|
康德 何兆武译 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。Sapereaude！要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动的口号。 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（naturalitermaiorennes）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。 绝大部分的人（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。 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。 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。 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）到处都有对自由的限制。 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。 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肘，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。 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。 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。 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"Caesarnon estt supragrammaticos"（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。 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："并不是，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。 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。 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篡法律、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。 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。 1784年9月30日，于普鲁士哥尼斯堡（刘伟录自《历史理性批判文集》） 附英译： IMMANUEL KANT An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784) Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts. Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course. But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass. Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him. Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community, a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying such ends. Here one certainly must not argue, instead one must obey. However, insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole, or even of the world community, and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar, in the proper sense of that term, he can most certainly argue, without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible. Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order. He must obey. But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service, or from placing them before the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, impertinent criticism of such levies, when they should be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (since it can lead to widespread insubordination). But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes. Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters. Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience. What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights; rather, he offers it under the direction and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses." He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities. But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void, even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and criminal. The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question: Can a people impose such a law on itself? Now it might be possible, in anticipation of a better state of affairs, to introduce a provisional order for a specific, short time, all the while giving all citizens, especially clergy, in their role as scholars, the freedom to comment publicly, i.e., in writing, on the present institution's shortcomings. The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined (if not unanimous) voices of the populace could propose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered religious institutions, but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However, it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question, for so do-ing would deny, render fruitless, and make detrimental to succeeding generations an era in man's progress toward improvement. A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being, which is not his affair. However, he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being. It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters, since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance. This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach, "Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as, indeed even more, when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects. If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick. A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism. I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e., man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity, first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects' guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all. But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. We have before us a shining example, with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor. But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows, yet who likewise has a well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee public peace, can say what no republic may dare, namely: "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!" Here as elsewhere, when things are considered in broad perspective, a strange, unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself, one in which almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity. I. Kant Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784 |
|
|
