读康德《何谓启蒙，答复这个问题》
启蒙泛指通过宣传教育使社会接受新事物而得到进步的运动。
①开发蒙昧，使明白事理。
特指教育童蒙，使初学者获得基本的、入门的知识：祛蔽启蒙|启蒙教育。
②指普及新知，使社会接受新事物，摆脱愚昧和迷信：启蒙运动。
康德是如何论述《何谓启蒙》的?
一、我们只能知道自然科学让我们认识到的东西，哲学除了能帮助我们澄清使知识成为可能的必要条件，就没有什么更多的用处了，自从柏拉图以来的康德把这个问题彻底给颠倒了。
在此之前，人们让认识向外部事物看齐，而康德说，如果我们颠倒一下，让事物向我们的认识看齐，该会如何
康德把这一思维方法与哥白尼的“日心说”相比较：哥白尼以前，人们认为一切星球围着我们地球转，哥白尼却说，我们地球是在围着其它星球转。
二、认为对于实践理性的“批判”，就是要考察那规定道德行为的“意志”的本质以及它们遵循的原则。
全书包括“纯粹实践理性的原理论”和“纯粹实践理性的方法论”两大部分。
把人的主体性问题突出出来，强调了人格的尊严与崇高，表现了强烈的人本主义精神。
三、如果要真正能做到有道德，我就必须假设有上帝的存在，假设生命结束后并不是一切都结束了。
“判断力批判”中，康德关心的问题还有人类精神活动的目的、意义和作用方式，包括人的美学鉴赏能力和幻想能力。
康德带来了哲学上的哥白尼式转变。
他说，不是事物在影响人，而是人在影响事物。
是我们人在构造现实世界，在认识事物的过程中，人比事物本身更重要。
康德甚至认为，我们其实根本不可能认识到事物的真性，我们只能认识事物的表象。
康德的著名论断就是：人是万物的尺度。
他的这一论断与现代量子力学有着共同之处：事物的特性与观察者有关。
译文：Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙
启示是什么
康德一Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) Have the courage to use your own understanding, is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.懒惰和怯懦是为什么人类 很大一部分未成年人乐意保持他们的生活，在大自然把他们从 外部引导释放。
他们为什么是别人把自己作为监护人这么简单的原因。
这是 是一个很小的很舒服。
如果我有一本书， 认为我，牧师谁作为我的良心，医生规定 我的饮食，等等，然后我不需要施加自己。
我不需要 认为，如果只有我可以付出；别人会因为 我照顾那个讨厌的业务。
那些监护人好心监督自己看到 ，绝大多数人类--其中的公平性，应考虑整个 走向成熟，不仅是辛苦，但非常 危险。
首先，这些守护者让他们的牛笨，小心防止温顺 生物从没有领先的字符串他们牢他们迈出第一步。
然后 他们告诉他们 会威胁他们如果他们应该试着自己走路的危险。
现在这种危险 真的不是很好；绊了几次会，最后学会走路后， 。
然而，这种失败的例子恐吓和一般不 所有进一步的尝试。
因此为了自己的未成年 这几乎已经成为自己天性的个体很难。
他甚至开始喜欢它， ，起初真的不能用自己的理解因为他 从未被允许尝试。
教条和公式，这些机械工具 设计合理使用或滥用，而他的天赋，是一个永恒的羁绊 早期。
谁把他们会让一个不确定的 跨越窄沟，因为他不习惯这样的自由运动。
这就是为什么只有少数人坚定地行走，谁已经从早期的 培养自己。
然而，它是更有可能的，，为公众要启蒙自己；事实上， 如果只是给予自由，启蒙几乎是。
总是会有 是几个独立的思想家，即使是自封的 众多守护者。
一旦这样的人摆脱了早期的枷锁，他们会传播 他们一个合理的人的价值升值的精神和他的责任 为自己想。
这是特别需要注意的是，公众是早期 带来的枷锁下的这些人后来军队这些监护人 继续提交，如果它是如此受到一些其监护人自己是谁没有任何 启示。
这表明 植入的偏见是多么有害的：他们最终会报复自己对他们的作者或作者的后代 。
因此，公众可以得到启迪 缓慢。
一个革命可能带来个人专制结束或 贪婪残暴的压迫，但没有一个真正的改革思路。
新偏见将服务，地方的旧，没有 作为引导线。
This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom--and the most innocent of all that may be called freedom: freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: Do not argue! The officer says: Do not argue--drill! The tax collector: Do not argue--pay! The pastor: Do not argue--believe! Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you please, but obey! We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.On the other hand, the private use of reason may frequently be narrowly restricted without especially hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I mean that use which a man, as scholar, makes of it before the reading public. I call private use that use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him. In some affairs affecting the interest of the community a certain [governmental] mechanism is necessary in which some members of the community remain passive. This creates an artificial unanimity which will serve the fulfillment of public objectives, or at least keep these objectives from being destroyed. Here arguing is not permitted: one must obey. Insofar as a part of this machine considers himself at the same time a member of a universal community--a world society of citizens--(let us say that he thinks of himself as a scholar rationally addressing his public through his writings) he may indeed argue, and the affairs with which he is associated in part as a passive member will not suffer. Thus it would be very unfortunate if an officer on duty and under orders from his superiors should want to criticize the appropriateness or utility of his orders. He must obey. But as a scholar he could not rightfully be prevented from taking notice of the mistakes in the military service and from submitting his views to his public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes levied upon him; indeed, impertinent censure of such taxes could be punished as a scandal that might cause general disobedience. Nevertheless, this man does not violate the duties of a citizen if, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his objections to the impropriety or possible injustice of such levies. A pastor, too, is bound to preach to his congregation in accord with the doctrines of the church which he serves, for he was ordained on that condition. But as a scholar he has full freedom, indeed the obligation, to communicate to his public all his carefully examined and constructive thoughts concerning errors in that doctrine and his proposals concerning improvement of religious dogma and church institutions. This is nothing that could burden his conscience. For what he teaches in pursuance of his office as representative of the church, he represents as something which he is not free to teach as he sees it. He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of another. He will say: Our church teaches this or that; these are the proofs which it employs. Thus he will benefit his congregation as much as possible by presenting doctrines to which he may not subscribe with full conviction. He can commit himself to teach them because it is not completely impossible that they may contain hidden truth. In any event, he has found nothing in the doctrines that contradicts the heart of religion. For if he believed that such contradictions existed he would not be able to administer his office with a clear conscience. He would have to resign it. Therefore the use which a scholar makes of his reason before the congregation that employs him is only a private use, for no matter how sizable, this is only a domestic audience. In view of this he, as preacher, is not free and ought not to be free, since he is carrying out the orders of others. On the other hand, as the scholar who speaks to his own public (the world) through his writings, the minister in the public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak for himself. That the spiritual guardians of the people should themselves be treated as minors is an absurdity which would result in perpetuating absurdities.但如果社会部长，说教会理事会，。
..有权 承诺的誓言一定不变的原则，以确保 永久监护在其所有成员通过他们的人吗
我说，这是相当 。
这样的合同，决定保持所有进一步的 启示人类，简直是无效，即使它应该 证实了君主的权力，议会，和最庄严的条约。
时代无法达成协议，将后世，防止 他们增加他们的重要见解，清除自己的错误，并 一般进展。
这将是一个对人 自然的命运恰恰就在于这种进步犯罪。
因此， 后世完全有权拒绝接受这样的决定，擅自 。
所有这些决定可能成为法律 一人的试金石在于这样一个问题：可以一人实施这样的法律本身
现在可能将秩序一定短时间 期望更好的在一定。
但是，当该临时命令的继续， 每个公民（首先，每个牧师作为一个学者）应留出 发表批评缺点现有的他。
这应该继续 直到这些问题公众的理解已经走了这么远，结合多 声音（虽然不一定是全部）的学者，改革建议可以 提交主权保护那些教会已决定 根据他们最好的灯在改变宗教，没有，但是， 阻碍那些想保持真正的老。
但同意 永恒的宗教宪法不被任何人 公开质疑将是毁灭一段在人的 改善进展期。
这必须是绝对禁止的。
一个人可能会推迟自己的启蒙，但只在有限的时间内 。
而放弃启蒙共，要么为自己或自己的 后裔，是违背和践踏人类的神圣权利。
什么是 人不得自行决定可能更是决定它的君主，为 他的声誉作为一个统治者恰恰在于他如何联合会 整个人在他自己的。
如果他注意使一切真正的或假想 [宗教]改进保持与公民秩序的步骤，他可以为其他学科 离开他独自去做他们找到他们的 灵魂拯救的必要。
救恩是他无关；它是他的生意防止一人从 强行保持另一个确定和促进他的救恩，他的能力最好的 。
事实上，如果他参与了 这些事项和监督，他的臣民寻求他们的[宗教]的观点 进入开放的作品有损他的威严，甚至当他从自己的 最高的洞察力，因为他暴露了自己的羞辱：凯撒非EST 超grammaticos。
二这是 更糟时，他贬低他的主权 就 支持过他的 其他科目在他的国家的一些暴君专制的精神。
当我们问，我们现在生活在一个启蒙了的时代
答案是，不， 但我们生活在一个时代。
目前的站还远 真男人已经能够使用自己的理性在宗教问题 自信正确无外部指导。
不过，我们有一些明显的迹象表明，这场 朝宗教真理]的目标[现在 打开。
更重要的是，逐渐减少对一般启示或自我强加的 早期出现的困难是。
在这方面 这是启蒙和弗雷德里克的时代[大]。
王子不应该认为有损他的尊严，他认为他的职责不 决定什么他在宗教问题上的主体，但离开 他们完全的自由。
如果他拒绝傲慢的“宽容”，他是 自己开悟；他是值得感恩的世界和后代 誉为那个人是解放人类从依赖第一，至少在 政府，让大家在良心方面使用他自己的理性。
他的统治下，尊敬的牧师，作为学者，无论他们的职责 办公室，可以自由公开发表他们的想法的世界 检查，虽然他们偏离这里和那里接受。
这是 更是如此，每个人的任何宣誓不受限制。
这 自由精神蔓延超出普鲁士]的界限[即使有 在外部障碍由政府建立，未能 把握其真正的利益斗争。
[弗雷德里克]是一个光辉的榜样，普鲁士自由 其实不需要担心有关公共秩序或社会团结的 。
当一个人不故意试图让男人在野蛮时代， 他们将逐步解决，条件。
我一直强调，主要是在宗教问题上的主要观点的启示——人的出现 从自我强加的未成年人，因为我们的统治者 纷纷打起了守护他们的臣民在艺术和科学不感兴趣。
首先，早期宗教不仅是最有害的但最。
但性格的 至高无上的统治者谁主张在艺术和科学 自由走得更远：他知道没有危险在允许 他的臣民，让他们公开运用理性和发表他们的想法 关于更好的宪法，以及现有法律的基本 坦率的批评。
我们已经有了一个引人注目的例子[自由]，没有君主可以 匹配一个我们崇敬。
但只有自己开悟的人，谁不害怕阴影， 谁命令同时良好的纪律和人数众多的军队保证公众 和平--只有他能说什么主权]一个自由的国家 不敢[说：“说得和你一样多，和你所喜欢的，但 服从
因此，我们观察到在人类事务中的其他地方，在这几乎 一切事情都是自相矛盾的，一个令人惊讶的和意想不到的事件过程：公民自由度大 似乎利于 人的学术自由，同时建立了不可逾越的障碍。
一个小 程度的公民自由，然而，自由的精神创造的空间来扩大其生产能力的极限 。
自然，然后，有精心培育的种子在 的核心--即督促和思想自由的职业。
这 自由思想逐渐反作用对人的思维方式，和 男人越来越能够在自由。
最后的自由思想 行为甚至对政府的基本面和状态很好 对待老人，谁现在是一个多机，与他的尊严的协议。
笔记
译文：Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙
Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙康德：什么是启蒙
康德：何谓启蒙Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙康德：什么是启蒙
康德：何谓启蒙
译文：Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙
你好，(1) [impart rudimentary knowledge to beginners;initiate]∶传授基础知识或入门知识。
(2) [instruct very young]∶教小孩（如幼儿园和初级小学）。
(3) [enlighten]∶开导蒙昧，使之明白事理。
译文：Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙
What Is Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant 1Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know (Sapere aude.) Have the courage to use your own understanding, is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors' descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude.This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom--and the most innocent of all that may be called freedom: freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: Do not argue! The officer says: Do not argue--drill! The tax collector: Do not argue--pay! The pastor: Do not argue--believe! Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you please, but obey! We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.
译文：Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：何谓启蒙
你好，很高兴为你解答Kant：What is Enlightenment
康德：什么是启蒙
希望我的回答对你有帮助，满意请采纳。
