So, what was Kant trying to say?
So basically, I found Kant insanely intense. Hard drugs? Maybe they should be included in the price of the text.
In “What is Enlightenment,” Kant writes: “One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding [contract] 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. (43-44)” The contract would essentially stop the ability of growth of a population. This statement embodies his idea of progress towards the highest good, individually, in society, and internationally, and how it cannot be stopped by people.
In terms of this process, there are two “actors” – nature, the thing that made earth harmonious and balanced (and put it in conflict and spread the peoples throughout it by war)*, and the people as a whole. He expresses the role of nature as inevitable: “…Nature irresistibly wills that right should finally triumph. What one neglects to do will ultimately occur of its own accord, though with a great deal of inconvenience. (124)” The peoples’ role in this inevitability is that of following the ‘directions’ nature gives – what Kant calls duty. This duty does not involve actions based on the outcomes, namely happiness (as Garve makes a point that people only do things for their happiness), but actions based on doing what is right (right as in morally right, the right thing to do) (70). This connection with inherent right is a connection with the will of nature.
So Kant makes the point that nature will prevail, but that the state of nature with society is one of war and disruption. He concludes that people understand nature, and then use the directions that nature gives to compel peoples, civil societies, and nations to a perpetual peace (perpetual, because, once achieved, the progress of nature would continue to push all levels of society towards it, therefore not allowing them to retreat into their warring, conflicted state. So is nature a puzzle, and once its true nature is understood, perpetual peace is attainable?
*This idea of Nature putting in barriers to divide peoples and cause them to war to make sure they took up all land on earth is quite interesting (see page 125 for Kant’s description of nature-imposed separation by language, religion, but then unifying factors like trade). It was the tactic used by the colonial governments to ensure conflict in their colonies – look at how Iraq was set up, with conflicting groups within its one-country borders. This conflict meant that there would be no supreme power in the nation, and therefore impeded the colony’s ability to rise up against its imperial ruler. I may be reading Kant wrong, but I seem to see this same kind of created conflict attributed to nature, along with the design of trade, another feature of colonization. Curious. Worth an asterisk, I think.
In “What is Enlightenment,” Kant writes: “One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding [contract] 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. (43-44)” The contract would essentially stop the ability of growth of a population. This statement embodies his idea of progress towards the highest good, individually, in society, and internationally, and how it cannot be stopped by people.
In terms of this process, there are two “actors” – nature, the thing that made earth harmonious and balanced (and put it in conflict and spread the peoples throughout it by war)*, and the people as a whole. He expresses the role of nature as inevitable: “…Nature irresistibly wills that right should finally triumph. What one neglects to do will ultimately occur of its own accord, though with a great deal of inconvenience. (124)” The peoples’ role in this inevitability is that of following the ‘directions’ nature gives – what Kant calls duty. This duty does not involve actions based on the outcomes, namely happiness (as Garve makes a point that people only do things for their happiness), but actions based on doing what is right (right as in morally right, the right thing to do) (70). This connection with inherent right is a connection with the will of nature.
So Kant makes the point that nature will prevail, but that the state of nature with society is one of war and disruption. He concludes that people understand nature, and then use the directions that nature gives to compel peoples, civil societies, and nations to a perpetual peace (perpetual, because, once achieved, the progress of nature would continue to push all levels of society towards it, therefore not allowing them to retreat into their warring, conflicted state. So is nature a puzzle, and once its true nature is understood, perpetual peace is attainable?
*This idea of Nature putting in barriers to divide peoples and cause them to war to make sure they took up all land on earth is quite interesting (see page 125 for Kant’s description of nature-imposed separation by language, religion, but then unifying factors like trade). It was the tactic used by the colonial governments to ensure conflict in their colonies – look at how Iraq was set up, with conflicting groups within its one-country borders. This conflict meant that there would be no supreme power in the nation, and therefore impeded the colony’s ability to rise up against its imperial ruler. I may be reading Kant wrong, but I seem to see this same kind of created conflict attributed to nature, along with the design of trade, another feature of colonization. Curious. Worth an asterisk, I think.
posted by Rebecca at 4:52 PM
<< Home