An Answer to the Question: How Enlightenment is Possible?

Autor članka analizira ključne termine Kantove definicije prosvećenosti: nezrelost, vođstvo drugoga, krivicu, čovečnost, lenjost, kukavičluk, hrabrost i druge. U prvom delu rada se izlažu kritike koje osporavaju svaki razložan karakter Kantove koncepcije prosvećenosti. Njima se potom suprotstavljaju odbrane Kantovog određenja prosvećenosti koje ukazuju, s jedne strane, na njegovu autorefleksivnost i, s druge, na njegovu neprolaznu aktuelnost. Posebna pažnja posvećuje se istorijskoj i tekstualnoj rekonstrukciji razumevanja javnosti kao uslova mogućnosti delotvornog angažovanja uma i racionalne organizacije društva. Zaključuje se da pitanje o prosvećenosti ostaje otvoreno, u meri da samom pojmu preti opasnost proizvoljne upotrebe pod potpuno nejasnim semantičkim pravilima, ali i da neprekidne reinterpretacije Kantovog pokušaja njegovog definisanja svedoče o nezaobilaznosti te instance, s obzirom na koju su se – priznanjem njene merodavnosti, preadaptacijom ili odbacivanjem – iskušavala, artikulisala i profilisala i od nje drugačija shvatanja prosvećenosti i njenih orijentira.The author analyzes the key terms of Kant's definition of enlightenment: immaturity, guilt, humanity, laziness, cowardice, bravery, and others. The first part of the paper presents the criticisms that challenge every reasonable character of Kant's conception of enlightenment. After that, these critiques are confronted with the defenses of Kant's definition of enlightenment that points out, on the one hand, its self-reflectivity and, on the other, its everlasting actuality. Special attention is paid to the historical and textual reconstruction of the understanding of public as a condition of the possibilities for the effective engagement of the mind and the rational organization of society. It is concluded that the question of enlightenment remains open, to the extent that the danger of arbitrary use under a completely vague semantic rules threatening the very notion of enlightenment. Continuous reinterpretations of Kant's attempt to define it, however, are also testimonies of an unavoidable instance, with respect to which – by recognition of its relevance, its rearranging or rejection – different conceptions of enlightenment and its landmarks were tempted, articulated and established