神的弘扬。

康德认为：“启蒙就是人类对他自己招致的不成熟状态的摆脱。

这个不成熟状态就是这样的一种状态，即人们在没有别人的指点时，无力使用自己的知性。

这种不成熟状态之所以是自己招致的，其原因不在于缺乏理性，而在于，当没有别人的指点时，他缺乏使用理性的决心和勇气。

要勇于认识！‘要有勇气使用你自己的理性！’------这就是启蒙的口号。

”（「德」伊曼努尔·康德：《道德形而上学基础》，九州出版社，2007年1月第1版，169页）美国学者托马斯·奥斯本认为：“从最宽泛、最一般的意义上说，启蒙指的是将理性应用于人类事务。

启蒙是一个过程，通过这一过程，首先在自由的名义下，理性被运用于人类既存现实的各个方面。

”（「美」托马斯·奥斯本：《启蒙面面观》，商务印书馆，2007年4月第1版，北京，13页）附：提高作文水平技巧：1．细观察。

细致观察是提高写作水平的金钥匙。

只有仔细地观察，才能从生活现象的矿藏中发现碎金璞玉，于泥沙混杂中攫取闪光的宝物。

2．多阅读。

广泛阅读是提高作文水平的前提条件。

要写出好文章，就必须多读书。

“读书破万卷，下笔如有神。

”“熟读唐诗三百首，不会作诗也会吟。

”我们强调既要多读，又要选择地读，更要读进去，理解所读文章的结构技艺，语言特点”等。

我读书、学习、积累知识一般是用快速阅读法，这里说的快速阅读不是简单地阅读速度快，跟略读、跳读扫读等有着本质的区别。

快速阅读是一种科学高效的阅读、学习方法。

快速阅读不仅体现在阅读速度的高效上，更是理解的高效：对抓住文章段落的脉络和重点有非常好的作用，帮助我们对文章做整理、分析和归纳。

掌握速读记忆之后，可以把阅读效率提高很多倍，无论是阅读素材积累还是学习，都有极大的帮助的，特别是对于时间紧张的高中生来说，非常有必要练习提高一下。

具体练习可以参考《精英特全脑速读记忆训练》，我自己用的是这个。

阅读对于一个人的成长是非常重要的，尤其是中学生，加强课外阅读，是非常必要的，阅读从大的作用来说，滋养着人的心田，提高自我修养，养成读书的好习惯，终生收益，从小的方面来说，中学生阅读可以增加知识面，提高语文素养，尤其对于写作有着不可低估的作用。

康德：什么是启蒙何谓启蒙？启蒙是人类从自我造成的不成熟状态中解脱出来。

不成熟是指缺少他人的教导就没有能力运用自己的理智。

这种不成熟状态之所以是自我造成的，其原因不在于缺少理智，而在于没有他人的教导就缺乏运用自己理智的决心和勇气。

Sapere Aude![要勇于认知] “要有勇气运用你自己的理智！” ——这就是启蒙运动的格言。

人类中之所以还有如此众多的人，即使自然早已将他们从疏离的外在教导中解脱出来（因自然方式而成熟），却依然心甘情愿地终身安处于不成熟状态之中，其原因就在于懒惰和怯懦，这也是为什么另一些人能够轻而易举地把自己标举为他们的监护者。

处于不成熟状态可真是轻松安逸。

如果我有一本书来充作我自己的见解、有一位牧师来充作我自己的良心、有一名医生来替我自己决定合理的食饮，等等等等诸如此类的，那我又何必要自己劳心费神，那完全没有必要了。

我无需思考，只需要有能力支付：其他人就会欣然应命帮我把那些伤脑筋的讨厌活儿全都包办了。

仁慈慷慨地担负起治理民众之任的监护者们小心翼翼地看护着，以确保民众中的绝大部分人（其中包括全部的女性）视通往成熟之路为畏途，充满了风险，更别说困难重重了。

在首先使他们驯养的牲口缄默无声之后，在确信这些温顺的生灵们即使被撤去拴缚在身上的络辔也不会再挪移一步之时，一旦它们试图想要独自迈步，监护者们就会向它们指出种种的威胁。

这危险现在看来实际上并没有那么严重，因为在跌倒几次之后，人最终一定能够学会自己走路；但诸如此类的示例却让人心生胆怯，通常就会把他们进一步尝试的所有企图全都吓退了。

因此，对于任何一个个体而言，要把自身从那种几乎已经变成他自己天性的不成熟状态中解脱出来是困难的。

他甚至已经开始喜欢上这种状态了，并且在这个时候，的的确确无力运用他自己的理智，因为从未有人允许他去作过这样的尝试。

条例和规程，这些基于他的自然禀赋的理性运用或更像是误用的机械刻板的工具，把他禁锢在永久的不成熟状态中。

康德启蒙教育康德（Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804）是18世纪德国启蒙哲学的代表人物，他对启蒙教育的理论贡献深远。

康德认为，启蒙就是人类走出未成年状态的勇气，这种未成年状态是由于个体自身的懒惰和怯懦所导致的，而要摆脱这种状态，就需要勇气去运用自己的理性。

康德的启蒙教育理论对当代教育仍具有重要的指导意义，下面我们就来探讨一下康德启蒙教育的要点。

首先，康德强调启蒙教育的核心是理性。

他认为，人类之所以处于未成年状态，是因为他们依赖于别人的指导，缺乏自己的判断力和决策能力。

而启蒙教育的目的就是要引导个体运用自己的理性，不再依赖于他人的指导，从而成为独立、自由的个体。

其次，康德认为，启蒙教育需要培养个体的勇气。

在康德看来，个体要想摆脱未成年状态，就需要勇气去面对未知和不确定的事物，去质疑传统观念和权威的指导。

只有敢于怀疑和质疑，才能真正实现理性的运用，才能真正成为一个自由的人。

再次，康德提出，启蒙教育需要培养个体的自治能力。

他认为，个体要成为一个自由的人，就需要学会自己做出决策，并为自己的行为负责。

这就需要培养个体的自治能力，让他们学会独立思考、独立决策，不受外部的干扰和影响。

最后，康德认为，启蒙教育需要倡导人文主义的精神。

他强调个体的尊严和价值，主张尊重个体的选择和决定。

在启蒙教育中，个体不应该被视为工具或客观规律的对象，而应该被视为具有理性和自主意识的主体。

综上所述，康德的启蒙教育理论强调理性、勇气、自治和人文主义精神，这些要点对于当代教育仍具有重要的启示意义。

在当今社会，教育者应该重视培养学生的理性思维和判断能力，引导他们敢于质疑和怀疑，培养他们独立思考的能力，尊重他们的个性和选择，让他们成为真正自由和独立的人。

这样的教育理念不仅符合康德的启蒙教育理论，也符合当代社会对于人才培养的需求，具有重要的现实意义。

何謂啟蒙？康德與傅柯的界限思考與現代性陳逸淳（政大社研所碩士班）康德在十九世紀就曾對「什麼是啟蒙」這個問題進行思考，二十世紀的傅柯同樣也寫過一篇論何謂啟蒙的文章。

在文章中康德認為，有些對人們所施行的限制是有礙啟蒙的，而有些卻不是，反而還促進了啟蒙：「必須總是能夠自由地公開運用人們的理性，唯有它才能夠在人們之中引發啟蒙；而理性的私人運用卻經常必須極為嚴格地受限制…。

」康德認為，「理性」必須被人公開地使用，而理性也只有在公開的使用中才能是自由的，例如一個學者透過寫作而向公眾表達他對於公共事務的看法或批評。

或者，應該這麼說：任何人都有權以一種學者般的態度，對於公眾事物在大眾面前理性地發表他自己的意見。

但是理性在私下的使用卻必須是有所節制的：一個服役的軍官不論如何都應該遵從其上級的命令，而無權去爭辯或質疑這個命令的合目的性或者其效用；一個牧師有義務照著他所隸屬的教會的教義向他的聽眾傳福音。

對康德而言，理性的自由必須在某個範圍內受到約束，人類才有可能擺脫其「不成熟狀態」。

而這個理性的界線便在於公領域與私領域的劃分。

理性只有在公領域之中才是正當的，人們在公領域之中的理性運用必須擁有完全的自由；而理性在私領域中的運用卻必須是有所限制的，人們在自己的私人崗位上必須善盡自己的義務，而不是運用理性去爭辯。

唯有如此，人們才能擺脫其「不成熟狀態」，才能成為「啟蒙」的。

因此，在康德那裡，「啟蒙」便在於理性界線之劃定。

理性的使用不能逾越、不能超過理性所從屬的範圍。

啟蒙運動便在這定界的努力中展開。

康德筆下的那個「啟蒙的時代」是個在理性的公開運用上（尤其是關於宗教事務上的運用）愈來愈自由的時代，但是人們仍必須在私領域中避免運用自己的理性。

當理性界線之劃定越來越明確而深刻、人們都能遵守份紀、不做出逾越之事，而能使得界限越來越確定而鞏固之時，便足以稱做是在啟蒙運動之中的啟蒙時代。

後來，傅柯在他的〈何謂啟蒙〉一文中對康德的那篇文章作了相當特別的詮釋。

康德：什么是启蒙？何以启蒙？康德：什么是启蒙？何以启蒙？文：康德译：何兆武、王麓编：Kuange、李强康德曾说：“我们目前并不是生活在一个启蒙了的时代，但我们生活在一个启蒙的时代”。

那么，到底什么是启蒙？什么是启蒙？启蒙是人脱离自己招致的不成熟状态。

所谓不成熟，是指人在无他人指导时便无法运用自己的理智。

而这种不成熟，其根源不在缺乏理智，而在于无他人指引便缺乏决心和勇气来运用自身的理智。

因此启蒙的箴言便是：勇敢地运用你自己的理智（Sapere aude！）大自然早已把人类从外界的引导下释放出来，然而仍有大量的人愿意终身处于不成熟的状态，以至于别人如此轻而易举就以他们的保护人自居。

为什么会这样呢？因为处于不成熟的状态更加安逸。

比如，一本书可以代替我们的知性，一位牧师可以代替我们的良心，一位医生能够替我们安排膳食......我无需自己操心，无需去思想，就已经有人替我将这些事情办妥。

既然如此，我又何必去做这些伤脑筋的事？绝大部分的人把步入成熟状态看作一件非常艰辛、非常危险的事。

这一点早就被那些好心的保护人关注到了。

他们先是使家中饲养的小羊羔蠢笨，并小心翼翼地防着不让他们摆脱学步车的牵引而迈出一步，当他们尝试独自行走时，再告之以危险并使之感到威胁。

这种危险实际上并不是那么大，人类在跌过几次跤之后总能学会走路。

只不过曾经摔跤的例子会让他们畏怯，吓得他们不敢再做出任何尝试。

任何一个人要从不成熟的状态中奋斗出来，都非常艰难，因为那几乎已经成为他们天性的一部分。

保护者不允许他们走出，他们自己也爱上了不成熟的感觉。

抛弃不成熟状态后，人哪怕面对一个最浅的水沟也会畏畏缩缩不敢跳过，因为他们已经不习惯于自由的行动。

因此，真正通过自己精神的奋斗摆脱不成熟的状态，并且迈出切实步伐来的，真的只有极少数人。

即便如此，人类自己实现整体启蒙的机会很大。

只要他们得到自由，启蒙就不可避免。

即使以保护者自居的人当中也会存在几个独立思考者，他们在摆脱了不成熟的羁绊之后，将会理性认识人类自身的价值和每个人独立思考的光荣使命，并将这种精神传布开来。

什么是启蒙:康德与福柯王 立内容提要 本文通过分析康德和福柯对 什么是启蒙 的回答和认识,试图揭示启蒙在现代性、后现代性语境下的遭遇、意义以及三者的内在逻辑关联。

启蒙的精神就是批判精神,启蒙不但塑造了现代性,也塑造了后现代性。

作为一种批判的哲学态度和气质,后现代性和现代性一样,都是启蒙精神的时代表征。

现代性运用先验分析的方法、理性的批判,确立了启蒙批判的否定性意义;后现代性运用考古学的方法、系谱学的批判,突显启蒙批判的肯定性意义。

启蒙是一项伟大而未竟的事业,现代性有终结启蒙的危险,后现代性继续着启蒙的事业。

后现代性对现代性的批判是对启蒙的再启蒙,它推进了启蒙的进程。

关键词 启蒙 现代性 后现代性 批判现代性的哲学话语和后现代性的哲学话语都是从启蒙开始的。

我们是什么、我们想的是什么、我们能做的是什么,这些既构成启蒙哲学的基本话语和基本主题,同时又是我们被启蒙所决定了的生存态势。

但启蒙是什么,我们至今仍然无法确切定义。

如果说,现代哲学是试图对两个世纪前 什么是启蒙 这个被提出来的问题做出回答的哲学,那么我们今天也可以说,以福柯为代表的后现代主义哲学思潮甚至整个当代哲学也是试图再次对 什么是启蒙 做出回答的哲学。

透过两种哲学语境的考察,启蒙的实质清晰地展现出来。

启蒙的回答:现代性的还是后现代性的?什么是启蒙?现代哲学历经两个世纪,以不同的形式一直重复这个问题。

福柯认为,自康德开始,从黑格尔到霍克海默或哈贝马斯,中间经过尼采或马克斯 韦伯,很少有哲学不曾直接或间接地碰到这同一个问题:所谓 启蒙 的事件究竟是什么? 哲学史上康德和福柯对 什么是启蒙 给予了正面回答,而这种回答揭示了两种不同的哲学立场:现代性和后现代性。

康德站在现代性的立场,对于 什么是启蒙 给予了他那个时代的最好回答。

康德认为, 启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态。

不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导,就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

当其原因不在于缺乏理智,而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时,那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。

康德：何谓启蒙（德中对照）Immanuel KantBeantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?康德：何谓启蒙（何兆武译）Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines andern zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态，不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

当其原因不在于缺乏理智,而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时,那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。

Sapere aude! 要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动的口号。

Faulheit und Feigheit sind die Ursachen, warum ein so großer Teil der Menschen, nachdem sie die Natur längst von fremder Leitung frei gesprochen (naturaliter maiorennes), dennoch gerne zeitlebens unmündig bleiben; und warum es anderen so leicht wird, sich zu deren Vormündern aufzuwerfen. Es ist so bequem, unmündig zu sein. Habe ich ein Buch, das für mich Verstand hat, einen Seelsorger, der für mich Gewissen hat, einen Arzt, der für mich die Diät beurteilt, u.s.w.: so brauche ich mich ja nicht selbst zu bemühen. Ich habe nicht nötig zu denken, wenn ich nur bezahlen kann; andere werden das verdrießliche Geschäft schon für mich übernehmen. Daß der bei weitem größte Teil der Menschen (darunter das ganze schöne Geschlecht) den Schritt zur Mündigkeit, außer dem daß er beschwerlich ist, auch für sehr gefährlich halte: dafür sorgen schon jene Vormünder, die die Oberaufsicht über sie gütigst auf sich genommen haben. Nachdem sie ihr Hausvieh zuerst dumm gemacht haben, und sorgfältig verhüteten, daß diese ruhigen Geschöpfe ja keinen Schritt außer dem Gängelwagen, darin sie sie einsperreten, wagen durften: so zeigen sie ihnen nachher。

康德：什么是启蒙运动（中文版）答复这个问题:“什么是启蒙运动,”[1]康德启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态。

不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

当其原因不在于缺乏理智，而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时，那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。

Sapere aude～[2]要有勇气运用你自己的理智～这就是启蒙运动[3]的口号。

懒惰和怯懦乃是何以有如此大量的人，当大自然早己把他们从外界的引导之下释放出来以后(naturaliter maiorennes[4])时，却仍然愿意终身处于不成熟状态之中，以及别人何以那么轻而易举地就俨然以他们的保护人自居的原因所在。

处于不成熟状态是那么安逸。

如果我有一部书能替我有理解，有一位牧师能替我有良心，有一位医生能替我规定食谱，等等;那么我自己就用不着操心了。

只要能对我合算，我就无需去思想:自有别人会替我去做这类伤脑筋的事。

绝大部分的人(其中包括全部的女性)都把步入成熟状态认为除了是非常之艰辛而外并且还是非常之危险的;这一点老早就被每一个一片好心在从事监护他们的保护人关注到了。

保护人首先是使他们的牲口愚蠢，并且小心提防着这些温驯的畜牲不要竟敢冒险从锁着他们的摇车里面迈出一步;然后就向他们指出他们企图单独行走时会威胁他们的那种危险。

可是这种危险实际上并不那么大，因为他们跌过几交之后就终于能学会走路的;然而只要有过一次这类事例，就会使人心惊胆战并且往往吓得完全不敢再去尝试了。

任何一个个人要从几乎已经成为自己天性的那种不成熟状态之中奋斗出来，都是很艰难的。

他甚至于已经爱好它了，并且确实暂时还不能运用他自己的理智，因为人们从来都不允许他去做这种尝试。

条例和公式这类他那天分的合理运用、或者不如说误用的机械产物，就是对终古长存的不成熟状态的一副脚梏。

谁要是抛开它，也就不过是在极狭窄的沟渠上做了一次不可靠的跳跃而己，因为他并不习惯于这类自由的运动。

IMMANUEL KANTAn Answer to the Question:What is Enlightenment?(1784)Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another.This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding,but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another.Sapere Aude![dare to know]"Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men,long after nature has released them from alien guidance(natura-liter maiorennes),nonetheless glad ly remain in lifelong immaturity,and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians.It is so easy to be immature.If I have a book to serve as my understanding,a pastor to serve as my conscience,a physician to determine my diet for me,and so on,I need not exert myself at all.I need not think,if only I can pay:others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them(including the entire fair sex)regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous,not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb,and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed,these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them,should they attempt to walk alone.Now this danger is not actually so great,for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk;but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.Thus,it is difficult for any individ ual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature.He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding,for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it.Rules and formulas,those mechanical aids to the rational use,or rather misuse,of his natural gifts,are the shackles of a permanent immaturity.Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch,since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement.Consequently,only a few have succeeded,by cultivating their own minds,in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely;indeed,if it is only allowed freedom,enlightenment is almost inevitable.For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves,a few who,after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity,will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself.But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment,it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejud ices,for they finally take revenge upon their originators,or on their descendants.Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly.Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression,but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking;instead,new prejud ices,just like the old ones they replace,will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.Nothing is required for this enlightenment,however,except freedom;and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all,namely,the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear:"Do not argue!"The officer says,"Do not argue,drill!"The tax man says,"Do not argue,pay!"The pastor says,"Do not argue,believe!"(Only one ruler in the World says,"Argue as much as you want and about what you want,but obey!")In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom.But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not,but instead actually advances it?I reply:The public use of one's reason must always be free,and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind;the private use of reason may,however,often be very narrowly restricted,without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment.By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world.I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him.Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community,a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends,or at least prevent them from destroying such ends.Here one certainly must not argue,instead one must obey.However,insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole,or even of the world community,and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar,in the proper sense of that term,he can most certainly argue,without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible.Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order.He must obey.But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service,or from placing them before the public for its judgment.The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him;indeed,impertinent criticism of such levies,when they should be paid by him,can be punished as a scandal(since it can lead to widespread insubordination).But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when,as a scholar,he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes.Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves,for he was appointed on that condition.But as a scholar he has complete freedom,indeed even the calling,to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol,as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters.Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience.What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights;rather,he offers it under the direction and in the name of another.He will say,"Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses."He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction,but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake,since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them,and,in any case,nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them.If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them,he could not in good conscience serve in his position;he would have to resign.Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private,because,however large the congregation is,this use is always only domestic;in this regard,as a priest,he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else.By contrast,the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such,i.e.,the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the(spiritual)guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.But would a society of pastors,perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery(as those among the Dutch call themselves),not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people,and this for all time:I say that this is wholly impossible.Such a contract,whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race,is absolutely null and void,even if it should be ratified by the supreme power,by parliaments,and by the most solemn peace treaties.One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire,to place a succeed ing one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge(particularly where it is so very important),to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment.That would be a crime against human nature,whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress;subseq uent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthoriz ed and criminal.The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question:Can a people impose such a law on itself?Now it might be possible,in anticipation of a better state of affairs,to introduce a provisional order for a specific,short time,all the while giving all citizens,especially clergy,in their role as scholars,the freedom to comment publicly,i.e.,in writing,on the present institution's shortcomings.The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined(if not unanimous)voices of the populace couldpropose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that,in accord with their newly gained insight,had organized themselves under altered religious institutions,but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However,it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question,for so do-ing would deny,render fruitless,and make detrimental to succeed ing generatio ns an era in man's progress toward improvement.A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person;but to renounce it for himself,or,even more,for subseq uent generations,is to vio late and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being,which is not his affair.However,he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being.It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters,since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance.This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach,"Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as,indeed even more,when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.If it is now asked,"Do we presently live in an enlightened age?"the answer is,"No,but we do live in an age of enlightenment."As matters now stand,a great deal is still lack ing in order for men as a whole to be,or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues.But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing.In this regard,this age is the age of enlightenment,the century of Frederick.A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing,but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first,at least where the government is concerned,to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience.Under his rule,venerable pastors,in their role as scholars and without prejud ice to their official duties,may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views,even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol.Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post.This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function.Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth.If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it,men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e.,man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity,first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects'guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all.But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further,for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws,even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect.We have before us a shinin g example,with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows,yet who likewise has a well-disciplined,numerous army to guarantee public peace,can say what no republicmay dare,namely:"Argue as much as you want and about what you want,but obey!"Here as elsewhere,when things are considered in broad perspective,a strange,unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself,one in which almost everything is paradoxical.A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom;yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter;conversely,a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities.Thus,once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared,namely,the inclination to and vocation for free thinking,the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality(whereby they become increasingly able to act freely),and it finally even influences the principles of government,which finds that it can profit by treating men,who are now more than machines,in accord with their dignity.I.KantKonigsberg in Prussia,30September1784康德:何谓启蒙(何兆武译)“在一切事情上都有公开运用自己理性的自由”启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态，不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

启蒙思想的四个利益概念何为启蒙？1784年，康德在一篇以“启蒙”为题的文章中做了如下回答：启蒙是指“人类从自己加于自己的不成熟状态中解脱出来”，从因“懒惰和怯懦”而服从于宗教或政治权威的“条规戒律”的状态中解脱出来。

他宣称，启蒙运动的口号就是：“勇于运用自己的理智！”它的基本条件是思想与言论的自由。

“一个时代绝不能缔结某种条约，以阻碍后来的时代扩展眼界、增进知识、消除错误。

这将是一种违反人性的犯罪行为，因为人性的固有使命正在于这种进步。

”康德的观点在21世纪的物理学家戴维·多伊奇所著的《无穷的开始》一书中得到了回应。

多伊奇在这部为启蒙辩护的著作中强调，只要我们大胆地运用理智，就可以在科学、政治以及道德等所有领域取得进步：乐观主义（在我主张的意义上）是这样一种理论：所有的失败，所有的恶，都是知识不足造成的。

……问题是不可避免的，因为知识与完备状态之间永远隔着无穷的距离。

有些问题很困难，但把困难的问题和不能解决的问题混为一谈是错误的。

问题是可以解决的，而且每一种特定的恶都是一个可以解决的问题。

乐观主义的文明是开放的，它不害怕创新，以批评的传统为基础。

它的体系不断改善，这些体系所实现的知识中最重要的，就是怎样检测和消除错误的知识。

何为启蒙运动？我们无法找到一个正式的答案，因为以康德的文章所命名的那个时代并没有明确的年代界限，不像奥运会那样有开幕仪式和闭幕典礼。

同时，这次运动也没有一个宗旨明确的誓言或者信条。

通常来说，启蒙运动指的是18世纪的后60年，不过它可以上溯自17世纪的科学革命和理性时代，也可以下延至19世纪上半叶古典自由主义的鼎盛时期。

当时，科学探索对传统智慧提出了挑战，宗教战争的血腥残酷让人们记忆犹新，思想的传播和人类的交流也比以往更为迅速频繁。

在这些因素的合力作用下，启蒙运动的思想家们找到了一条理解人类状况的新途径。

在这个时期内，各种思想纷涌迭现，有些还相互矛盾，但有四个理念将它们连在一起，也就是理性、科学、人文主义和进步。

康德:什么是启蒙运动? 提交 2019/04/14 阅读: 445关键词: 康德启蒙本文选自康德《历史理性批判文集》，何兆武译，北京商务印书馆1991。

简介：康德是18世纪启蒙运动集之大成者，其“批判哲学”奠定了现代哲学的基础，划定科学、道德与美学的界限。

本文尝试回答何谓启蒙，并说明启蒙与“公开使用自由”（即言论自由、学术自由）的关联。

启蒙就是人从他自己造成的未成年状态中走出。

未成年状态就是没有他人的指导就不能使用自己的知性。

要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动的口号。

启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态，不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。

当其原因不在于缺乏理智，而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时，那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。

Sapere aude！①要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动②的口号。

懒惰和怯懦乃是何以有如此大量的人，当大自然早己把他们从外界的引导之下释放出来以后（naturaliter maiorennes）③时，却仍然愿意终身处于不成熟状态之中，以及别人何以那么轻而易举地就俨然以他们的保护人自居的原因所在。

处于不成熟状态是那么安逸。

如果我有一部书能替我有理解，有一位牧师能替我有良心，有一位医生能替我规定食谱，等等；那么我自己就用不着操心了。

只要能对我合算，我就无需去思想：自有别人会替我去做这类伤脑筋的事。

绝大部分的人（其中包括全部的女性）都把步入成熟状态认为除了是非常之艰辛而外并且还是非常之危险的；这一点老早就被每一个一片好心在从事监护他们的保护人关注到了。

保护人首先是使他们的牲口愚蠢，并且小心提防着这些温驯的畜牲不要竟敢冒险从锁着他们的摇车里面迈出一步；然后就向他们指出他们企图单独行走时会威胁他们的那种危险。

可是这种危险实际上并不那么大，因为他们跌过几交之后就终于能学会走路的；然而只要有过一次这类事例，就会使人心惊胆战并且往往吓得完全不敢再去尝试了。

[收稿日期]2010-07-09[作者简介]常娟(1975-),女,安徽滁州人,南京大学文学院文艺学博士,研究方向为文艺理论与批评启蒙的妥协与不妥协读康德 对这个问题的一个回答:什么是启蒙?常!娟(南京大学文学院江苏南京210093)摘要:康德的 什么是启蒙? 是欧洲启蒙运动中的一篇重要文献。

康德在该文中提出一对颇有争议的概念:理性的公共使用和私人使用,笔者认为康德的这对概念实际上隐含了启蒙的妥协和不妥协的张力。

启蒙应在公众的思想层面实现实质的影响,并进而实现社会的变革,激情式的暴力革命可能推翻一个专制贪婪的政权,但并不能深入地实现公众思想的变革。

启蒙要求的思想自由精神是永不妥协的,但它的实现却是在妥协构成的张力中有节制地实现的。

这一观点对中国知识界无疑是有反思价值的。

关键词:康德;启蒙;理性的;公共使用;理性的私人使用中图分类号:I206.6!!!!文献标识码:A !!!!文章编号:1001-0238(2010)04-0103-04!!在国人的眼中,20世纪的中国经历了两次启蒙,一次是发生在世纪初的五四运动,一次是20世纪80年代的∀新启蒙#运动。

两次运动在态势上表现出相似的特点,来势凶猛,轰轰烈烈,但很快就归于消沉,甚至反过来遭到政治的清算和批判。

西方的启蒙从17世纪开始,到18世纪渐成大势,历经百年,虽遇法国大革命暴政的挫折,却没有偃旗息鼓。

启蒙也从法国式的革命运动过渡到德国式的理论沉思,在哲学层面进一步沉淀深化。

相比西方的启蒙,为什么中国的启蒙却来去如风,有学者描述为∀抽风似的中断#,[1]语虽刻薄,但却切中要害。

20世纪早期发生的第一次启蒙无疑是在受到西方思想的熏染下出现的,这场五四运动不能仅仅被视作特定时空的一场学生抗议运动,∀它起码包括互为关联的三大部分:思想启蒙,文学革命,政治抗议。

#[2]作为前提的思想启蒙至为重要,而当时国人关注和兴奋的是西方启蒙运动提出的一系列鼓荡人心的旗帜和口号:民主、平等、人权、自由、博爱等等,对西方启蒙运动的由来始末和其中包含的运动形式的多样性和复杂性却无暇顾及。

康德：什么是启蒙运动［英文版］What Is Enlightenment?By Immanuel KantThe 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his influential work The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. Three years later, he expanded on his study of the modes of thinking with an essay entitled "What is Enlightenment?" In this 1784 essay, Kant challenged readers to "dare to know," arguing that it was not only a civic but also a moral duty to exercise the fundamental freedoms of thought and expression.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. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!] 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 doctorwho 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. Statutes 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 themind.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. It is strange that the very public, which had previously been put under this yoke by the guardians, forces the guardians thereafter to keep it there if it is stirred up by a few of its guardians who are themselves incapable of all enlightenment. It is thus very harmful to plant prejudices, because they come back to plague those very people who themselves (or whose predecessors) have been the originators of these prejudices. Therefore 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 all 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!(Only a single lord in the world says: Argue, as much as you want to and about what you please, but obey!) 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: while the private use of a man's reason may often be restricted rather narrowly without thereby unduly hampering the progress of enlightenment.I mean by the public use of one's reason, the use which a scholar makes of it before the entire reading public. Private use I call the use which he may make of this reason in a civic post or office. For some affairs which are in the interest of the commonwealth a certain mechanism is necessary through which some members of the commonwealth must remain purely passive in order that an artificial agreement with the government for the public good be maintained or so that at least the destruction of the good be prevented. In such a situation it is not permitted to argue; one must obey. But in so far as this unit of the machine considers himself as a member of the entire commonwealth, in fact even of world society; in other words, he considers himself in the quality of a scholar who is addressing the true public through his writing, he may indeed argue without the affairs suffering for which he is employed partly as a passive member. Thus it would be very harmful if an officer who, given an order by his superior, should start, while in the service, to argue concerning the utility or appropriateness of that command. He must obey, but he cannot equitably be prevented frommaking observations as a scholar concerning the mistakes in the military service nor from submitting these to the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed upon him. Indeed, a rash criticism of such taxes, if they are the ones to be paid by him, may be punished as a scandal which might cause general resistance. But the same man does not act contrary to the duty of a citizen if, as a scholar, he utters publicly his thoughts against the undesirability or even the injustice of such taxes. Likewise a clergyman is obliged to teach his pupils and his congregation according to the doctrine of the church which he serves, for he has been accepted on that condition. But as a scholar, he has full freedom, in fact, even the obligation, to communicate to the public all his diligently examined and well-intentioned thoughts concerning erroneous points in that doctrine and concerning proposals regarding the better institution of religious and ecclesiastical matters. There is nothing in this for which the conscience could be blamed. For what he teaches according to his office as one authorized by the church, he presents as something in regard to which he has no latitude to teach according to his own preference.… He will say: Our church teaches this or that, these are the proofs which are employed for it. In this way he derives all possible practical benefit for his congregation from rules which he would not himself subscribe to with full conviction. But he may nevertheless undertake the presentation of these rules because it is not entirely inconceivable that truth may be contained in them. In any case, there is nothing directly contrary to inner religion to be found in such doctrines. For, should he believe that the latter was not the case he could notadminister his office in good conscience; he would have to resign it. Therefore the use which an employed teacher makes of his reason before his congregation is merely a private use since such a gathering is always only domestic, no matter how large. As a priest (a member of an organization) he is not free and ought not to be, since he is executing someone else's mandate. On the other hand, the scholar speaking through his writings to the true public which is the world, like the clergyman making public use of his reason, enjoys an unlimited freedom to employ his own reason and to speak in his own person. For to suggest that the guardians of the people in spiritual matters should always be immature minors is a nonsense which would mean perpetuating forever existing nonsense.But should a society of clergymen, for instance an ecclesiastical assembly, be entitled to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine in order to perpetuate an endless guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people? I answer that this is quite inconceivable. Such a contract which would be concluded in order to keep humanity forever from all further enlightenment is absolutely impossible, even should it be confirmed by the highest authority through parliaments and the most solemn peace treaties. An age cannot conclude a pact and take an oath upon it to commit the succeeding age to a situation in which it would be impossible for the latter to enlarge even its most important knowledge, to eliminate error and altogether to progress in enlightenment. Such a thing would be a crime against human nature, the original destiny of which consistsin such progress. Succeeding generations are entirely justified in discarding such decisions as unauthorized and criminal. The touchstone of all this to be agreed upon as a law for people is to be found in the question whether a people could impose such a law upon itself. Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period as if in anticipation of a better order. This would be true if one permitted at the same time each citizen and especially the clergyman to make his criticisms in his quality as a scholar.… In the meantime, the provisional order might continue until the insight into the particular matter in hand has publicly progressed to the point where through a combination of voices (although not, perhaps, of all) a proposal may be brought to the crown. Thus those congregations would be protected which had agreed to (a changed religious institution) according to their own ideas and better understanding, without hindering those who desired to allow the old institutions to continue.…A man may postpone for himself, but only for a short time, enlightening himself regarding what he ought to know. But to resign from such enlightenment altogether either for his own person or even more for his descendants means to violate and to trample underfoot the sacred rights of mankind. Whatever a people may not decide for themselves, a monarch may even less decide for the people, for his legislative reputation rests upon his uniting the entire people's will in his own. If the monarch will only see to it that every true or imagined reform (of religion) fits in with the civil order, he had best let his subjects do what they consider necessary forthe sake of their salvation; that is not his affair. His only concern is to prevent one subject from hindering another by force, to work according to each subject's best ability to determine and to promote his salvation. In fact, it detracts from his majesty if he interferes in such matters and subjects to governmental supervision the writings by which his subjects seek to clarify their ideas (concerning religion). This is true whether he does it from his own highest insight, for in this case he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra grammaticos [Caesar is not above the laws of grammar]; it is even more true when he debases his highest power to support the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state against the rest of his subjects.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 or even being placed into 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. In this sense, this age is the age of enlightenment and the age of(the Great)[Frederick II of].A prince should not consider it beneath him to declare that he believes it to be his duty not to prescribe anything to his subjects in matters of religion but to leave to them complete freedom in such things. In other words, a princewho refuses the conceited title of being "tolerant," is himself enlightened. He deserves to be praised by his grateful contemporaries and descendants as the man who first freed humankind of immaturity, at least as far as the government is concerned and who permitted everyone to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable clergymen could, regardless of their official duty, set forth their opinions and views even though they differ from the accepted doctrine here and there; they could do so in the quality of scholars, freely and publicly. The same holds even more true of every other person who is not thus restricted by official duty. This spirit of freedom is spreading even outside (the country ofthe Great) to places where it has to struggle with the external hindrances imposed by a government which misunderstands its own position. For an example is illuminating them which shows that such freedom (public discussion) need not cause the slightest worry regarding public security and the unity of the commonwealth. Men raise themselves by and by out of backwardness if one does not purposely invent artifices to keep them down.I have emphasized the main point of enlightenment, that is of man's release from his self-caused immaturity, primarily in matters of religion. I have done this because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian of their subjects in matters of arts and sciences. Furthermore immaturity in matters of religion is not only most noxious but also most dishonorable. But the point of view of a head of state who favors freedom in the arts and sciences goes even farther; for he understands that there is no danger in legislation permitting his subjectsto make public use of their own reason and to submit publicly their thoughts regarding a better framing of such laws together with a frank criticism of existing legislation. We have a shining example of this; no prince excels him whom we admire. Only he who is himself enlightened does not fear spectres when he at the same time has a well-disciplined army at his disposal as a guarantee of public peace. Only he can say what (the ruler of a)dare not say: Argue as much as you want and about whatever you want but obey! Thus we see here as elsewhere an unexpected turn in human affairs just as we observe that almost everything therein is paradoxical. A great degree of civic freedom seems to be advantageous for the freedom of the spirit of the people and yet it establishes impassable limits. A lesser degree of such civic freedom provides additional space in which the spirit of a people can develop to its full capacity. Therefore nature has cherished, within its hard shell, the germ of the inclination and need for free thought. This free thought gradually acts upon the mind of the people and they gradually become more capable of acting in freedom. Eventually, the government is also influenced by this free thought and thereby it treats man, who is now more than a machine, according to his dignity.。

康德的启蒙思想曾晓平（武汉大学哲学系武汉 430072）（本文原载《哲学研究》2001年第5期）内容提要本文基于康德哲学体系的总体结构，疏理他的启蒙思想的基本思路和观点，阐明他所意欲开启的“蒙”是表现在认识能力中的某些道德德性之蒙，或体现在人与人之间权利关系中的主体资格之蒙，这种“蒙”之“启”依赖于人的实践理性和自由本性在其认识能力上和权利关系中的展现，是人不断通过自己的努力而确立自己作为具有独立思想能力的权利主体的资格和条件，并揭示他的启蒙思想对当时英法启蒙思想家们的启蒙思想的重要跃进。

关键词康德启蒙未成年思想方式实践理性无论当时抑或现在，康德的启蒙思想对哲学家们似乎都有着巨大的吸引力。

在当代，霍克海默和阿多诺从中找到从理论上反对法西斯主义的思想源泉，福科则从中找到理解和阐明现代哲学基本特征的线索和出发点。

作为这种不断开启新思想的源泉，康德的启蒙思想究竟是什么？康德关于启蒙的论述很多，他的主要著作几乎都有涉及。

除了《答复这个问题：什么是启蒙？》这篇以启蒙为题的专论，《实用人类学》、《纯粹理性批判》、《判断力批判》、《世界公民观点之下的普遍历史观念》、《万物的终结》、《重提这个问题：我们是在朝着改善前进吗？》等都有较深入的讨论和较明确的表述。

对于康德的启蒙思想，国内学术界已有相当多的研究，目前较具有代表性的两种观点是：一种肇始于何兆武先生所翻译的《历史理性批判文集》，认为康德的启蒙；另一种为张志扬先生所坚持，认为康德的启蒙思想是一种“本体论依据康德上述著作中有关启蒙的各种论述，认为，康德所论述的启蒙既不是隶属于“历史理性”的范畴，也不是“本体论的启蒙”，而是一种以“实践理性”为基础、以权利关系中主体的主体性或资格为对象、以道德德性的培养为指归的“道德启蒙”一、何谓“蒙”“启蒙”是汉语的表达，德文为Aufklärung，意即澄清，英文为enlightenment，意即照亮。

“启蒙”作为澄清或照亮，本身预设着某种“蒙”（或“蔽”），某种“无明”或“晦暗”。

刘向荣：何为启蒙？
启蒙，实质就是理性精神的弘扬。

康德认为：“启蒙就是人类对他自己招致的不成熟状态的摆脱。

这个不成熟状态就是这样的一种状态，即人们在没有别人的指点时，无力使用自己的知性。

这种不成熟状态之所以是自己招致的，其原因不在于缺乏理性，而在于，当没有别人的指点时，他缺乏使用理性的决心和勇气。

要勇于认识！‘要有勇气使用你自己的理性！’------这就是启蒙的口号。

”（「德」伊曼努尔·康德：《道德形而上学基础》，九州出版社，2007年1月第1版，169页）美国学者托马斯·奥斯本认为：“从最宽泛、最一般的意义上说，启蒙指的是将理性应用于人类事务。

启蒙是一个过程，通过这一过程，首先在自由的名义下，理性被运用于人类既存现实的各个方面。

”（「美」托马斯·奥斯本：《启蒙面面观》，商务印书馆，2007年4月第1版，北京，13页）
1。