| Title | : | Perpetual Peace |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1596055499 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781596055490 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 72 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1795 |
Perpetual Peace Reviews
-
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 more.
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. -
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 lot more to 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, more 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... -
" No conclusion of peace shall be considered valid as such if it was made with a secret reservation of the material for a future war ".
For if this were the case, it would be a suspension of hostilities, not a peace. Peace means an end to all hostilities, and to attach the adjective " perpetual "to it is already suspiciously close to pleonasm.
" First Definitive Article of a Perpetual Peace : The Civil Constitution of Every State shall bf Republican ".
It seems that after " You shall not covet ", we already have The Eleventh's Commandment : Be a Republican !
I have spoken. Howgh ! -
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.
-
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. -
أهم النقاط في فكر كانط في هذا الكتاب :
1- حل الجيوش في العالم
2- إقامة نظام جمهوري
3- إنشاء اتحاد بين دول العالم يقوم على اقامة حلف، الهدف منه انهاء الحروب ليعم السلام الدائم.
4- عدم تدخل دولة ما في دولة أخرى ولو رأت أن لديها نظاماً استبدادياً، فوجود دولة تحت حكم استبدادي أخف وطأة من وجودها في ظل الفوضى والحروب.
مراجعتي هذه لا تعني تأييدي لكافة أفكاره. -
تقول السياسة:كن مستبصرًا كالثعابين
وتضيف الأخلاق شرطًا مقيدًا:وكن بسيطًا كالحمائم -
Bruh reading enlightenment after reading government theory of machination and predation is a breath of fresh air....Update Kant is a little delusional, but I ate it up due to how bleak Hobbes was. I see the flaws but love the delusion.
-
Sigo manteniendo mi valoración de hace años. Pdt: del tejo no puedo más
-
I kinda owe Kant my career, so I’m contractually obligated to speak no evil of his work.
-
قسّم كانط الكتاب إلى 4 أجزاء ..- الجزء الأول : المواد التمهيدية لتحقيق السلام الدائم بين الدول
وفي هذا القسم 6 مواد أو شروط (سلبية) للسلم ..
والجزء الثاني .. فيه المواد النهائية لتحقيق السلام الدائم .. وهنا 3 مواد :
1 - يجب أن يكون دستور المدينة في كل دولة دستوراً جمهورياً "
وهنا يقول إذا كان القرار بأن تقع حرب أو لا تقع لا يمكن اتخاذه إلا برضاء المواطنين فمن الطبيعي جداً أن يطيلوا التفكير في الحرب لانهم انفسهم سيخوضوا غمارها ويتحملوا معاناة شرورها
2 - " ينبغي أن يقوم قانون الشعوب على أساس نظام اتحادي بين دول حرة "
يقول فيه .. " الدول من حيث صلاتها المتبادلة ، لا سبيل لها لكي تخرج من حالة الحرب التي يحبسها فيها انعدام القوانين إلا أن تتخلى كالأفراد عن حريتها الجامحة الهوجاء ، وأن تذعن لإلزام القوانين العامة ، فتؤلف بذلك " جامعة أمم " تنمو على الدوام حت تشمل في آخر الامر شعوب الأرض جميعاً . ولكن تصور الناس لحق الشعوب يحول دون سلوك هذا السبيل "
3 - حق النزلي الأجنبي ، من حيث التشريع العالمي مقصور على إكرام مثواه " .. وانه ليس للأجنبي أن يدعي لنفسه حق الاكرام باعتباره ضيفاً لان ذلك يقتضي اتفاقات خاصة تبيح له الضيافة .
الجزء الثالث الملحقات ..
ألملحق الأول في ضمان السلام الدائم ..
وهنا يظهر الضمانات الايجابيه التي تعطيها لنا الطبيعة للسلام .. منها انها جعلت الاصقاع الجرداء مناطق سكنى ، وشتت الشعوب التي لا تستطيع أن تعيش مجتمعة .. وأن اختلاف اللغات والأديان من العوامل التي أكدت هذا التفرّق ، وجعلت الناس تدريجياً يذهبون للنظام الجمهوري السلمي وصنعت علاقات سلمية تبالية وتجارية بين الشعوب ..
والملحق الثاني .. مادة سرية للسلام الدائم
الجزء الرابع الذي يشل التذييل الأول والثاني كان اصعب جزء بالنسبة لي في هذا الكتاب .. واعتقد انني سأعيد قراءة هذا الجء فقط مرة أخرى ..
في النهاية .. فكرة البحث عن السلام الدائم فكرة جميدة جداً .. واتفق في بعض النقاط التمهيدية وغيرها وأرى انها ضرورية فعلاً للوصول الى السلام .. واتفق معه في رأيه عن الديمقراطية وأنها بمعناها الدقيق تصل الى الاستبداد بالضرورة .. والبعض الآخر أرى انه مثالي لا يمكن أن يتحقق على أرض الواقع .. -
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.” -
ნაშრომი შედგება ექვსი წინასწარი მუხლისგან, რომელიც წარმოადგენს იმდროინდელი სახელმწიფოების, განსაკუთრებით მონარქიული და დესპოტური პოლიტიკის კრიტიკას.
ექვსი მუხლი, რომელიც ადგენს სახელმწიფოებს შორის მუდმივი მშვიდობის პირობებს;
კანტი მარადიულ მშვიდობას არა მხოლოდ უტოპიური მიდგომით უახლოვდება, არამედ აყენებს პრინციპების ერთობლიობას, რომლებიც აკავშირებს ეროვნულ და საერთაშორისო სამართალს მშვიდობის უზრუნველსაყოფად.
შეიძლება უტოპიური ჩანდეს, როდესაც განვიხილავთ არსებულ პირობებს თუნცა ძნელი არ არის იმის დანახვა, რომ ეს არის ის, ���აც რეალურად უნდა მოხდეს. -
This is just Kant's liberal pipe dream. As such it puts ideological fantasies over political reality and it leads to ailments worse than what it seeks to cure. The only thing it is useful for is demonstrating the flaws of the enlightenment and showing from what kind of ideals it develops. It can also be useful to show flaws in Kantian ethics by showing how this is what follows when you expand it on a social scale.
-
"C'è un detto, dal suono certo un po' fanfaronesco, che ormai circola come proverbio, e che tuttavia è vero: fiat iustitia, pereat mundus, ed è un eccellente principio del diritto, che elimina tutte le strade storte previste dall'inganno e dalla violenza; a patto però che non venga frainteso, cioè come permesso di utilizzare il proprio diritto con la massima severità, e che venga invece inteso come obbligo dei potenti di non rifiutare, o di non limitare, a nessuno il suo diritto a causa di un'avversione o compassione per altri."
Non saprei neanche da dove iniziare per scrivere una recensione.
E pensare che al liceo filosofia non la potevo sopportare.
Kant, sei vecchio di secoli ma scrivevi più chiaramente di molti "autori" di oggi. O di certi giornalisti.
Se più gente avesse letto questo libricino e preso a cuore ciò che dice molte cose si sarebbero potute evitare. -
Per la pace perpetua è uno scritto kantiano. Tema centrale è il raggiungimento del massimo grado di moralità da parte dell'uomo inteso da Kant come il fine ultimo della storia. (In Kant moralità e ragione coincidono). Qui sono elencati i passaggi necessari al raggiungimento di questo ideale che culmina nella realizzazione della confederazione dei popoli basata su una costituzione civile perfetta e retta dal più giusto tra gli uomini. Lo scritto è composto da sei articoli preliminari, che rappresentano il ripudio della politica messa in atto dagli Stati dell'epoca, in particolare quelli monarchici e dispotici; sei articoli definitivi, che espongono le condizioni per la pace perpetua tra gli Stati; i supplementi e due appendici che trattano la discordanza e l'accordo tra morale e politica. Il secondo dei due supplementi contiene l'articolo segreto in cui sottolinea l'importanza della cultura e degli intellettuali per il raggiungimento del fine.
-
Kant'ı lisedeki felsefe derslerimizde ne öğrendiysem o kadar tanıyordum, sonra bir de Nietzsche'nin eleştirdiği kadar. Bu Kant'ın kendisinden okuduğum ilk kitap oldu. Asıl amacım eserin çevirisini incelemek olduğu için özgün metinle karşılaştırmalı bir okuma yaptım. Yalnızca bu metinden hareketle Kant'ın cümlelerinin uzun ve girift olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Eserin kendisine, ne anlattığına gelince... Adından da anlaşıldığı gibi ebedi barışın dünya üzerinde nasıl kurulabileceğini anlatan bir tür rehber niteliğinde aslında kitap. Yalnız bunu ütopik bir yaklaşımla ele almıyor Kant, ebedi barışın sağlanması için ulusal ve uluslararası hukuku bağlayan bir takım prensipler ortaya koyuyor. Barışın küresel ve daha önemlisi kalıcı olarak tesis edilmesi için kendinden öncekiler ya da çağdaşları gibi dine değil hukuk ve ahlaka başvuruyor. Bu anlamda eserin ütopik olmaktan çok gerçekçi olduğu söylenebilir. Elbette Kant'ın tasavvur ettiği prensipleri ulusal ve uluslararası bağlamda sağlamak çok zor, bu yüzden okurken insan "nerde o günler" hissine kapılabiliyor. Kant'ın idealize ettiği devlet, devlet adamı, yönetici, toplum ve bunlar arasındaki ilişki, içinde bulunduğumuz mevcut koşullar dahilinde düşünüldüğünde bize ütopik gelse de bunların, aslında olması gereken şeyler olduğunu takdir etmek de hiç zor değil. Altını çizdiğim çok fazla yer oldu, sadece birkaç tanesini paylaştım. Genel itibariyle aydınlatıcı bir okumaydı benim için. Celal Yeşilçayır da titiz bir çeviri ortaya koymuş, fazlasıyla bilgilendirici çeviri notlarıyla anlaşılırlık konusunda metni desteklemiş. Gece Kitaplığından çıkan çeviri de gayet anlaşılır fakat çeviri notlarını geçtim Kant'ın özgün metinde yer alan kendi notları dahi çeviriye dahil edilmemiş. Bu benim açımdan büyük bir eksik. Bu bakımdan Fol Yayınlarından çıkan çeviriyi gönül rahatlığıyla ilgilenen herkese tavsiye ediyorum, mutlaka okuyun.
-
برغم أن هذا الكتاب صغير لكني شعرت أنه يمكن أن يكون أصغر، حيث لم يحتوي إلا عدة نقط مهمة، والكثير من الإطالات التي يمكن التعبير عنها بجمل أقل، والنجمة الوحيدة هنا كتقييم ليست تقييماً لفكرة السلام العالمي كفرة حالمة أو حتى واهمة، ولكن بسبب أن الكتاب عمره ما يقرب من 250 عاماً، وقد تغير شكل العالم وأفكاره وحتى سبل تحقيق السلام عليه، ربما احتوى الكتاب على بضعة نقاط صالحة حتى يومنا هذا - بغض النظر عن إمكانية تحقيقها أم لا - لكنها صالحة إن تم أخذها بعين الاعتبار، لكن فيما عدا هذا فالكتاب قديم، وأسلوبه أشبه برجل عجوز تخطى المائتين ينصح شباب هذا اليوم !
ربما قد يكون الكتاب حالماً أو واهماً في فكرة السلام العالمي ولكني لا ألومه هنا، خاصة وأن المترجم قد ذكر أن الكتاب قد صدر بعد تأثير الثورة الفرنسية على الأفكار في فرنسا وحتى في الدول المحيطة بها، وبعد الثورات تكون الناس حالمة، وتدفعها المعنويات للإيمان بأن كل شيء ممكن، كما قد حدث مع جيلي أثناء وبعد ثورة يناير، فقد ظننا أن كل شيء ممكن !
وبرغم أننا نعيش في عالم بشع، لكن الكوكب أقل اندفاعاً اليوم، حتى في ظل الأسلحة القادرة على افناء مدن وعواصم إلا أن العالم حالياً يفكر في مائة سبب قبل استخدامها بعكس لو كانت نفس تلك الأسلحة مع الشعوب القديمة مثلا ! .. العالم الآن أكثر استعداداً للسلام، مهما كان حال العالم متقلب، والسلام غالباً ما يكون مبني على مصالح ما، لكن الاستعداد للسلام نفسه أكبر عن ذي قبل، التركيز فقط يكون على إطالة فترته والاعتياد عليه، ومع ذلك.. وأهم شيء مع ذلك السلام هو العلم، الشعوب المتعلمة أكثر وعياً بضرورة الحرب أو عدمها، والشعوب المتعلمة أكثر وقوفاً ضد الحروب، كما أن الشعوب المتمتعة بالسلام والأمان والرخاء الداخليين سيفكرون ألف مرة قبل أن يرفعوا السلاح مخاطرين بحالهم هذا لأجل حرب مهما اختلفت أسبابها، طبعاً إلا في حالة الدفاع عن سلامهم ورخائهم، وهذا شخصياً ما استشفه في شعوب وسط وأقصى شمال أوروبا وكندا. -
نشر إيمانويل كانت هذا الكتاب سنة 1795 ، هذا الكتيب الصغير والثري بمادته كان الحجر الأساس الذي قامت عليه (عصبة الأمم) وحتى مصطلح عصبة الأمم ماخوذ من كانت (volkerbund) كتبهُ كانت ولم يعبأ به البشر إلا بعد أكثر من قرن ونصف من على وفاته.
يقال أن الرئيس الأمريكي(ويلسون) الذي كان له الفضل الأكبر في تأسيس عصبة الأمم كان يضع هذا الكتيب تحت وسادته ويقرأ فيه كل ليلة قبل أن ينام.
في الحقيقة إن كانت وغيره من فلاسفة التنوير في أوربا الذين تبنوا ونظروا لمبادئ وقيم السلام ونبذ الحروب بين الشعوب والأمم، فهم بلا شك أصحاب فضل على البشرية جمعاء ، حيث أن أغلب تنظيراتهم وآراءهم في هذا الجانب تبلورت بعد ذلك إلى منظمات ومؤسسات دولية وعالمية (لحقوق الإنسان، عصبة الأمم، الأمم المتحدة وغيرها) ترعى حقوق الإنسان وتناهض الحروب التي تنشب بسبب هوس زعماء ورؤساء الدول بالعظمة والامجاد الشخصية!!، على حساب أرواح الملايين من الأبرياء..
كل هذه المنظمات اقتبست موادها ومضامينها من أفكار أولئك العظماء الذين لولاهم لاستمرت شريعة الغاب ولغة التناحر والحروب بين بين الدول التي ضحيتها مقدرات وخيرات البلدان وأرواح الأبرياء من ابناءها.. -
The second edition is much more profound 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'.
-
فكرة السلام الدائم الأبدي بين البشر ومنع وقوع الحرب بينهم تعتبر فكرة منافية (للطبيعة البشرية)، لذلك فالفكرة نفسها تعبر مستحيلة، إقرار سلام دائم بين البشر والحيلولة دون وقوع الحرب مهمة مستحيلة مهما فكرنا فيها ومهما وضعنا لها من خطط ومهما وضع لها الفلاسفة من التدابير. لهذه القناعة قرأت الكتاب بدون ثقة في فائدته سوي الفائدة التاريخية بقراءة كتاب لفيلسوف كبير.
الكتاب عبارة عن مجموعة من الأفكار والمقترحات التي قدمها الفيلسوف لمنع وقوع الحروب وإقرار السلام الدائم بين الناس. -
Cuando uno se pone a leer a Kant, lo hace con el respeto que le causa saber que se encuentra ante uno de los mayores eruditos de su tiempo. Un tipo que invirtió literalmente toda su vida a la razón, al conocimiento y a explorar los límites tanto de uno como del otro.
Por eso, decidí empezar por algo "sencillo", alejado de sus trabajos críticos, que además trataba de un tema poco habitual en Kant, sumado a su brevedad que hacían de este un producto difícilmente rechazable.
"Sobre la paz perpetua" es un ensayo político en el cual se intenta mostrar, de un modo teórico por supuesto, las claves para alcanzar un gobierno ideal, entendiendo como ideal aquel que asegure una estabilidad y pacifismo permanentes y no que asegure la felicidad de sus habitantes.
Algunas de las ideas de Kant son muy interesantes y modernas, como por ejemplo, la libertad de los ciudadanos de moverse libremente entre países, la creencia en la creación de una confederación internacional que asegure el estado de paz y la apuesta por una república pura, aunque eso sí, bajo la supervisión de un monarca. Algo que, sinceramente, chirría mucho.
Más allá de estos elementos Kant desvaría bastante, da consejos sobre como gobernar basándose en hipotéticas y retorcidas situaciones que muy rara vez se dan. Toda esta forma de proceder no se deriva sino de la costumbre usual que tenía este señor de plantear hipótesis sin parar una detrás de la otra pero que no son nada prácticas y a veces parece que cae en la ensoñación más pueril.
En cualquier caso, este pequeño ensayo se puede leer perfectamente en una tarde y aunque sea como curiosidad, lo recomiendo, al menos para saber posicionar en el espectro ideológico a uno de los mayores genios que ha habido, aunque sea solo para desmitificar su figura o aunque solo sea para presumir que se ha leído a Kant, este libro es ideal para ambas cosas. -
La libertà, considerata innata, inscindibilmente legata all’umanità dell’uomo, e inalienabile – proprio come entro le Dichiarazioni rivoluzionarie (americana e francese) dei diritti che precedono i singoli dettati costituzionali –, è definita qui «facoltà di non obbedire ad altra legge se non a quella a cui avrei potuto dare il mio consenso».
E' incredibile vedere come gli Stati siano andati nella direzione auspicata nel 1795 da Kant. Siamo ancora molto lontani dalla pace perpetua (e mondiale), ma sembra proprio che il processo sia in corso d'opera. Al tempo di Kant, l'Unione Europea o le Nazioni Unite erano un miraggio, mentre oggi sono realtà quotidiana. Quanto efficaci è ancora da vedere, ma Kant stesso affermava che la pace perpetua era un ideale al quale bisognava sforzarsi di avvicinarsi il più possibile. -
Es täte einigen Völker- und Staatenbundgegnern nur gut, sich kurz der Schrift Kants von 1795 zu widmen. Klar zu sehen wäre, dass sich in den nun 222 Jahren seit der Veröffentlichung seines Plädoyers für den internationalen Frieden nur wenig bis gar nichts an der menschlichen Einstellung gegenüber Staatskonflikten geändert hat. Zu 'Fremdlingen' (S. 21):
Es ist kein Gastrecht, worauf dieser Anspruch machen kann, sondern ein Besuchsrecht, welches allen Menschen zusteht, sich zur Gesellschaft anzubieten vermöge des Rechts des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzes der Oberfläche der Erde, auf der als Kugelfläche sie sich nicht ins Unendliche zerstreuen können, sondern endlich sich doch nebeneinander dulden müssen, ursprünglich aber niemand an einem Orte der Erde zu sein mehr Recht hat, als der andere. -
Casi un ensayo, su brevedad no aligera en nada lo engorroso que puede llegar a ser el estilo de Kant. Pero, no lo digo como un crítica, sino al contrario, la complejidad de sus máximas demandan reflexión. La excelente traducción y prólogo ayudan al lector (celebran a sus autores en castellano). A efectos del mundo actual, los postulados de Kant son sabios y necesarios: su definición de igualdad es la más escueta que haya leído. Revienta abiertamente con la política de políticos contemporáneos, desde los más tiranos hasta los más demócratas. Pues, la paz perpetua alcanzada por publicidad franca de los objetivos de los gobernantes (con sus respectivos pueblos) no está ni cerca; al contrario, la guerra parece lo más correcto por hacer (a expensas del vulgo) y aún amparada bajo el derecho internacional (que desde un principio no se quiere acatar).
-
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 has very clearly defined ideas, that were for me overall comprehendible.
Still it was very difficult to follow each and every idea all the way. I found the individual sentences often too long. I found it had too much sidetracking to explain one thing, that then explains another.
Ultimately I fund it analyses human behaviour very clearly and to the point, but it definitely needs to be read and reared a couple of times to understand the whole meaning. -
تنصّ المادة السادسة من المشروع على أنَّه: "لا يحق لأي دولة في حرب مع أخرى أنْ تستبيح لنفسها مع تلك الدولة القيام بأعمال عدائية، كالاغتيال، والتسميم، وخرق شروط التسليم، والتحريض على الخيانة، هذه شناعات وأعمال منكرات، و لا بُد - حتى في أثناء الحرب - من الإبقاء على شيء من الثقة في شعور العدو، وإلّا استحال الاتّفاق على أي سلام، وانقلب فأضحى حرب إبادة وإفناء."
-
Aunque algunos han visto en esta obra una ironía literaria, lo que es absolutamente cierto es que difícilmente se puede encontrar un autor más influyente en el pensamiento occidental y en la gnoseología moderna que Kant. Siempre es un gusto leer a este filósofo.
