We KANT remain 'immature' forever!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/KantOnElightenment.htm

Please excuse the pun in the title, I really couldn't help myself :)

The link I've posted above is Immanuel Kant's essay "What Is Enlightenment."  I find this reading to be an awesome supplement to what we have been learning in class.  It is one of the most valuable things I've read this year, and I cannot stop thinking about how it truly gets to the heart of human nature, our abilities, and our difficulties.  Kant discusses the idea of the necessity of thinking for oneself and using one's reason.  He begins by claiming that

"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" -- that is the motto of enlightenment."

Kant believes that humankind has allowed itself to become oppressed because some are either too fearful or too lazy to make assertions about truth and to enter into dialogues with other truth-seekers.  To Kant, dialogue and conflict (not violent conflict, but a conflict of ideas, a mental struggle) is the only way that people will be able to find Truth.

Later on in the essay, Kant discusses the difference between the public and private use of reason.  In the public, which Kant describes as "the whole community or of a society of world citizens,"  people can debate and proclaim their ideas freely, as scholars.  However, when one is relegated to the private sphere of reason, one is somewhat limited in what one can say, but one can still search for truth.  Kant gives here an example of a clergyman.  In order to fulfill his duty to his position, the clergyman must recite certain views of the church to his audience (ie a private sphere).  If the clergyman does not agree AT ALL with the views it is his duty to recite, then he should resign his post.  However, if the clergyman views a route to the truth within those views, he can carefully guide his parish to that truth.  When the clergyman is talking to the "society of world citizens," the public sphere, he can act like a scholar and be openly critical.  It is only in the private sphere of the church that the clergyman must be more gentle.  He runs the risk of alienating his audience, upsetting people who aren't ready for the truth, and losing his position.

What do you all think about the public/private use of reason?  Do you feel we are still in the same "immature state" when it comes to using our reason as we were when Kant wrote this in 1784?  Do you believe that the manner in which or the sphere in which one begins a dialogue matters?  How can you gauge if the person you're talking to is truly a truth-seeker?  What are some ways in which you can be self-critical?

The above are just some general insights/explications of the text.  I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope you all take the time to read the whole thing.  It's amazing, it's short, and you get to make Kant puns.

Molly