Kant in his essay on enlightenment defines it as the emergence of man from his self-incurred immaturity .

. This immaturity he further defines as mans failure to use his understanding without guidance. Kant in his essay takes a strong stance on the need for freedom in arriving at this maturity, which occasions enlightenment. He explains that for man to be enlightened society must not frown on the freedom of one to openly criticize issues. This freedom will give the impetus for one to openly use his reason in matters of public discourse without rancour. Specifically he cites the issue of religion where clergy decide on what it is of doctrines to strictly adhere to and not question. He argues that clergymen in spite of themselves and higher authority have the duty to make observations. On the other hand Jean Jacque Rousseau in his discourse on the arts and sciences argues that the freedom with which people are allowed to openly practice the arts and sciences is a recipe for immorality. He begins by arguing that the arts and sciences are mere garnishing of the slavery of man in society. They make individuals develop skills and habits, which cover up ones true nature. This, causing uncertainty in determining who one actually is, no more sincere friendships, no more real esteem, no more well founded trust . These vices are all now hidden under he veil of politeness, manners occasioned by the age of enlightenment. Rousseau argues strongly against the development of the arts and sciences that is the freedom to use ones reason by citing examples of countries, which saw its introduction. The examples of Egypt and Greece and their eventual falls are linked to a situation where these fields were developed to the detriment of duty and training of the body. He cites Sparta a small country that developed massively because they chose physical training over mental exercises of futility in the arts and sciences. Further he questions the essence of openly questioning truths, which according to him are openly visible before ones eyes. He basically describes that urge of questioning and searching as a quest of vain knowledge, which corrupts the soul. Rousseau argues that cultivating the sciences is detrimental to the moral qualities of society in that they corrupt our judgement of divine truths. Clearly, Rousseau believes that the freedom with which comes the heightened study of the arts and the sciences in this age of enlightenment degrades morality, which is to the detriment of society. However, Kant is for the freedom to use ones reasoning faculties to understand without guidance. Left to Rousseau, that should be decided by learned men for us. From the stance of the two; Kant believes that the enlightenment and indeed the study of the arts and sciences will eventually lead to progress in society albeit gradually. This he believes is ultimately good for society as he declares in his essay .One age cannot enter

into an alliance on oath to put the next age in a position where it would be impossible for it to extend and correct its knowledge, particularly on such important matters, or to make any progress whatsoever in enlightenment. This would be a crime against human nature, whose original destiny lies precisely in such progress.

Rousseau on the other hand declares that due to the desire for luxuries developed by the inequality of learning the arts and sciences, society does not progress. From the comparison of the two one can say that it is out of the enlightenment that Rousseau is even able to air his views, he benefits from that massively, that he does not deny. He benefits from that freedom of thought. One can conclude then that he is an enlightenment figure to an extent. However he does not believe in the progress, which the enlightenment can bring to society, as Kant believed, on that premise one can also conclude that he is not an enlightenment figure.as a person he qualifies to be an enlightenment figure but based on his thoughts on the result of enlightenment he is not one.