An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?
-
-
1.0 • 1 Rating
-
-
- $2.99
-
- $2.99
Publisher Description
"Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?" is a 1784 essay by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. In the December 1784 publication of the Berlinische Monatsschrift (Berlin Monthly), edited by Friedrich Gedike and Johann Erich Biester, Kant replied to the question posed a year earlier by the Reverend Johann Friedrich Zöllner, who was also an official in the Prussian government. Zöllner's question was addressed to a broad intellectual public community, in reply to Biester's essay entitled: "Proposal, not to engage the clergy any longer when marriages are conducted" (April 1783) and a number of leading intellectuals replied with essays, of which Kant's is the most famous and has had the most impact. Kant's opening paragraph of the essay is a much-cited definition of a lack of enlightenment as people's inability to think for themselves due not to their lack of intellect, but lack of courage.
Kant's essay also addressed the causes of a lack of enlightenment and the preconditions necessary to make it possible for people to enlighten themselves. He held it necessary that all church and state paternalism be abolished and people be given the freedom to use their own intellect. Kant praised Frederick II of Prussia for creating these preconditions. Kant focused on religious issues, saying that "our rulers" had less interest in telling citizens what to think in regard to artistic and scientific issues.
Customer Reviews
Improper translation
Several of the words used in the audio were not translated properly as intended. The most glaring example is the word tutelage was substituted for the word minority. I have searched far and wide for some relationship between definitions of these two words figuratively or literally and I am at a loss. After reviewing all the other words that where miss represented I conclude that whom ever created this audiobook was of the goal to distort Kants original message into a semi-politicalize tool for the modern progressive mindset. I am not against this tactic in most cases as long as the modern use does not change the original messaging of the text. However, in this case it wildly distorts the intended meaning of kants essay from a message to forward the enlightenment of all to what looks like as a racially divisive rant. I will personally not perchase any other audiobook that is produced by anyone associated with this particular production and I will warn all who share my interest truth about this grotesque reiteration of an otherwise amazing and timeless insight of literature. This essay does not require any alterations to send the wonderful message it originally intended nor is a racially charged message more important in any manner than what Kant originally conveyed. Had this essay been written the way it was portrayed here it most likely would have been lost in the pages of history rather than used in countless literary classes worldwide. Stop trying to use things like this to indoctrinate people. I may agree with your thoughts but I will never agree with the dishonest distortion of facts to advance any agenda.