Perpetual Peace and Other Essays by Immanuel Kant

Perpetual Peace and Other Essays Reviews

• 
  Luís

  A project of perpetual peace. A lucid observation of the war, which is illegitimate. The only legitimate source is the law; the legal framework must structure the agreements between parties, in which case peace is impossible.
  This little book had made up of practical proposals which should be conditioning for peace between states (such as stopping a standing army which leaves tensions in power).
  The ultimate goal is perpetual peace. Must distinguish between a peace alliance and a peace treaty; the latter is temporary. It would consist of a federation of nation-states, the premise of a European Union. However, Kant warns us that this federalism must not deny the particularities of States; each country has a history and specific customs. They must maintain autonomy.
  Two centuries earlier, Kant (he is not the only one, Victor Hugo, Abbé Pierre), in a context of almost permanent war, had laid the foundations of our modern political conceptions. In particular, the rules of the international chessboard.
  Today, even if there is no more war between the States (of the European Union in any case), tensions remain. But, hopefully, they don't upset a precarious balance. The main thing is to frame any joint decision by law. Kant, in this respect, is enlightening.
• 
  Francesca

  I don’t know how but I didn’t learn anything
• 
  Nicole aka FromReading2Dreaming

  This book was quite interesting as it detailed how countries could reach perpetual peace and is one of the first books to detail how universal human rights need to become part of the world. It was quite lengthy and takes a lot of attention to read, so I don't recommend reading this before bed. Overall, it was an interesting book that helped me better understand philosophy and how global human rights came into existence.
• 
  Abe Frank

  Manny was so hopeful that things would get better over time that he considered letting us be ruled by aliens if it meant civil society could be established.
• 
  Claudia

  This book is a seminal work by Kant. A great read (completely readable) and rather modern with a globalist/internationalist approach to philosophy. It is very European in its good will and intriguingly cosmopolitan for its time! The subject of this book is peace that should preferably be acquired through State and Republicanism. He examines how war should be waged and how peace can be attained. He also explains sovereignty and State (forma imperii), and considers how pax perpetua can only be attained by democratic states (it appears President George W. Bush wasn’t alone thinking about this eh??!). He agrees with Hobbes that the original state is a state of war and that Nation States must be formed so that peace can be obtained. Kant, in fact believes that States with prospect to form a federation of States, cannot but live in a circumstance of perpetual peace, present the appropriate democratic conditions, with rights of men being respected by all. He would be interested on how this all turned out to be. Perhaps there’s something to this theory in relation to States. But certainly not all turned out to be democracies. And not all are in it to respect their neighbours. I guess this idea (which Kant espouses in this book) is one we may never know in practice. 4 stars.
• 
  Mark Giaconia

  I read the Perpetual Peace essay not long after returning from Iraq as a Green Beret in the Army. The notion of Perpetual Peace was befuddling, especially for me at that time since it challenged everything I had done in my life up to that point. These are very interesting essays, and became part of my own line of thinking about war in the modern world, and a part of my own post-war intellectual evolution that led me to pretty much despise war.
• 
  John Lucy

  There are seeds in these essays of Kant's larger project centered on duty, but even without learning about Kant's general line of thought these essays are interesting reading. Regarding Kant's overall project, the essay on theory being inherently practical is perhaps the most enlightening. Theory dictates action, which then becomes practical; even if the theory doesn't apply exactly or even closely. For Kant, a theory that is not of use, or appears not to be of use, means that the theory needs to be clarified and refined, not that it is not practical. All reason, for Kant, is practical.
  
  The essay on a universal history is clearly Christian, or religious, in nature: that there is some end or purpose to which history is progressing, and that human history proves that progression is inevitable. The essay is not all that persuasive, though Kant may not have intended to be.
  
  The speculation on the beginning of human history, while always fun to reflect upon, is perhaps the weakest attempt that I have read, from Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and others.
  
  The headlining essay, Perpetual Peace, is solid and worthy of serious reflection. There are a number of good ideas in there, like not incurring foreign debt, and a number that, in today's society, we'd find naïve or even ignorant. Unfortunately, much of Kant's hope for building a world where perpetual peace may be possible depends upon human nature's being better than it is. For instance, one of his first principles is that standing armies should be gradually abolished. And, later, almost predicting MLK's famous statement, Kant says that "a transgression of rights in one place in the world is felt everywhere." The problem here is that, to the latter, many will ask, "But will anyone care?", and to the former will wonder if any nation or people would be willing to abolish its standing army. Yes, some have, but the biggest and largest countries have not.
  
  This problem of optimistically considering human nature is present throughout Kant's thinking, of course. The very idea that humans follow and fulfill duty assumes that we are moral beings. Even as a Christian, like Kant, I question whether this optimism is well placed.
  
• 
  Kara

  man, regardless of the importance of material and ideas, this dude is.............not a thrill to read.
• 
  Jamie

  Surprisingly fun read, as I've never been able to get into Kant before. Here, Immanuel wants to figure out how to create an ideal cosmopolitan world, where states are sovereign but mutually cooperative and the nation itself best facilitates the morality of its subjects. For Kant, this means idealizing a republican state rather than a democratic one (which he sees as enabling a kind of mob morality/reign) and ensuring that the distinction between the public and private usage of reason remains clear and balanced (public: a subject in under the constraint of another, and so must use his reason skeptically, but ultimately within the bounds of his patron's conception of reason--a clergyman would be an example; private - scholars and philosophers exemplify the 'private' reasoners for Kant).
  
  Part of the reason this was so fun is because Kant just has a friggin' weird imagination. His essay on the "Speculative Beginning of History," where he basically imagines the emergence of reason/civilization by outlining the 'reality' of genesis; & also his essay on "The End of All Things," which is basically a meditation on the apocalypse (complete with an understanding of the end of the world as spawned through the betrayal of Christian ideals by its practitioners)--these are just completely bizarre, albeit logical, and really fantastic reads, even if, like me, you are an atheist, and have little interest in faith, religion, or the afterlife.
  
  Nevertheless, Kant's exploration of *why* we require the idea of an 'after' to our sensuous world is truly fascinating, and I think holds even if you have no religious affiliation of belief. It seems we cannot reach perfected reason or morality in this world--Kant's notion of perpetual peace, as I understand it, lies only in the afterlife; in the supersensuous world, which he believes to be unintelligible, as we cannot imagine our 'selves' outside of time and space (which would be his vision of the afterlife). Yet only in that world can our reason come to fruition, and the sensuous world (where we must nonetheless cultivate reason, though it is not the 'natural' state of things--Kant believes we are inclined toward aggression, and develop reason in order to harmonize with the other) will hopefully near its own idealization through a unity of the 'perfected' cosmopolitan state.
• 
  Ryan Hirst

  Four stars with a qualification: It's Kant. He assumes the structure, once built, will work by magic, which is both silly and untrue.
  
  However, the structure he builds in this essay is beautiful. On the shoulders of this essay, the League of Nations was founded.
  
  Obviously, we are able to manipulate structures against their agreed purposes. Perpetual Peace is only a declaration of what one might build. His assurances that, once built, it will be inviolable, are hollow.
  
  Still, the declaration is a compelling vision. Shall we not declare our intention to put no authority above the cooperation of all free and sovereign states, to the sole end of guaranting those principles which we believe to be universally just?
  
  If you are wary of such universal declarations, good. Here, Kant is at his best. And readable, too. Did I forget to say that? It's READABLE.
  
  Of course, all the arguments will run the wrong way. It might drive you crazy. My copy is covered in pencil scrawl. It was worth the battle.
  
• 
  Zahreen

  I love his essay on "Perpetual Peace" - everyone should read this essay - it would make the world a better place...no kidding. It's absolutely idealistic, but idealism is what this world needs - it certainly was what I needed freshman year of college, when I first read the essay.
• 
  Shane Ha

  Incredible theory but they feel like elaborate sand castles brushed away by the first tide when applied to reality.
• 
  Jesse

  For all of Kant's talk about the compatibility of theory and practice, he is terrible at putting his seemingly radical moral views to any interesting use. From his moral theory, he derives banal or terrible duties such as "thou shalt not lie" and "thou shalt obey tyrants". His view of historical progress is that the Laws of Human Nature, by encouraging selfish trade a la Adam Smith, will lead to Enlightened Rulers who, for all their other failings, give Freedom of Speech to philosophers. The philosophers will seek to develop Universal Reason and hence better Moral Principles, which eventually the Rulers will adopt of their own accord.
  
  His essays on religion were more interesting than the political essays. He tries to justify the conception of heaven/hell, or at least the Judgement Day, in a rational as opposed to religious manner. His idea is roughly that since we can have no conception of time after our death, our self-view of our "worthiness of happiness" must be thought to be frozen forever, and hence we are forced to imagine an eternity of either guilty or self-satisfied moral feelings.
  
  I did not find his attempts to derive a rational conception of the immortality of the soul as convincing. His logic is that, for the "highest good", a world where moral duty and happiness coincide, to be imaginable, we have to imagine perpetual progress of the world towards that goal. However, he concludes that we must also believe in the perpetual progress of our own moral worth, and hence the immortality of the soul. This seems contradictory with the above argument about heaven/hell, and also full of non-sequiturs. Why do I have to hope for my own perpetual progress to hope for the world's perpetual progress?
  
  It seems to me that if he resolved the contradictions in this argument, he would reject the static conceptions of heaven and hell and be led to either Spinoza's pantheism (which he denies) or to Hegel's world-spirit (which was yet to be written). For it would be more satisfactory to say that, in order for a rational being to act morally, it ought to hope that its moral acts will be incorporated into the eventual progress of the world. In that way the immortality is not of the individual, monist soul, but a world-soul which the rational being partakes in and dissolves back into.
• 
  Chase

  Immanuel Kant in this short pamphlet explores the origin of the state following other thinkers like Hobbes and Rousseau. Kant asks if it is possible for perpetual peace to come about through a international order of sovereign states, respecting each other's sovereignty. Much of this "international order" can be defined by the one seen today following the end of the Cold War, where neoliberalism, austerity, and globalization has taken power over most of the world. Kant argues against the concept of a "international government", but still in essence promotes the ideal of international organizations, democracy, and economic sovereignty to be the foundation of this "perpetual peace".
  
  Something I did appreciate while reading this text was the historicity found in his defining of democracy, which emerges from the period of aristocracy and monarchy. While certainly not as wide a scope that Marx conveys half a century later, Kant's observation of the emerging role of the bourgeoisie (who he refers to 'as the people', as there is not in this period of history an amalgamating proletariat) is intriguing.
• 
  Daniel

  La edición 2017 en español de este texto de Kant contiene demasiados errores tipográficos y de puntuación, lo que dificulta la lectura de un, ya conocido, entreverado autor.
  
  Es un clásico del pensamiento racionalista. Tesis previas de su célebre "Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres". Es un texto ético-político que, a mi sorpresa ya que lo desconocía, fue piedra angular para la creación de la Liga de las Naciones en 1939.
  
  Me sorprendió que fuera una lectura, a pesar de todo, amena. Considero que presenta ideas muy avanzadas a su época, hoy un poco vetustas, con un marcadísimo enfoque antropocéntrico (en un momento de "Cómo orientarse en el pensamiento", se autodenomina dentro de los "hombres comunes" refiriéndose a quienes se guían por la razón).
  
  Lectura interesante para los interesados en la filosofía política y la ética, de un autor clásico, con una edición que claramente presenta espacio para mejorarse en el futuro.
• 
  Tobias

  Was soll man sagen?! Die Teile, die ich verstanden habe, waren sehr gut - äußerst interessant Kants genauer Argumentation zu folgen. Allerdings hat er mich auch oft abgehängt... vielleicht sollte ich das Buch nochmal lesen wenn ich mehr schlauer bin.
• 
  Lara Malik

  La verdad, es que me costó disfrutar este libro, debido a los horrores de redacción. Sí, dije horrores.
  No sé quién fue el encargado de revisarlo, pero faltaban hasta signos de exclamación.
  Tal vez la próxima vez pueda entenderlo de forma apropiada.
• 
  Patris

  Political view of Immanuel Kant
• 
  N Perrin

  I thought this was going to be Woodrow Wilson lite. Turns out Kant is not a big fan of geopolitical hegemony. Checkmate globalists
• 
  Morrigan

  "La guerra es mala en el sentido en que crea más personas malas, que las que se lleva."
  No tengo manera de dar estrellas a este libro.
  
• 
  Mark Everglade

  A definite read, and surprisingly accessible for Kant. You can really see where a lot of the ideas behind the United Nations came from.
• 
  Caro

  Muy utópico
• 
  Daniel Stepke

  When I can understand him (I'd give myself a 20%), Kant is thought-provoking, even if usually horribly wrong on top of that.
• 
  ivan

  caguei nos opúsculos
• 
  Poetra Boemi

  Perdamaian Dunia yang Belum Gagal
  Khayun Ahmad Noer
  “Kondisi perang akhirnya akan membawa manusia pada satu kondisi di mana mereka memimpikan keadaan damai. Mereka menyebar ke berbagai penjuru dunia, mencari kedamaian atas tuntunan perang di bawah bimbingan alam...” Immanuel Kant (Zum Ewigen Frieden, 1795)
  Muqaddimah
  Orang lebih sering melihat Kant sebagai seorang moralis dan kritikus pengetahuan, daripada politikus yang menghasilkan sebuah mahakarya pemikiran politik. Kant lebih cenderung dikenal karena buku-buku kritik dan metafisiknya daripada buku politiknya, yang termaktub dalam Zum Ewigen Freiden. Padahal, ide politik Kant tak dapat dipungkiri telah menjadi satu sindrom yang telah menggejala di seluruh dunia. Sebuah sindrom universalitas manusia, yang menjadi salah satu pijakan bagi gerakan Humanisme internasional saat ini.
  Namun, di sini anda tak akan menemukan pembahasan tentang gerakan humanisme lebih lanjut.
  Tema yang akan dibicarakan akan lebih difokuskan pada pemikiran politik Kant itu sendiri. Tema ini menjadi topik utama di pembahasan kali ini bukan karena keunggulannya di antara pemikiran Kant yang lain. Semua pemikiran Kant tentu memiliki keunggulan-keunggulan dengan spesifikasi yang berbeda-beda. Jadi, tema ini diangkat hanya untuk melihat bagaiamanakah konsep politik yang ditawarkan Kant itu. Apakah konsep politik yang diberikan Kant berupa konsep politik yang mengagungkan kebebasan individu seperti yang ditawarkan Locke, ataukah sebuah konsep yang menjadi bayang-bayang pemikiran politik Machiavelli yang menjunjung absolutitas sebuah kekuasaan?
  Pemikiran Kant akan segera nampak setelah satu-persatu bagian-bagian dari konsep politiknya dibedah. Pembahasan pertama akan menampakkan sebuah bidang besar yang berisi tentang konsep awal perdamaian pada tataran masyarakat lokal hingga taraf dunia. Di sini akan dijelaskan bagaimana perdamaian itu muncul dan dipertahankan. Pembahasan kedua akan sedikit membicarakan relevansi pemikiran Kant ke dalam realita kekinian, dalam masyarakat yang sudah mengglobal.
  Dualisme manusia
  Manusia hampir selalu memiliki semacam dualisme di dalam dirinya. Dualisme yang menjadikannya memasuki dua dunia yang berbeda bersamaan. Dunia keberaturan dan ketakberaturan. Dualisme entitas diri itu menampakkan dirinya sebagai “keakuan” dalam dimensi kemanusian dan keakuan dalam dimensi “kebertubuhan”. Dimensi kemanusiaan dengan semangat keberaturan dan dimensi kebertubuhan dengan ketakberaturannya.
  Keinginan akan keberaturan dan ketakberaturan ini akan selalu menjadi bagian dari gerak hidup manusia. Di satu sisi mendambakan keberaturan, di sisi lain keberaturan itu tak dapat diwujudkan. Dengan dua kecenderungan ini, akan terjadilah pertarungan antara dua entitas dalam diri manusia itu. dan nampaknya tindakan manusia lebih didominasi oleh kebertubuhan daripada sisi kemanusiaannya. Sisi kebertubuhan yang menjadikan manusia cenderung melakukan tindakan onar. Manusia kemudian lebih suka hidup dalam sisi keliarannya dengan melakukan agresi, keinginan mendominasi yang lain, serakah, cinta kejayaan, dan sebagainya. Jadi keinginan manusia untuk hidup dalam keberaturan akan selalu dikacaukan oleh dominasi kebertubuhan di dalam dirinya.
  Posisi yang tak menentu dan dengan segala kebimbangan dalam dirinya, maka manusia menyerahkan upaya keberaturan itu pada tangan alam.
  ....................................
  baca selengkapnya di
  www.havellar.blogspot.com