Part 1: Summarizing Kants Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Kant says Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Kant further argues, defining immaturity as ones inability to use reason without guidance of others, each man is capable of arising above this immaturity by using his own understanding. Kant outlines how men look towards institutionalized societal guardians, to do all thinking on behalf of everyone which most are bought to follow, except few free-thinking men. Kant makes a case for freedom as the only necessary condition for an inevitable chance to enlightenment of an entire public. Kant rejects the idea of revolution as it will never produce true reform but merely replace a despotism with new power-seeking prejudices to control the unthinking masses. Kant argues for such freedom, within the strictures of society, that allows for a military-officer or clergyman to obey orders and follow doctrines, but which should also not prevent them from publicly reasoning and expressing different opinions. By saying Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! and arguing that the only test needed for any law is whether people will impose such a measure upon itself, Kant sets the norm for governments as agents guarding the laws of general consent but above all protecting the freedom to think without repression Beyond defining what enlightenment for individuals is, Kant also idealizes a society where the ideal of enlightenment is possible - A state where people are required to follow the strictures of society, but there are no barriers for individuals to think and express their rational thoughts. In essence each individual doesnt look upon others for guidance. In bringing a paradox of where a high degree of civil freedom sets up insuperable barriers to freedom itself, probably Kant sees a balance where people knowing and experiencing civil-freedom dont have the need to crave more freedom; shall I say a state where people can do what they wish, within the framework of a functioning society, and without the need to look beyond themselves for approval or inspiration.

Part 2: From Rousseaus Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (referred as A) & "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" (referred as B) In discourse A, Rousseau sets out to establish, stripped of all forcings of society upon man, the most natural condition for man which establishes mankind as having much in common with other species (needs of self preservation, pity and compassion, without need of thought beyond some bare necessities). Rousseau tries to logically trace the path that would let mankind from into complex societies with heightened passions, needs & luxuries, dependence, manners & customs. All this Rousseau argues, resulted in the need to compare, competition, dependence & servitude and also violence; the elite/rich to safeguard their possessions led to the foundations of unnatural civillaw/societal institutions/government which now everyone owes their allegiance to. Discourse B written prior to A, but can be said that contains on certain essential similarity from A which being that the best possible state for mankind should have been the one which would not need active thoughts beyond the need for self-preservation. He critiques that works of art and science as requiring the approval of guilds of those considered exponents or popularity; they are indulgence, luxury built upon inequality of societies and end reinforcing the inequalities.

Kant & Rousseau: Rousseau idealizes a pre-societal state of existence as the best a state where mankind existed without continuous interaction with each other except for passing ones, a state where limited thought or language was a need of subsistence than anything beyond. This state had no inequities, injustices or violence. In this state mankind needed not to compare with one another and consequently had no need ideas to judge situation with respect to others, which in many essences came to be the driver once mankind organized itself into societies. Essentially, Rousseau idealized a pre-societal self-contained form of human being (so much in common with one another) as the ideal natural state, that had no explicit need for enlightenment and yet would have been most congruous to an enlightened state. All progress in society and thought has merely sought to move mankind away from the natural state thereby also magnifying the differences of one man to the other. As opposed to the above, Kant envisages a society of enlightened individuals where one pursues what one wishes for and till what one can within certain adherence as and what would have been decided by those societies based on consensus. In my understanding, there exists a explicate emphasis, by both Kant and Rousseau, on a state where individuals not having the need to seek approval or compare oneself with others as the foundations to an enlightened society, or to one which needs no enlightenment.