Zum Ewigen Frieden

Zum Ewigen Frieden➪ Zum Ewigen Frieden Read ➲ Author Immanuel Kant – Oaklandjobs.co.uk This is a reproduction of a book published before This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc that were either part of the original This is a reproduction of a book published beforeThis book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc that were either Zum Ewigen PDF or part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition identification Zum Ewigen Frieden Ein Philosophischer Entwurf Immanuel Kant bey Friedrich NicoloviusPhilosophy History Surveys Modern Peace Philosophy History Surveys Modern Political Science Peace. I m only half way through, but a terribly interesting little book Kant essentially treats nations as persons and then applies his categorical imperitive, particularly its second formation from the Groundwork treat people as ends, never means as the basis for creating perpetual peace Very interesting point he makes about democracies being despotic by definition but I think this is avoided by the notion of separation of powers All the same, he has me thinking about this His point being t I m only half way through, but a terribly interesting little book Kant essentially treats nations as persons and then applies his categorical imperitive, particularly its second formation from the Groundwork treat people as ends, never means as the basis for creating perpetual peace Very interesting point he makes about democracies being despotic by definition but I think this is avoided by the notion of separation of powers All the same, he has me thinking about this His point being that a democracy, by definition, is required to have the same power enforcing its will as that which creates its will And this is the will of the majority over the minority So, there is no separation of powers and this is not really a republic, but a despotism Like I said, I think the separation of powers between the administrative functions of government and the legislative functions are enough to overcome this concern, but I might need to think about this some .There is an absolutely fantastic footnote in which a Greek king wishes to end the strife he is facing with the Bulgarian Prince by challenging him to a duel you know, pistols at dawn and the response is, If a blacksmith has tongs he never picks up a piece of glowing iron from the fire with his bare hands Ah, the joys of having a personal army Must get myself some followers.He believes that if all nations were republics then there could be no wars If only he understood the power of Fox News, nationalism and the near inexhaustable gullibility of the people when it comes to matters of national pride.He believes that republics would rarely vote for war, because the people most likely to suffer from war would be given a say Princes, who at the time had an appetite for war that seemed never to be sated, only had that appetite because they did not have to live with the consequences of their actions During the war they still had their summer palaces, etc.But the modern world has proven Kant wrong here too, unfortunately Is the unconcern of these princes any different to the public in the USA or Britain or Australia who can send our specialist military class off to war with the people of Iraq, reduce their country to rubble and barely notice the consequences at all at home Modern technology has made Princes of us all.His point that the natural state of humanity as nation is war is an interesting one not least because what is best about people is not what is natural about us, but what we do to constrain our natural impulses Norms between nations rules and standards of behaviour are essential, but how to achieve this A remarkably current book in so many ways, as one would expect from something written only a little over 200 years ago Edited An ambitious essay, self indulgently ambitious Many political theorists use this essay to analyze the Cold War and consider the EU or UN as a product much like Kantian federation of states, which I think is ridiculous considering that Kant was writing in the 1790s and addressing 18th century European warfare, but later in the 19th and 20th century the purposes and scales of war changed radically However, even if we only situate Kant s theory in his age, I still don t think his blueprin Edited An ambitious essay, self indulgently ambitious Many political theorists use this essay to analyze the Cold War and consider the EU or UN as a product much like Kantian federation of states, which I think is ridiculous considering that Kant was writing in the 1790s and addressing 18th century European warfare, but later in the 19th and 20th century the purposes and scales of war changed radically However, even if we only situate Kant s theory in his age, I still don t think his blueprint would work Kant basically derived a political formula from his previous works, mostly Metaphysics of Moral and Practical Reason then he added some tinge of pragmatism into it and when things seemed unlikely to work out, he mixed it with some idealism about human nature in general, and in the end he presented a hybrid product that just couldn t work out in any case Personally I don t think politics should be derived from the pure moral concepts if we grant it that there are pure moral concepts, but if you think that contemplating politics purely on moral terms is cool or relevant in our time or in any historical time, then I recommend this essay to you In this short essay Immanuel Kant promotes the idea of perpetual peace In order to reach this ideal, the interaction between peoples and states has to be reorganized According to Kant, all states should become republics that is, transform from despotic absolutist regimes into the rule of the people that are primarily occupied with governing themselves be it through an autocrat, an aristocracy or a democratic process Only secondarily, in the interaction with other states, will the question In this short essay Immanuel Kant promotes the idea of perpetual peace In order to reach this ideal, the interaction between peoples and states has to be reorganized According to Kant, all states should become republics that is, transform from despotic absolutist regimes into the rule of the people that are primarily occupied with governing themselves be it through an autocrat, an aristocracy or a democratic process Only secondarily, in the interaction with other states, will the question of peace present itself.He recognizes the natural state of man to be Hobbesian a war of all against all , if not directly at least indirectly, and this manifests itself on both the national level and international level Hence, there should be some sort of international federation that both acknowledges the sovereignty of the republics as well as being able to serve as a mechanism in order to smooth frictions and conflicts.In the beginning of the essay, Kant mentions both the negative and positive articles of what states should not and should do After this, he goes to lengths to demonstrate that the judicial system he promotes is in perfect alignment with the state of nature which is proceeds in a teleological fashion And finally, he explains how politicians i.e statesmen can be made to act moral squaring the circle, so to speak through the use of philosophers Philosophers, and the informed public at large, should have the freedom to express their thoughts, even if these aren t to the liking of the rulers Through the use of public discourse, the statesman can navigate his state on its course to perpetual peace In this, Kant discards Plato s ideal of the philosopher king, recognizing that power distorts our vision of the truth This, in a nutshell is Kant s essay There s a lotto say, but this is mostly historical details not interesting to the general reader.Now, Kant sketches an ideal world, in which cosmopolitanism and globalization international law, international trade, migration, etc are deemed to be the characteristics of a world living in perpetual peace Of course, this is primarily an empirical claim and it is unclear to me how much of it has been validated in the time since Kant wrote his essay Sure, humanity has developed tremendously and we are all mostly better off compared to just a century ago Yet I think the current pandemic and the economic depression that followed in its wake have shown us the empirical facade of much of the cosmopolitan ideology Socioeconomic inequalities have skyrocketed, public services have been cut at the expense of those worst off, mass migration leads to increased poverty and racial tensions, etc etc But apart from Kant s future ideal being an empirical claim, it s also a theoretical claim The claim that war should be prevented is, in its ultimate form, a moral claim As both Hegel and Carl Schmitt have pointed out, in their critique of Kant, this cosmopolitan idealism treats deeply existential antagonisms both between groups within a state as well as between states themselves as non existent This is highly treacherous and,importantly, highly dangerous, since it starts from the premisse of the universality of morals There is no moral proposition that all people can agree on there are existential differences between people and peoples about good and bad Pretending this is not so, and eradicating war through application and enforcement of universal morality i.e human rights will only lead to a new kind of war, a total war Schmitt s words.I personally think this is true It is a conundrum that any honest person caring about humanity has to face up to It is simply not true that all people subscribe to the morality as is laid down in the human rights and the UN institutions For example, there are many, many people worldwide who do not subscribe to the equality between men and women or who do not accept homosexuality or atheism This pits at least in theory all people against each other, again, in a fight to gain dominance in this existential struggle It is not for nothing that in this cosmopolitan, globalized state the worlds sees global crises, global demonstrations, global agendas UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030 being enforced in all countries, etc We are living in a time of total war, just as Schmitt predicted, and it s the UN and its institutions against the world that is, against all people and states that deviate from their agendas There are existential antagonisms and hostilities between peoples and between states Any theory that seeks to jump over this primordial fact will forever remain an empty idea But of course, Kant s theory on perpetual peace should primarily be read as a historical document, deeply embedded in the the context of the French Revolution and the transformation in Europe of feudal society into bourgeois society An interesting little work Before reading this, keep in mind that what you re holding in your hands is the starting point and foundation of contemporary liberal thought This book is Kants peace program proposition, where he lists the 9 pillars for attaining perpetual peace 1 No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war 2 No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation 3 S Before reading this, keep in mind that what you re holding in your hands is the starting point and foundation of contemporary liberal thought This book is Kants peace program proposition, where he lists the 9 pillars for attaining perpetual peace 1 No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war 2 No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation 3 Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished 4 National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states 5 No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state 6 No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible such are the employment of assassins percussores , poisoners venefici , breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason perduellio in the opposing state 7 The civil constitution of every state should be republican 8 The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states 9 The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality I ve been putting off this review because I m still trying to come up with a witty and original Kant joke to write in this review, but for the life of me I just Kant.Sorry At the beginning of the essay, Immanuel Kant says that adding the adjective perpetual to the noun peace is a suspicious pleonasm According to him, a treaty of peace annihilates ALL causes for waging future wars In the second preliminary article Kant claims that a state is a society of men whom no one else has a right to command or to dispose of except the state itself In the third article, the author deals with the subject of standing armies they must be abolished, for they incessantly At the beginning of the essay, Immanuel Kant says that adding the adjective perpetual to the noun peace is a suspicious pleonasm According to him, a treaty of peace annihilates ALL causes for waging future wars In the second preliminary article Kant claims that a state is a society of men whom no one else has a right to command or to dispose of except the state itself In the third article, the author deals with the subject of standing armies they must be abolished, for they incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war Besides, paying men to kill or to be killed means treating a man as a mere machine to be used by another, which isn t compatible with the rights of mankind.Section two starts off with a bang the state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state the natural state is one of war Therefore, peace is something that must be established.Finally, at the end of the essay, Kant claim makes an allusion to Plato when he says that one cannot expect that kings philosophize or that philosophers become kings, for holding power unavoidably corrupts the free judgment of reason The second edition is muchprofound than the first one Other definitive articles were added, not an intrusion, but a window into history and politics is opened In the first edition, Kant correctly predicted the Hitler s cause in the first definitive article No conclusion of peace shall be cosidered valid as such if it was made with a secret reservation of the material for a future war. In Perpetual Peace, Kant offers a very practical means of establishing means of perpetual peace between nations, such as the abolishment of standing armies Kant s style of writing is nothing short of eloquent, and his logic is bulletproof Unfortunately, he fails to account for the depravity of man, making his ideas less practical than they appear to be Ironically, it is our need for peace that does not allow us to have it Nevertheless, Kant s Perpetual Peace is an amazing piece of philosophy In Perpetual Peace, Kant offers a very practical means of establishing means of perpetual peace between nations, such as the abolishment of standing armies Kant s style of writing is nothing short of eloquent, and his logic is bulletproof Unfortunately, he fails to account for the depravity of man, making his ideas less practical than they appear to be Ironically, it is our need for peace that does not allow us to have it Nevertheless, Kant s Perpetual Peace is an amazing piece of philosophy, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who would be up to the challenge It is somewhat quaint to think that one could spend their time writing out a sketch of what it would take for all of the countries of the world to exist in a perpetual state of peace I m just so moulded by a culture of damage control and a certainty there is a coming apocalypse by now But here we are Kant s little essay about perpetual peace is fascinating The strong points are that it really spells out much of the theory that underpins the machinations of government as we understand it in d It is somewhat quaint to think that one could spend their time writing out a sketch of what it would take for all of the countries of the world to exist in a perpetual state of peace I m just so moulded by a culture of damage control and a certainty there is a coming apocalypse by now But here we are Kant s little essay about perpetual peace is fascinating The strong points are that it really spells out much of the theory that underpins the machinations of government as we understand it in democratic Western countries today In his ideal republic, a division between rulers and the legal system is in place to ensure citizens don t end up under the thumb of a despot He endorses federation as a way to prevent war between nation states Nobody may claim the cosmopolitan right of a guest when they visit a foreign country but if they must be turned away they should never be treated cruelly If these and several other of Kant s conditions are met the binding laws of nature will take care of the rest Kant is glowingly optimistic about the prospect of a utopian future and there I think lies the essay s greatest weakness It is over 200 years old and is not vindicated by history at all I must give credit to liberal democracy for surviving well into the 21st century through some ingenious checks and balances but after taking a peek at the daily news how long it can sustain itself I do not know Kant s essay is also very eurocentric and anything outside of that is treated as barbarism and smacks of the white man s burden Despite its flaws, I think it deserves to be read Kan ts views on what constitutes worldwide perpetual peace and what States need in order to achieve it A short read that takes a lot of time to analyze Kant tends to be idealistic at times, but manages to root his ideas in the principles of freedom or liberty I wouldn t know what s the better translation, read it in Spanish , dependence, and equality The only form of government that could possibly lead to perpetual peace is a republic Kant believes that it is Nature s will that humanity co Kan ts views on what constitutes worldwide perpetual peace and what States need in order to achieve it A short read that takes a lot of time to analyze Kant tends to be idealistic at times, but manages to root his ideas in the principles of freedom or liberty I wouldn t know what s the better translation, read it in Spanish , dependence, and equality The only form of government that could possibly lead to perpetual peace is a republic Kant believes that it is Nature s will that humanity continually progresses rationally and morally As he mentions in his Philosophy of History, we are not in an illustrated era, but in an era of illustration When he talks about perpetual peace, he is talking about a society that has progressed and illustrated itself It is not today s ignorant society That said, his idealistic notion that decisions should be made public makessense, in a better informed society.I won t rewrite my college essay here, but will just say that this has been one of the harder reads this year so far I believe I ll needKant background and then reread this, to understand him better This is a surprisingly high rating that I am giving Kant considering I don t really like a lot of his other philosophy A lot of his ideas are pretty interesting, but I think history kind of shows that some are wrong Mainly that democratic republics would find it in the interest to not go to war This, I think, has been shown to be false when examining the invasion of Iraq It s not just the United States I am talking about, but all the countries that helped with the surge Perhaps France, Ital This is a surprisingly high rating that I am giving Kant considering I don t really like a lot of his other philosophy A lot of his ideas are pretty interesting, but I think history kind of shows that some are wrong Mainly that democratic republics would find it in the interest to not go to war This, I think, has been shown to be false when examining the invasion of Iraq It s not just the United States I am talking about, but all the countries that helped with the surge Perhaps France, Italy, or Britain would consider what they did a war , but this is certainly a violation of what Kant was expounding All in all, it s a wonderful little essay I enjoyed it a lot I found myself very often agreeing with what the author said. at least, IDEALLY I do think some claims that are made can be examined empirically, and some of those claims, I believe, have been shown to be false

Zum Ewigen Frieden Epub ´ Zum Ewigen  PDF or
    Zum Ewigen Frieden Epub ´ Zum Ewigen PDF or enjoy this valuable book The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition identification Zum Ewigen Frieden Ein Philosophischer Entwurf Immanuel Kant bey Friedrich NicoloviusPhilosophy History Surveys Modern Peace Philosophy History Surveys Modern Political Science Peace. I m only half way through, but a terribly interesting little book Kant essentially treats nations as persons and then applies his categorical imperitive, particularly its second formation from the Groundwork treat people as ends, never means as the basis for creating perpetual peace Very interesting point he makes about democracies being despotic by definition but I think this is avoided by the notion of separation of powers All the same, he has me thinking about this His point being t I m only half way through, but a terribly interesting little book Kant essentially treats nations as persons and then applies his categorical imperitive, particularly its second formation from the Groundwork treat people as ends, never means as the basis for creating perpetual peace Very interesting point he makes about democracies being despotic by definition but I think this is avoided by the notion of separation of powers All the same, he has me thinking about this His point being that a democracy, by definition, is required to have the same power enforcing its will as that which creates its will And this is the will of the majority over the minority So, there is no separation of powers and this is not really a republic, but a despotism Like I said, I think the separation of powers between the administrative functions of government and the legislative functions are enough to overcome this concern, but I might need to think about this some .There is an absolutely fantastic footnote in which a Greek king wishes to end the strife he is facing with the Bulgarian Prince by challenging him to a duel you know, pistols at dawn and the response is, If a blacksmith has tongs he never picks up a piece of glowing iron from the fire with his bare hands Ah, the joys of having a personal army Must get myself some followers.He believes that if all nations were republics then there could be no wars If only he understood the power of Fox News, nationalism and the near inexhaustable gullibility of the people when it comes to matters of national pride.He believes that republics would rarely vote for war, because the people most likely to suffer from war would be given a say Princes, who at the time had an appetite for war that seemed never to be sated, only had that appetite because they did not have to live with the consequences of their actions During the war they still had their summer palaces, etc.But the modern world has proven Kant wrong here too, unfortunately Is the unconcern of these princes any different to the public in the USA or Britain or Australia who can send our specialist military class off to war with the people of Iraq, reduce their country to rubble and barely notice the consequences at all at home Modern technology has made Princes of us all.His point that the natural state of humanity as nation is war is an interesting one not least because what is best about people is not what is natural about us, but what we do to constrain our natural impulses Norms between nations rules and standards of behaviour are essential, but how to achieve this A remarkably current book in so many ways, as one would expect from something written only a little over 200 years ago Edited An ambitious essay, self indulgently ambitious Many political theorists use this essay to analyze the Cold War and consider the EU or UN as a product much like Kantian federation of states, which I think is ridiculous considering that Kant was writing in the 1790s and addressing 18th century European warfare, but later in the 19th and 20th century the purposes and scales of war changed radically However, even if we only situate Kant s theory in his age, I still don t think his blueprin Edited An ambitious essay, self indulgently ambitious Many political theorists use this essay to analyze the Cold War and consider the EU or UN as a product much like Kantian federation of states, which I think is ridiculous considering that Kant was writing in the 1790s and addressing 18th century European warfare, but later in the 19th and 20th century the purposes and scales of war changed radically However, even if we only situate Kant s theory in his age, I still don t think his blueprint would work Kant basically derived a political formula from his previous works, mostly Metaphysics of Moral and Practical Reason then he added some tinge of pragmatism into it and when things seemed unlikely to work out, he mixed it with some idealism about human nature in general, and in the end he presented a hybrid product that just couldn t work out in any case Personally I don t think politics should be derived from the pure moral concepts if we grant it that there are pure moral concepts, but if you think that contemplating politics purely on moral terms is cool or relevant in our time or in any historical time, then I recommend this essay to you In this short essay Immanuel Kant promotes the idea of perpetual peace In order to reach this ideal, the interaction between peoples and states has to be reorganized According to Kant, all states should become republics that is, transform from despotic absolutist regimes into the rule of the people that are primarily occupied with governing themselves be it through an autocrat, an aristocracy or a democratic process Only secondarily, in the interaction with other states, will the question In this short essay Immanuel Kant promotes the idea of perpetual peace In order to reach this ideal, the interaction between peoples and states has to be reorganized According to Kant, all states should become republics that is, transform from despotic absolutist regimes into the rule of the people that are primarily occupied with governing themselves be it through an autocrat, an aristocracy or a democratic process Only secondarily, in the interaction with other states, will the question of peace present itself.He recognizes the natural state of man to be Hobbesian a war of all against all , if not directly at least indirectly, and this manifests itself on both the national level and international level Hence, there should be some sort of international federation that both acknowledges the sovereignty of the republics as well as being able to serve as a mechanism in order to smooth frictions and conflicts.In the beginning of the essay, Kant mentions both the negative and positive articles of what states should not and should do After this, he goes to lengths to demonstrate that the judicial system he promotes is in perfect alignment with the state of nature which is proceeds in a teleological fashion And finally, he explains how politicians i.e statesmen can be made to act moral squaring the circle, so to speak through the use of philosophers Philosophers, and the informed public at large, should have the freedom to express their thoughts, even if these aren t to the liking of the rulers Through the use of public discourse, the statesman can navigate his state on its course to perpetual peace In this, Kant discards Plato s ideal of the philosopher king, recognizing that power distorts our vision of the truth This, in a nutshell is Kant s essay There s a lotto say, but this is mostly historical details not interesting to the general reader.Now, Kant sketches an ideal world, in which cosmopolitanism and globalization international law, international trade, migration, etc are deemed to be the characteristics of a world living in perpetual peace Of course, this is primarily an empirical claim and it is unclear to me how much of it has been validated in the time since Kant wrote his essay Sure, humanity has developed tremendously and we are all mostly better off compared to just a century ago Yet I think the current pandemic and the economic depression that followed in its wake have shown us the empirical facade of much of the cosmopolitan ideology Socioeconomic inequalities have skyrocketed, public services have been cut at the expense of those worst off, mass migration leads to increased poverty and racial tensions, etc etc But apart from Kant s future ideal being an empirical claim, it s also a theoretical claim The claim that war should be prevented is, in its ultimate form, a moral claim As both Hegel and Carl Schmitt have pointed out, in their critique of Kant, this cosmopolitan idealism treats deeply existential antagonisms both between groups within a state as well as between states themselves as non existent This is highly treacherous and,importantly, highly dangerous, since it starts from the premisse of the universality of morals There is no moral proposition that all people can agree on there are existential differences between people and peoples about good and bad Pretending this is not so, and eradicating war through application and enforcement of universal morality i.e human rights will only lead to a new kind of war, a total war Schmitt s words.I personally think this is true It is a conundrum that any honest person caring about humanity has to face up to It is simply not true that all people subscribe to the morality as is laid down in the human rights and the UN institutions For example, there are many, many people worldwide who do not subscribe to the equality between men and women or who do not accept homosexuality or atheism This pits at least in theory all people against each other, again, in a fight to gain dominance in this existential struggle It is not for nothing that in this cosmopolitan, globalized state the worlds sees global crises, global demonstrations, global agendas UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030 being enforced in all countries, etc We are living in a time of total war, just as Schmitt predicted, and it s the UN and its institutions against the world that is, against all people and states that deviate from their agendas There are existential antagonisms and hostilities between peoples and between states Any theory that seeks to jump over this primordial fact will forever remain an empty idea But of course, Kant s theory on perpetual peace should primarily be read as a historical document, deeply embedded in the the context of the French Revolution and the transformation in Europe of feudal society into bourgeois society An interesting little work Before reading this, keep in mind that what you re holding in your hands is the starting point and foundation of contemporary liberal thought This book is Kants peace program proposition, where he lists the 9 pillars for attaining perpetual peace 1 No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war 2 No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation 3 S Before reading this, keep in mind that what you re holding in your hands is the starting point and foundation of contemporary liberal thought This book is Kants peace program proposition, where he lists the 9 pillars for attaining perpetual peace 1 No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war 2 No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation 3 Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished 4 National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states 5 No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state 6 No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible such are the employment of assassins percussores , poisoners venefici , breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason perduellio in the opposing state 7 The civil constitution of every state should be republican 8 The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states 9 The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality I ve been putting off this review because I m still trying to come up with a witty and original Kant joke to write in this review, but for the life of me I just Kant.Sorry At the beginning of the essay, Immanuel Kant says that adding the adjective perpetual to the noun peace is a suspicious pleonasm According to him, a treaty of peace annihilates ALL causes for waging future wars In the second preliminary article Kant claims that a state is a society of men whom no one else has a right to command or to dispose of except the state itself In the third article, the author deals with the subject of standing armies they must be abolished, for they incessantly At the beginning of the essay, Immanuel Kant says that adding the adjective perpetual to the noun peace is a suspicious pleonasm According to him, a treaty of peace annihilates ALL causes for waging future wars In the second preliminary article Kant claims that a state is a society of men whom no one else has a right to command or to dispose of except the state itself In the third article, the author deals with the subject of standing armies they must be abolished, for they incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war Besides, paying men to kill or to be killed means treating a man as a mere machine to be used by another, which isn t compatible with the rights of mankind.Section two starts off with a bang the state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state the natural state is one of war Therefore, peace is something that must be established.Finally, at the end of the essay, Kant claim makes an allusion to Plato when he says that one cannot expect that kings philosophize or that philosophers become kings, for holding power unavoidably corrupts the free judgment of reason The second edition is muchprofound than the first one Other definitive articles were added, not an intrusion, but a window into history and politics is opened In the first edition, Kant correctly predicted the Hitler s cause in the first definitive article No conclusion of peace shall be cosidered valid as such if it was made with a secret reservation of the material for a future war. In Perpetual Peace, Kant offers a very practical means of establishing means of perpetual peace between nations, such as the abolishment of standing armies Kant s style of writing is nothing short of eloquent, and his logic is bulletproof Unfortunately, he fails to account for the depravity of man, making his ideas less practical than they appear to be Ironically, it is our need for peace that does not allow us to have it Nevertheless, Kant s Perpetual Peace is an amazing piece of philosophy In Perpetual Peace, Kant offers a very practical means of establishing means of perpetual peace between nations, such as the abolishment of standing armies Kant s style of writing is nothing short of eloquent, and his logic is bulletproof Unfortunately, he fails to account for the depravity of man, making his ideas less practical than they appear to be Ironically, it is our need for peace that does not allow us to have it Nevertheless, Kant s Perpetual Peace is an amazing piece of philosophy, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who would be up to the challenge It is somewhat quaint to think that one could spend their time writing out a sketch of what it would take for all of the countries of the world to exist in a perpetual state of peace I m just so moulded by a culture of damage control and a certainty there is a coming apocalypse by now But here we are Kant s little essay about perpetual peace is fascinating The strong points are that it really spells out much of the theory that underpins the machinations of government as we understand it in d It is somewhat quaint to think that one could spend their time writing out a sketch of what it would take for all of the countries of the world to exist in a perpetual state of peace I m just so moulded by a culture of damage control and a certainty there is a coming apocalypse by now But here we are Kant s little essay about perpetual peace is fascinating The strong points are that it really spells out much of the theory that underpins the machinations of government as we understand it in democratic Western countries today In his ideal republic, a division between rulers and the legal system is in place to ensure citizens don t end up under the thumb of a despot He endorses federation as a way to prevent war between nation states Nobody may claim the cosmopolitan right of a guest when they visit a foreign country but if they must be turned away they should never be treated cruelly If these and several other of Kant s conditions are met the binding laws of nature will take care of the rest Kant is glowingly optimistic about the prospect of a utopian future and there I think lies the essay s greatest weakness It is over 200 years old and is not vindicated by history at all I must give credit to liberal democracy for surviving well into the 21st century through some ingenious checks and balances but after taking a peek at the daily news how long it can sustain itself I do not know Kant s essay is also very eurocentric and anything outside of that is treated as barbarism and smacks of the white man s burden Despite its flaws, I think it deserves to be read Kan ts views on what constitutes worldwide perpetual peace and what States need in order to achieve it A short read that takes a lot of time to analyze Kant tends to be idealistic at times, but manages to root his ideas in the principles of freedom or liberty I wouldn t know what s the better translation, read it in Spanish , dependence, and equality The only form of government that could possibly lead to perpetual peace is a republic Kant believes that it is Nature s will that humanity co Kan ts views on what constitutes worldwide perpetual peace and what States need in order to achieve it A short read that takes a lot of time to analyze Kant tends to be idealistic at times, but manages to root his ideas in the principles of freedom or liberty I wouldn t know what s the better translation, read it in Spanish , dependence, and equality The only form of government that could possibly lead to perpetual peace is a republic Kant believes that it is Nature s will that humanity continually progresses rationally and morally As he mentions in his Philosophy of History, we are not in an illustrated era, but in an era of illustration When he talks about perpetual peace, he is talking about a society that has progressed and illustrated itself It is not today s ignorant society That said, his idealistic notion that decisions should be made public makessense, in a better informed society.I won t rewrite my college essay here, but will just say that this has been one of the harder reads this year so far I believe I ll needKant background and then reread this, to understand him better This is a surprisingly high rating that I am giving Kant considering I don t really like a lot of his other philosophy A lot of his ideas are pretty interesting, but I think history kind of shows that some are wrong Mainly that democratic republics would find it in the interest to not go to war This, I think, has been shown to be false when examining the invasion of Iraq It s not just the United States I am talking about, but all the countries that helped with the surge Perhaps France, Ital This is a surprisingly high rating that I am giving Kant considering I don t really like a lot of his other philosophy A lot of his ideas are pretty interesting, but I think history kind of shows that some are wrong Mainly that democratic republics would find it in the interest to not go to war This, I think, has been shown to be false when examining the invasion of Iraq It s not just the United States I am talking about, but all the countries that helped with the surge Perhaps France, Italy, or Britain would consider what they did a war , but this is certainly a violation of what Kant was expounding All in all, it s a wonderful little essay I enjoyed it a lot I found myself very often agreeing with what the author said. at least, IDEALLY I do think some claims that are made can be examined empirically, and some of those claims, I believe, have been shown to be false "/>
  • Hardcover
  • 94 pages
  • Zum Ewigen Frieden
  • Immanuel Kant
  • 18 June 2019
  • 3846061468