Kant suggests that enlightenment might be too difficult for individuals, at least when the public at large remains unenlightened. This is why he focuses on the prerequisites for the enlightenment of the public as a whole. Is he correct about this, or could it be possible for some individuals in an unenlightened society to become enlightened in Kant’s sense? If so, how?

Kant does not think that the enlightenment of the public requires much in the way of political rights and freedoms, as long as people have Freedom of the Pen. In fact, he thinks too much “civil freedom” might actually get in the way of enlightenment. More democratically minded contemporary readers may disagree. Why does he believe this, and should we reject this view now? Why or why not?

The ideals of the Age of Enlightenment have attracted a range of critics, from the religious thinkers of the day through the 19th-century Romantic movement to 20th-century critical theorists. Familiarize yourself with a prominent criticism of the Enlightenment’s celebration of reason. Is Kant’s conception of enlightenment and reason subject to this criticism, or does the criticism miss the mark? How might Kant respond? (Some prominent critics of the Enlightenment include Edmund Burke, Novalis, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Max Horkheimer.