No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dissatisfied Enlightenment: Certain Difficulties Concerning The Public Use Of One's Reason
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2015
Abstract
“Have the courage to use your own understanding!”. Thus Kant explicates the motto of enlightenment, sapere aude, inviting perhaps the readers of the Berlinische Monatschrift to follow suit. “[B]e for yourselves what you all are in yourselves – reasonable”. Thus Hegel introduces the pure insight of enlightened Spirit which addresses its emancipatory call to every consciousness. The apprised readers of the Phenomenology would know to temper their enthusiasm. Those who manage to get that far without doubting the clarity and simplicity of the Wahlspruch of enlightenment, are likely to be dissappointed by Hegel's subsequent analysis, which is largely intended to test such convictions. At the very least, the determined Aufklärer will have to consider whether the normative confidence of ‘dare to know’ is premised on unqualified theoretical certainty, and whether this instruction does not have an altogether more sombre half in the uncertainties of enlightened practice, let alone the terrifying certainty of the guillotine. In the following, I will argue that Kant modifies his initial definition of enlightenment by emphasising the collective and discursive dimensions of the enlightening process, the “freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters”. I will then argue that Hegel adopts a similar approach in the Phenomenology but evaluates differently the problems involved in establishing a public for reason and in assessing the rationality of this public and proposes a different model of public debate.
- Type
- Hegel and the Enlightenment
- Information
- Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 18 , Issue 1: number 35 , Spring/Summer 1997 , pp. 39 - 53
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 1997
References
1 Kant, I “An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’”, in Political Writings, ed Reiss, H, trans Nisbet, H B, CUP: Cambridge 1991, p 54 Google Scholar.
2 Hegel, G W F Phenomenology of Spirit, trans Miller, A V, OUP: Oxford 1977, p 328 Google Scholar.
3 Kant, ibid, p 55.
4 Böhme, G “Beyond the Radical Critique of Reason”, in Reason and Its Other, ed Freundlieb, D and Hudson, W, Berg: Oxford 1993, p 87 Google Scholar.
5 Kant, ibid, 54.
6 Mendelssohn, M “Über die Frage: was heisst aufklären?”, in I Kant: Was ist Aufklärung, hrs J Zehbe, V&R: Göttingen 1985, p 129 Google Scholar.
7 Mendelssohn, ibid, p 130.
8 Kant, “On the Relationship of Theory to Practice in International Right, (Against Moses Mendelssohn)”, in Political Writings, pp 87–92 Google Scholar.
9 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, oder über religiöse Macht und Judentum (Berlin 1783)Google Scholar, quoted in Kant ibid, p 87, 88.
10 Kant, ibid, p 88.
11 Rousseau, J-J “A Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences”, trans Cole, G D H, Everyman: Letchworth 1963, pp 120–1Google Scholar.
12 Kant, Lectures on Ethics, trans Infield, L, Methuen: London 1930, p 243 Google Scholar.
13 O'Neill, O “The Public Use of Reason”, in Constructions of Reason, CUP: Cambridge 1989, p 33 Google Scholar.
14 Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, p 55 Google Scholar.
15 Kant, ibid, p 58.
16 Kant, ibid, p 57.
17 Kant, ibid, p 59.
18 Kant, ibid, p 57.
19 Kant, ibid, p 56.
20 Kant, ibid, p 55.
21 Cf Kant, “Theory and Practice”, “I base my argument upon my inborn duty of influencing posterity in such a way that it will make constant progress”, pp 88-9.
22 Rousseau, ibid, p 118.
23 Foucault, M “What is Enlightenment”, in The Foucault Reader, ed Rabinow, P, Penguin: Harmondsworth 1984, p 35 Google Scholar
24 Hegel, ibid, p 327.
25 Kant, ibid, p 89.
26 Diderot, D Rameau's Nephew, D'Alembert's Dream, trans Tancock, L, Penguin: Harmondsworth 1966, p 33 Google Scholar.
27 Diderot, ibid, p 63.
28 Diderot, ibid, p 68.
29 Diderot, ibid, p 57.
30 Diderot, ibid, p 62.
31 Diderot, ibid, p 37.
32 Diderot, ibid, p 34.
33 Diderot, ibid, p 42.
34 Hegel, ibid, p 350.
35 Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, p 56 Google Scholar.
36 Diderot, ibid, p 79.
37 Diderot, ibid, p 122.
38 Hegel, ibid, p 316.
39 Hegel, ibid, p 329ff.
40 Hegel, ibid, p 296.
41 Hegel, ibid, p 349.
42 Wellmer, A “Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment ”, in Habermas and Modernity ed Bernstein, R J, Polity Press: Cambridge 1985, p 41 Google Scholar.
43 Kant, ibid, p 54.
44 Hegel, ibid, p 333.
45 Hegel, ibid, p 397.
46 Hegel's Aesthetics; Lectures on Fine Art, II, trans Knox, T M, Clarendon Press: Oxford 1988, p 1204 Google Scholar.
47 Goethe, J W “Iphigenia in Tauris”, in Goethe: Verse Plays and Epic, ed Hamlin, C & Ryder, F, trans Luke, D, Suhrkamp: New York 1987, 11: 5–9 Google Scholar.
48 Goethe, ibid, 1:103.
49 Goethe, ibid, 1.143.
50 Goethe, ibid, 1:258.
51 Goethe, ibid, 1:260.
52 Goethe, ibid, 1:104.
53 Goethe, ibid, 11:122-6.
54 Goethe, ibid, 11:164-8.
55 Goethe, ibid, 11:234-5.
56 Goethe, ibid, 11:67-9.
57 Goethe, ibid, 11:302-4.
58 Goethe, ibid, 1:299.
59 Goethe, ibid, 11:349-50.
60 Goethe, ibid, 1:493.
61 Goethe, ibid, 11: 463-5
62 Goethe, ibid, 11:499-501.
63 Goethe, ibid, 11: 1939-40.
64 Goethe, ibid, 11:1640-3.
65 Goethe, ibid, 1:503.
66 Goethe, ibid, 11:1822-3.
67 Hegel, , Phenomenology, p 397 Google Scholar.
68 Hegel, ibid, p 395.
69 Hegel, ibid, p 405.
70 It is important to notice that the passage from righteous to criminal consciousness is a structural passage, the paradigmatic use of crime and confession does not mean that all action is criminal but that all action is unpredictible; it is rather the refusal to recognise this unpredictability that constitutes the morphology of crime.