On Recursive.Eco and the Courage to Think

Recursiveness in Kant

Kant's concept of public reason, encapsulated in the maxim "sapere aude" or "dare to know," can be understood through a recursive lens, echoing the dynamic nature of Christopher Kelty's "recursive publics". This "dare to know" is not a simple, linear progression, but rather a continuous, iterative process of self-reflection, public engagement, and the ongoing re-evaluation of principles.

Kant's Recursive Factor in Public Reason and Justice:

• The Categorical Imperative as Self-Legislation:

For Kant, the fundamental principle determining a good will is the universal conformity of actions to law in general: one should act only so that they could also will their maxim to become a universal law. This involves a recursive self-test: individuals must ask themselves if they would be content for their maxim to hold good as a universal law for everyone, including themselves. If a maxim, like making a false promise, would destroy itself upon being universalized (because then no promises would be believed), it is inconsistent with duty. This means that the validity of a moral principle is determined by its own potential for universal application, which is a self-referential and recursive process of the will.

• Publicity as a Condition of Right:

Kant introduces the "transcendental formula of public right," stating that "All actions relating to the rights of other men are wrong, if the maxims from which they follow are inconsistent with publicity". A maxim that must be kept secret to succeed, and which would inevitably stir up universal opposition if publicly acknowledged, is unjust. This principle implies a recursive check: the justice of an action depends on whether its underlying maxim can withstand public scrutiny and general acceptance without defeating its own purpose.

• The Two Worlds (Sensible and Intelligible):

Kant posits that every rational being belongs to both the world of sense (where actions are determined by desires and inclinations as phenomena) and the world of understanding (where the will is an efficient cause a priori based on freedom). Our consciousness of the moral law, which is an unconditional practical law, first leads us to the concept of freedom, revealing that pure reason can be practical. This means that our actions in the sensible world ought to conform to the laws of the world of understanding, constituting our duties. The moral "ought" is what we would necessarily "do" as members of the world of understanding, becoming an "ought" only because we are also members of the world of sense. This creates a recursive loop of self-determination and obligation, where reason provides a law that the will, as a free causality, must conform to, and this conformity is continuously affirmed or challenged by our empirical actions.

• Enlightenment as Self-Correction:

Kant defines enlightenment as deliverance from prejudice and superstition, achieved by learning to think for oneself and becoming "self-legislative" as regards reason. This ongoing process of critical self-reflection and correction, where reason scrutinizes its own principles and applications, is inherently recursive, guiding human beings "from one stage of insight to another".

The Internet as a Recursive Public Amplifying Kant's Vision:

Christopher Kelty's concept of a "recursive public" provides a modern analogue to this spiral of public reason. A recursive public is defined by its active concern with "the material and practical maintenance and modification of the technical, legal, practical, and conceptual means of its own existence as a public". The Internet, as a complex infrastructure of technologies and uses, is not merely a platform for communication but is itself continuously shaped and reshaped by these publics.

• Continuous Rebuilding of Infrastructure:

Just as Kant's moral agent constantly tests maxims against the idea of universal law, a recursive public continuously rebuilds its infrastructure – from software, protocols, and standards to legal documents – to ensure its continued openness and independence. This mirrors Kant's call for self-legislation, but on a collective, technologically mediated scale.

• Argument Through and With Technology:

Kelty highlights that geeks "argue about technology but also argue with and through it, by building, modifying, and maintaining the very software, networks, and legal tools within which and by which they associate with one another". This is akin to Kant's idea that an individual's will is determined by a law it gives itself; here, the public's form is determined by the infrastructure it collectively creates and modifies. The ability to "hack" and "program" is seen as a variant of free speech and assembly.

• Modifiability and Challenging Finality:

A key aspect of recursive publics is modifiability, which involves not just access, but the ability to transform, improve, and redistribute content, questioning the very notion of "finality" in knowledge or cultural products. This resonates with Kant's ethical framework, where duty is not a static command but requires continuous, conscious re-affirmation and self-application. The constant potential for modification in projects like Connexions makes knowledge a "living and constantly changing" entity, rather than something static and final.

In essence, Kelty's "recursive public" on the Internet extends Kant's philosophical framework of self-governance and moral testing into the material and technical realm. The Internet, as an infrastructure that can be inhabited and transformed by its users, provides a concrete manifestation of the spiral of public reason, where "the conditions of freedom" are not merely discussed but actively constructed and continually redefined. This ongoing co-constitution of "operating systems and social systems" exemplifies a dynamic moral and technical order.

The Courage to Spiral

Building recursive.eco embodies Kant's vision: enlightenment as both personal and public. Each tool I create for my transformation becomes shared infrastructure. Each time I spiral back through assumptions, I maintain conditions for collective reasoning.

Maybe the question isn't "What is Enlightenment?" anymore.
Maybe it's: What does it mean to become a responsible node in the recursive spiral of now?

→ Build and use simultaneously
→ Transform ourselves to create possibilities for others
→ Refuse false choices between individual and collective flourishing

In our age of AI, recursive thinking—spiraling back on itself, questioning premises, emerging stronger—might be the most human capacity we can cultivate. Not because machines can't spiral, but because when humans do it consciously together, something emerges: enlightenment as recursive public practice.

This isn't about "fixing the planet." It's about listening to how systems talk to each other and answering with courage. Enlightenment today isn't light from above—it's light bouncing between us, recursive.

Enlightenment is humanity's emergence from self-incurred immaturity—a habit of intellectual dependence.

This dependence is the inability to use one's own judgment without another's guidance. It is self-incurred not from lack of intelligence, but from lack of courage and resolve to think independently.

Dare to think for yourself. Have the courage to use your own understanding. That is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and fear explain why many, long after they are capable of independent thought, remain dependent—and why others so easily set themselves up as their guides.

Dependence is comfortable. If search engines serve as my memory, recommendation feeds shape my opinions, advisors manage my choices—then I need not think. I only subscribe; others will gladly do the hard work for me.

Those who pose as guardians first make followers passive, then warn them of the "dangers" of walking alone. Yet the danger is small. After a few falls, we learn to walk. Such warnings merely frighten people away from further attempts.

It is hard for anyone to work free of dependence once it feels like second nature. One grows fond of it and becomes temporarily unable to judge for oneself, because one has rarely been encouraged to try.

Rules and formulas—mechanical substitutes for genuine thought—become chains of permanent dependence.

Those who break free still make uncertain leaps over small ditches, unaccustomed to free movement. Only a few, by cultivating their own minds, secure their freedom and chart their own course.

That the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if granted freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable.

Even among entrenched authorities, a few always think for themselves. Having thrown off the yoke, they spread a spirit of critical appreciation for each person's calling to think.

But when a dependent public is stirred by those incapable of enlightenment, it can force even the guardians to remain yoked. Prejudices take revenge on their originators.

A public attains enlightenment only gradually. Revolutions may topple tyrants and profiteers, but they do not reform a manner of thinking. New prejudices replace old ones and leash the unthinking many.

Nothing is required for enlightenment except freedom—the most harmless kind: the freedom to use reason publicly on all matters.

Everywhere we hear: "Do not question." "Do not question—follow orders." "Do not question—pay." "Do not question—believe." "Do not question—keep scrolling."

Which restrictions hinder enlightenment, and which might even advance it?

The public use of reason must always be free; only this brings enlightenment. The private use of reason—in a role or office—may often be narrowly restricted without blocking progress.

By public use, I mean the use anyone makes of reason as a thinker before the whole world. By private use, I mean the reasoning one exercises within a professional post bound by protocol.

A soldier on duty must obey; yet as a citizen and writer, he may publicly examine military policy. A taxpayer must pay; yet as a thinker, she may argue that a levy is unjust.

A pastor or employee must teach or implement what a symbol or policy requires; yet as a scholar addressing the world, that same person may freely propose reform. For society's "guardians" to be unthinking themselves would be an absurdity that perpetuates absurdities.

May institutions bind themselves—and us—by unalterable rules that forbid public questioning and reform for a lifetime?

They should not. Such designs aim to preclude the further enlightenment of humankind. One generation must not conspire to deny the next the chance to correct errors and extend knowledge.

Provisional arrangements may be tolerated, provided citizens—especially educators, journalists, technologists—retain the freedom to critique and improve them in public.

Leaders ought to ensure that proposed changes keep civil order, while allowing people to pursue their intellectual and spiritual well-being. Their role is not to command belief, but to prevent coercion among citizens. Rule is diminished, not strengthened, when it suppresses public reasoning.

Do we live in an enlightened age?

No. But we may live in an age of enlightenment.

Much is still lacking for people to apply understanding confidently without external guidance. Yet paths are opening, and the obstacles to release from self-incurred immaturity are gradually diminishing.

A leader who refuses to prescribe what people must believe or read, and instead protects their freedom to reason in public—such a leader is enlightened.

Under such protection, professionals may fulfill their duties while also speaking openly, as thinkers, to the world—even in frank disagreement with prevailing symbols or policies.

This spirit of freedom spreads, even where it struggles. It proves by example that freedom need not endanger public order, but can actually strengthen it through the cultivation of independent thought.