标题: 什么是启蒙 [打印本页] 作者: durchmachen 时间: 7.7.2006 12:13
什么是启蒙<br /><br />[德] 康德<br /><br />英译<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br />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。<br /><br />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。<br /><br />绝大部分人（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。<br /><br />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。因此就只有很少数的人才能通过自己精神的奋斗而摆脱不成熟的状态，并且从而迈出切实的步伐来。<br /><br />然而公众要启蒙自己，却是很可能的；只要允许他们自由，这还确实几乎是无可避免的。因为哪怕是在为广大人群所设立的保护者们中间，也总会发见一些有独立思想的人；他们自己在抛却了不成熟状态的羁绊之后，就会传播合理地估计自己的价值以及每个人的本分就在于思想其自身的那种精神。这里面特别值得注意的是：公众本来是被他们套上了这种羁绊的，但当他们的保护者（其本身是不可能有任何启蒙的）中竟有一些人鼓动他们的时候，此后却强迫保护者们自身也处于其中了；种下偏见是那么有害，因为他们终于报复了本来是他们的教唆者或者是他们教唆者的先行者的那些人。因而公众只能是很缓慢地获得启蒙。通过一场革命或许很可以实现推翻个人专制以及贪婪心和权势欲的压迫，但却绝不能实现思想方式的真正改革；而新的偏见也正如旧的一样，将会成为驾驭缺少思想的广大人群的圈套。<br /><br />然而，这一启蒙运动除了自由而外并不需要任何别的东西，而且还确乎是一切可以称之为自由的东西之中最无害的东西，那就是在一切事情上都有公开运用自己理性的自由。可是我却听到从四面八方都发出这样的叫喊：不许争辩！军官说：不许争辩，只许操练！税吏说：不许争辩，只许纳税。神甫说：不许争辩，只许信仰。（举世只有一位君主说：可以争辩，随便争多少，随便争什么，但是要听话！君主指普鲁士腓德烈大王）处都有对自由的限制。<br /><br />然则，哪些限制是有碍启蒙的，哪些不是，反而是足以促进它的呢？--我回答说：必须永远有公开运用自己理性的自由，并且唯有它才能带来人类的启蒙。私下运用自己的理性往往会被限制得很狭隘，虽则不致因此而特别妨碍启蒙运动的进步。而我所理解的对自己理性的公开运用，则是指任何人作为学者在全部听众面前所能做的那种运用。一个人在其所受任的一定公职岗位或者职务上所能运用的自己的理性，我就称之为私下的运用。<br /><br />就涉及共同体利益的许多事物而言，则我们必须有一定的机器，共同体的一些成员必须靠它来保持纯粹的消极态度，以便他们由于一种人为的一致性而由政府引向公共的目的，或者至少也是防止破坏这一目的。在这上面确实是不容许有争辩的；而是人们必须服从。但是就该机器的这一部分同时也作为整个共同体的，乃至于作为世界公民社会的成员而论，从而也就是以一个学者的资格通过写作面向严格意义上的公众时，则他是绝对可以争辩的，而不致因此就有损于他作为一个消极的成员所从事的那种事业。因此，一个服役的军官在接受他的上级交下某项命令时，竟抗声争辩这项命令的合目的性或者有用性，那就会非常坏事；他必须服从。但是他作为学者而对军事业务上的错误进行评论并把它提交给公众来作判断时，就不能公开地加以禁止了。公民不能拒绝缴纳规定于他的税额；对所加给他的这类赋税惹事生非地擅行责难，甚至可以当作诽谤（这可能引起普遍的反抗）而加以惩处。然而这同一个人作为一个学者公开发表自己的见解，抗议这种课税的不适宜与不正当不一样，他的行动并没有违背公民的义务。同样地，一个牧师也有义务按照他所服务的那个教会的教义向他的教义问答班上的学生们和他的会众们作报告，因为他是根据这一条件才被批准的。但是作为一个学者，他却有充分自由、甚至于有责任，把他经过深思熟虑有关那种教义的缺点的全部善意的意见以及关于更好地组织宗教团体和教会团体的建议传达给公众。这里面并没有任何可以给他的良心增添负担的东西。因为他把作为一个教会工作者由于自己职务的关系而讲授的东西，当作是某种他自己并没有自由的权力可以按照自己的心意进行讲授的东西；他是受命根据别人的指示并以别人的名义选行讲述的。他将要说：我们的教会教导这些或那些；这里就是他们所引用的论据。于是，他就从他自己不会以完全的信服而赞同、虽则他很可以使自己负责进行宣讲的那些条文中--因为并非是完全不可能其中也隐藏着真理，而且无论如何至少其中不会发见有任何与内心宗教相违背的东西，--为他的听众引绎出全部的实用价值来。因为如果他相信其中可以发见任何与内心宗教相违背的东西，那么他就不能根据良心而尽自己的职务了，他就必须辞职。一个就任的宣教师之向他的会众运用自己的理性，纯粹是一种私下的运用；因为那往往只是一种家庭式的聚会，不管是多大的聚会；而在这方面他作为一个牧师是并不自由的，而且也不能是自由的，因为他是在传达别人的委托。反之，作为一个学者通过自己的著作而向真正的公众亦即向全世界讲话时，则牧师在公开运用他的理性上便享有无限的自由可以使用他自己的理性，并以他自己本人的名义发言。因为人民（在精神事务上）的保护者而其本身居然也不成熟，那便可以归结为一种荒谬性，一种永世长存的荒谬性了。<br /><br />然则一种牧师团体、一种教会会议或者一种可敬的教门法院（就象他们在荷兰人中间所自称的那样），是不是有权宣誓他们自己之间对某种不变的教义负有义务，以便对其每一个成员并且由此也就是对全体人民进行永不中辍的监护，甚至于使之永恒化呢?我要说：这是完全不可能的。这样一项向人类永远封锁住了任何进一步启蒙的契约乃是绝对无效的，哪怕它被最高权力、被国会和最庄严的和平条约所确认。一个时代决不能使自己负有义务并从而发誓，要把后来的时代置于一种决没有可能扩大自己的（尤其是十分迫切的）认识、清除错误以及一般地在启蒙中继续进步的状态之中。这会是一种违反人性的犯罪行为，人性本来的天职恰好就在于这种进步；因此后世就完全有权拒绝这种以毫无根据而且是犯罪的方式所采取的规定。 <br /><br />凡是一个民族可以总结为法律的任何东西，其试金石都在于这样一个问题：一个民族是不是可以把这样一种法律加之于其自身?它可能在一个有限的短时期之内就好像是在期待着另一种更好的似的，为的是好实行一种制度，使得每一个公民而尤其是牧师都能有自由以学者的身份公开地，也就是通过著作，对现行组织的缺点发表自己的言论。这种新实行的制度将要一直延续下去，直到对这类事情性质的洞见已经是那么公开地到来并且得到了证实，以致于通过他们联合（即使是并不一致）的呼声而可以向王位提出建议，以便对这一依据他们更好的洞见的概念而结合成另一种已经改变了的宗教组织加以保护，而又不致于妨碍那些仍愿保留在旧组织之中的人们。但是统一成一个固定不变的、没有人能够（哪怕在一个人的整个一生中）公开加以怀疑的宗教体制，从而也就犹如消灭了人类朝着改善前进的整整一个时代那样，并由此给后代造成损害，使得他们毫无收获，--这却是绝对不能容许的。一个人确实可以为了他本人并且也只是在一段时间之内，推迟对自己有义务加以认识的事物的启蒙；然而迳行放弃它，那就无论是对他本人，而更其是对于后代，都可以说是违反而且践踏人类的神圣权利了。 <br /><br />而人民对于他们本身都不能规定的事，一个君主就更加不可以对他的人民规定了；因为他的立法威望全靠他把全体人民的意志结合为他自己的意志。只要他注意使一切真正的或号称的改善都与公民秩序结合在一起，那么此外他就可以把他的臣民发觉对自己灵魂得教所必须做的事情留给他们自己去做；这与他无关，虽则他必须防范任何人以强力妨碍别人根据自己的全部才能去做出这种决定并促进这种得救。如果他干预这种事，要以政府的监督来评判他的臣民借以亮明他们自己的见识的那些作品；以及如他凭自己的最高观点来这样做，而使自己受到"Caesar non estt supra grammaticos"（凯撒并不高于文法学家）的这种责难；那就会有损于他的威严。如果他把自己的最高权力降低到竟至去支持自己国内的一些暴君对他其余的臣民实行精神专制主义的时候，那就更加每况愈下了。<br /><br />如果现在有人问："我们目前是不是生活在一个启蒙了的时代？"那么回答就是："不是，但确实是在一个启蒙运动的时代"。目前的情形是，要说人类总的说来已经处于，或者是仅仅说已经被置于，一种不需别人引导就能够在宗教的事情上确切地而又很好地使用自己的理智的状态了，则那里面还缺乏许多东西。可是现在领域已经对他们开放了，他们可以自由地在这上面工作了，而且对普遍启蒙的、或者说对摆脱自己所加给自己的不成熟状态的障碍也逐渐地减少了；关于这些我们都有着明确的信号。就这方面考虑，这个时代乃是启蒙的时代，或者说乃是腓德烈的世纪。 <br /><br />一个不以如下说法为与自己不相称的国君：他认为自己的义务就是要在宗教事务方面决不对人们加以任何规定，而是让他们有充分的自由，但他又甚至谢绝宽容这个高傲的名称；这位国君本人就是启蒙了的，并且配得上被天下后世满怀感激之忱尊之为率先使得人类，至少从政权方面而言，脱离了不成熟状态，并使每个人在任何有关良心的事务上都能自由地运用自身所固有的理性。在他的治下，可敬的牧师们可以以学者的身份自由地并且公开地把自己在这里或那里偏离了既定教义的各种判断和见解都提供给全世界来检验，而又无损于自己的职责：至于另外那些不受任何职责约束的人，那就更加是如此了。这种自由精神也要向外扩展，甚至于扩展到必然会和误解了其自身的那种政权这一外部阻碍发生冲突的地步。因为它对这种政权树立了一个范例，即自由并不是一点也不关怀公共的安宁和共同体的团结一致的。只有当人们不再有意地想方设法要把人类保持在野蛮状态的时候，人类才会由于自己的努力而使自己从其中慢慢地走出来。<br /><br />我把启蒙运动的重点，亦即人类摆脱他们所加之于其自身的不成熟状态，主要是放在宗教事务方面，因为我们的统治者在艺术和科学方面并没有向他们的臣民尽监护之责的兴趣；何况这一不成熟状态既是一切之中最有害的而又是最可耻的一种。但是，一个庇护艺术与科学的国家首领，他的思想方式就要更进一步了，他洞察到：即使是在他的立法方面，容许他的臣民公开运用他们自身的理性，公开向世上提出他们对于更好地编撰法律、甚至于是直言无讳地批评现行法律的各种见解，那也不会有危险的。在这方面，我们有着一个光辉的典范，我们所尊敬的这位君主（指普鲁士腓德烈大王）就是没有别的君主能够超越的。 <br /><br />但是只有那位其本身是启蒙了的、不怕幽灵的而同时手中又掌握着训练精良的大量军队可以保障公共安宁的君主，才能够说出一个自由国家所不敢说的这种话：可以争辩，随便争多少，随便争什么；但是必须听话。这就标志着人间事务的一种可惊异的、不能意料的进程；正犹如当我们对它从整体上加以观察时，其中就几乎一切都是悖论那样。程度更大的公民自由仿佛是有利于人民精神的自由似的，然而它却设下了不可逾越的限度；反之，程度较小的公民自由却为每个人发挥自己的才能开辟了余地。因为当大自然在这种坚硬的外壳之下打开了为她所极为精心照料着的幼芽时，也就是要求思想自由的倾向与任务时，它也就要逐步地反作用于人民的心灵面貌（从而他们慢慢地就能掌握自由）；并且终于还会反作用于政权原则，使之发见按照人的尊严--人并不仅仅是机器而已--去看待人，也是有利于政权本身的。<br /><br />1784年9月30日，于普鲁士哥尼斯堡<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Immanuel Kant<br /><br />An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"<br /><br />Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784.<br /><br /><br /><br />Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding! <br /><br />Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts. <br /><br />Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating their own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way. <br /><br />There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself. This is indeed almost inevitable, if only the public concerned is left in freedom. For there will always be a few who think for themselves, even among those appointed as guardians of the common mass. Such guardians, once they have themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will disseminate the spirit of rational respect for personal value and for the duty of all men to think for themselves. The remarkable thing about this is that if the public, which was previously put under this yoke by the guardians, is suitably stirred up by some of the latter who are incapable of enlightenment, it may subsequently compel the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke. For it is very harmful to propagate prejudices, because they finally avenge themselves on the very people who first encouraged them (or whose predecessors did so). Thus a public can only achieve enlightenment slowly. A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones they replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass. <br /><br />For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. But I hear on all sides the cry: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, get on parade! The tax-official: Don't argue, pay! The clergyman: Don't argue, believe! (Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!). . All this means restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which sort of restriction prevents enlightenment, and which, instead of hindering it, can actually promote it ? I reply: The public use of man's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment. But by the public use of one's own reason I mean that use which anyone may make of it as a man of learning addressing the entire reading public. What I term the private use of reason is that which a person may make of it in a particular civil post or office with which he is entrusted. <br /><br />Now in some affairs which affect the interests of the commonwealth, we require a certain mechanism whereby some members of the commonwealth must behave purely passively, so that they may, by an artificial common agreement, be employed by the government for public ends (or at least deterred from vitiating them). It is, of course,impermissible to argue in such cases; obedience is imperative. But in so far as this or that individual who acts as part of the machine also considers himself as a member of a complete commonwealth or even of cosmopolitan society, and thence as a man of learning who may through his writings address a public in the truest sense of the word, he may 'indeed argue without harming the affairs in which he is employed for some of the time in a passive capacity. 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. He must simply obey. But he cannot reasonably be banned from making observations as a man of learning on the errors in the military service, and from submitting these to his public for judgement. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed upon him; presumptuous criticisms of such taxes, where someone is called upon to pay them, may be punished as an outrage which could lead to general insubordination. Nonetheless, the same citizen does not contravene his civil obligations if, as a learned individual, he publicly voices his thoughts on the impropriety or even injustice of such fiscal measures. In the same way, a clergyman is bound to instruct his pupils and his congregation in accordance with the doctrines of the church he serves, for he was employed by it on that condition. But as a scholar, he is completely free as well as obliged to impart to the public all his carefully considered, well-intentioned thoughts on the mistaken aspects of those doctrines, and to offer suggestions for a better arrangement of religious and ecclesiastical affairs. And there is nothing in this which need trouble the conscience. I;or what he teaches in pursuit of his duties as an active servant of the church is presented by him as something which he is not empowered to teach at his own discretion, but which he is employed to expound in a prescribed manner and in someone else's name. He will say: Our church teaches this or that, and these are the arguments it uses. He then extracts as much practical value as possible for his congregation from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with full conviction, but which he can nevertheless undertake to expound, since it is not in fact wholly impossible that they may contain truth. At all events, nothing opposed to the essence of religion is present in such doctrines. For if the clergyman thought he could find anything of this sort in them, he would not be able to carry out his official duties in good conscience, and would have to resign. Thus the use which someone employed as 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, sin? he is acting on a commission imposed from outside. Conversely, as a scholar addressing the real public (i.e. the world at large) through his writings, the clergyman making public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak in his own person. For to maintain that the guardians of the people in spiritual matters should themselves be immature, is an absurdity which amounts to making absurdities permanent. <br /><br />But should not a society of clergymen, for example an ecclesiastical synod or a venerable presbytery (as the Dutch call it), be entitled to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable set of doctrines, in order to secure for all time a constant guardianship over each of its members, and through them over the people ? I reply that this is quite impossible. A contract of this kind,concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void, even if it is ratified by the supreme power, by Imperial Diets and the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot enter into an alliance on oath to put the next age in a position where it would be impossible for it to extend and correct its knowledge, particularly on such important matters, or to make any progress whatsoever in enlightenment. This would be a crime against human nature, whose original destiny lies precisely in such progress. Later generations are thus perfectly entitled to dismiss these agreements as unauthorised and criminal. To test whether any particular measure can be agreed upon as a law for a people, we need only ask whether a people could well impose such a law upon itself. This might well be possible for a specified short period as a means of introducing a certain order, pending, as it were, a better solution. This would also mean that each citizen, particularly the clergyman, would be given a free hand as a scholar to comment publicly, i.e. in his writings, on the inadequacies of current institutions. Meanwhile, the newly established order would continue to exist, until public insight into the nature of such matters had progressed and proved itself to the point where, by general consent (if not unanimously), a proposal could be submitted to the crown. This would seek to protect the congregations who had, for instance, agreed to alter their religious establishment in accordance with their own notions of what higher insight is, but it would not try to obstruct those who wanted to let things remain as before. But it is absolutely impermissible to agree, even for a single lifetime, to a permanent religious constitution which no-one might publicly question. For this would virtually nullify a phase in man's upward progress, thus making it fruitless and even detrimental to subsequent generations. A man may for his own person, and even then only for a limited period, postpone enlightening himself in matters he ought to know about. 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. But something which a people may not even impose upon itself can still less be imposed upon it by a monarch; for his legislative authority depends precisely upon his uniting the collective will of the people in his own. So long as he sees to it that all true or imagined improvements are compatible with the civil order, he can otherwise leave his subjects to do whatever they find necessary for their salvation, which is none of his business. But it is his business to stop anyone forcibly hindering others from working as best they can to define and promote their salvation. It indeed detracts from his majesty if he interferes in these affairs by subjecting the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their religious ideas to governmental supervision. This applies if he does so acting upon his own exalted opinions? in which case he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra Grammaticos?but much more so if he demeans his high authority so far as to support the spiritual despotism of a few tyrants within his state against the rest of his subjects. <br /><br />If it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightened age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment. As things are at present, we still have a long way to go before men as a whole can be in a position (or can ever be put into a position) of using their own understanding confidently and well in religious matters, without outside guidance. But we do have distinct indications that the way is now being cleared for them to work freely in this direction, and that the obstacles to universal enlightenment, to man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity, are gradually becoming fewer. In this respect our age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.<br /><br />A prince who does not regard it as beneath him to say that he considers it his duty, in religious matters, not to prescribe anything to his people, but to allow them complete freedom, a prince who thus even declines to accept the presumptuous title of tolerant, is himself enlightened. He deserves to be praised by a grateful present and posterity as the man who first liberated mankind from immaturity (as far as government is concerned), and who left all men free to use their own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, ecclesiastical dignitaries, notwithstanding their official duties, may in their capacity as scholars freely and publicly submit to the judgement of the world their verdicts and opinions, even if these deviate here Ind there from orthodox doctrine. This applies even more to all others who are not restricted by any official duties. This spirit of freedom is also spreading abroad, even where it has to struggle with outward obstacles imposed by governments which misunderstand their own function. For such governments an now witness a shining example of how freedom may exist without in the least jeopardising public concord and the unity of the commonwealth. 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. <br /><br />I have portrayed matters of religion as the focal point of enlightenment, i.e. of man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. This is firstly because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of guardians over their subjects so fir as the arts and sciences are concerned, and secondly, because religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonourable variety of all. But the attitude of mind of a head of state who favours freedom in the arts and sciences extends even further, for he realises that there is no danger even to his legislation if he allows his subjects to make public use of their own reason and to put before the public their thoughts on better ways of drawing up laws, even if this entails forthright criticism of the current legislation. We have before us a brilliant example of this kind, in which no monarch has yet surpassed the one to whom we now pay tribute. <br /><br />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! This reveals to us a strange and unexpected pattern in human affairs (such as we shall always find if we consider them in the widest sense, in which nearly everything is paradoxical). A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent. Thus once the germ on which nature has lavished most care?man's inclination and vocation to think freely--has developed within this hard shell, it gradually reacts upon the mentality of the people, who thus gradually become increasingly able to act freely Eventually, it even influences the principles of governments, which find that they can themselves profit by treating man, who is more than a machine, in a manner appropriate to his dignity.
