"Life can be beautiful. War is always the 'ugly' truth. Together, we can turn the conflict of Life to the utmost beauty. Like the silent bird, we have a path back to beautiful innocence in a world devoid of Bloodshed." - O.K
Or is beautiful innocence a mere grasp of naivety?
Nature and Life are evermore existent, a most beautiful scenery. Yet, we humans foolishly burn in arrogance and superiority.
War, Conflict, and Bloodshed - Part III
Black or white,
coffee or tea,
neighbors colored in green,
spectating the stormy sea,
waiting for a King or Queen,
to protect and save.
Our God is not a forsaken soul,
we are just tomorrow's slaves,
angry for our given worthless role.
Checkmate,
in three.
It probably is too late
to escape in a wee dream.
O.K
We meet again. At a precautious and restless point in time, in history, in conflict, in the philosophy of Peace. We are at the edge of the chessboard, where the two worlds collide. One with peace and perseverance. The other with war and destruction, an eternal flame.
In Part III of War, Conflict and Bloodshed (tales of ancient history for once relevant today) we will dive even deeper into the nature of conflict. Analyzing purposeful theories and philosophical thoughts from the greatest minds. Mainly focusing on the following three:
i. The Roman concept of "Love conquers all"
ii. Immanuel Kant's perpetual peace,
iii. Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.
In Part III, we will look more abstractly at war (conflict) and peace—an inquiry into our questions about War, Conflict, and Bloodshed. Mainly, "Is it in our blood," "Why is there always conflict," and "Would it not be more reasonable to (always) seek peace." Additionally, Kant guides us in the search for an answer to "Is it possible to reach universal peace?"
I hope you enjoy the concluding essay on this massive concept of Conflict depicting and forming Life. It was all my pleasure to write and divulge into our Satanistic will to avoid peace.
I. Omnia vincit amor
"Love conquers all things; let us too surrender to love", echoes from the mouth of
the ancient, Roman poet Virgil. Unbeknownst to Virgil himself, that phrase would continue to echo two thousand years later. The phrase is originally found in Virgil's first work, Eclogues, consisting of ten pastoral poems. The phrase can be found in the last poem, Eclogue 10.
Gallus, a love-sick man, mad in love, utters as he is dying:
“Omnia vincit amor: et nos cedamus amori” — Vergil, Ecl. 10.69
Translated, “Love conquers all; let us, too, yield to love!” Lycoris, the woman whom Gallus was madly in love with, had left with someone else. So typical! While dying from love and an oh-so-broken heart, Gallus gives us the first breath of just how powerful love can be. It would be some time before a mere expression from a classic poem of heartbroken love would become a powerful proverb, a way to live, and a founding pillar of ideology. [l]
In 1602, Italian painter Caravaggio completed the painting of the Roman Cupid.[c] The famous painting would bear the name Amor Vincit Omnia, with emphasis on the first word "Amor." This would become a more common quote relating to Virgil's original.
Caravaggio's Amor Vincit Omnia
But what about the meaning? What about the thought, "Love conquers all?" Is it only pure in thought and theory, as an expression made for movies and wedding speeches, or is it also an ideal to live by, something to strive for? Can everything and everyone be satisfied with Love? Can Love save and heal us all? Were The Beatles right in proclaiming that "All you need is Love?"
One could ask: What is love? Oh dear, that would be one hell of an endeavor. Going down that endless road would drive even a genius to madness. Not worth a penny. Nor a million pounds. Nor an eternal life. Still, let love be defined here as that which makes one do silly things.
To save our precious time, we could once again look at the opposite case. What if there was no love? What if we had no love, no one to love? We would be in ruins because whether or not one dares to admit it, we need love. Everyone needs someone or something. Be it a parent, a partner, a dog ― a cause, an ideology, a reason to live. And that all comes through love. Maybe more precisely described as "care." We need someone to take care of us, and we need someone we can care for. That is life.
Love is perfectly pure and beautiful ― or can be.
But just as love can bring peace to our minds and heal our souls, it can blind us to reality and corrupt our minds. Is it an extreme, or is it natural for love to take control? I would veto both; neither of them. Love is beyond us, yet in front of us. Love is inside us, yet shared with others. Love is in everything reachable in this world. Goodness encompasses all things in life. But likewise, does evil; evilness and hatred. Thus, it is and has always been a battle of the ages. One of them will remain supreme, but only for a short while. Will it be good or evil? Which side will love take?
We can be great lovers, but we can be brilliant warriors and even better soldiers...
...And that leads us to the reality: there is rarely anything that Man wouldn't do for Love. It is easy to kill. But it is hard to love without hatred, jealousy, dreams, illusions, and blindness; it is hard to love without killing.
I would not dare to state that hatred would be in our nature when we are in love. It could just as well be nurture. Or a combination of both. But I know that the sky knows no limit to what a Man can do in Love[L]. Love truly is a leap of faith. Love encompasses everything and us all.
Family, familial love, nature, nurture, and care
Friend, mutual platonic love
Romance; be in love with a person
Patriotism, love for Country
Sympathy, to understand others as humans; love
And the list goes on.
Love and Strife...
Thus, Love is War.
What would Man not do for the sake of love?
There are plenty of motives leading to war. Love is a strong one, occurring throughout history.
Man kills for love; Man dies for love.
Love may indeed conquer all
if the flame burns high enough.
But which takes him first, Life or Death?
"Love is all, it gives all, and it takes all." — Soren Kierkegaard
II. Perpetual Peace
Now, we are into the bulk of the work of this essay. I could write a 200-page treatise on this vast concept of universality in the realms of (global) politics. One could ask, why would you not just separate this third part into three different pieces? Yes, that is very true, but I feel this third part to be the "experimental," going beyond the Hobbes versus Rousseau nature of Man question. Thus, it felt fitting to combine three entirely different advanced and experimental concepts and, in the end, attempt to come to a unified conclusion from the three particulars and have a worthy ending to this mammoth blog series. Though we are embarking on a very ambitious path, it is best to get to the case of universality now, for sooner or later...
First, a necessary introduction to how Kant differs from Hobbes and Rousseau in the view of the Nature of Man. In Perpetual Peace, Section II, Kant states:
"With men, the state of nature (status naturalis) is not a state of peace, but of war [...]"
Kant agrees with Hobbes's notion of the state of nature to the extent that it is a sort of "conflict" or "war", but continues:
"[...] though not of open war, at least, ever ready to break out." [Section II, p. 10]
Our state of nature for Kant is not "open" conflict; rather, it is a condition for war—a Rousseauian sentiment, yet Kant does not agree with Rousseau wholeheartedly. On one hand, Kant can be viewed to argue here [the most common interpretation] that precisely our free and beautifully innocent nature is that which, by the creation of civilization and society [when the free humans come together], corrupts our free state in nature [Rousseauian perspective]. On the other hand, Kant can be understood to mean that already in the state of nature, Man is on the verge of conflict; it is just waiting for a spark to ignite. Our state of nature is already a condition for war ["ever ready to break out"], not merely the development out of nature [unto unnature]. Additionally, for Kant, this [our free state of nature which leads to conflict or has a conflictual nature] is the teleological path on which nature has—in all its might and justice—developed. It has been nature's plan all along to be in a condition of open war. Thus, for these reasons, peace must be established to end all conflict, or as Kant puts it, "shelter against all hostility" [footnote (Section II, p.10)]. Though for Kant, it is not adequate to merely stage a world in which no hostility is committed; neighbors must acknowledge and guarantee the condition of no hostility to each other. Only in agreement, a state of legislation [Section II, p.11], can there be that which can be called perpetual or lasting peace. Reiterated and rephrased: perpetual peace must be established.
Shall we approach the text itself - soon, but not just yet; firstly, a short introduction on the origin of the concept of perpetual peace and a definition of the term is required. Early Enlightenment thinker Saint-Pierre has often been cited as the origin of "perpetual peace." He had visionary influence and insight on politics and political theory. He was the first to propose the theory of an international organization to maintain peace, a so-called European federation [J]. Projet pour rendre la Paix perpétuelle en Europe, Saint-Pierre's masterwork, is the start of this immense and vast European tradition of writing on the possibility of lasting peace and Eurocentric unity among countries. Saint-Pierre’s work would prompt Rousseau to write a critique, A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe and The State of War, on the concept that a federation would decrease the likelihood of war [F]. Kant's 1795 piece would also be heavily influenced by Saint-Pierre, and Kant would propose an alternative sort of international organization. In 1800, Fichte continued Kant's path with The Closed Commercial State, a successor of Kant's Perpetual Peace.
"Perpetual peace," or as I will often call it, "universal peace" or "[ever]lasting peace," is the concept of a world where war would not be plausible nor beneficial, and peace would be the driving force and nature. For context, I will refer to Kant's theory as "perpetual peace" to be mindful. Furthermore, Kant's later works are closely tied to key concepts defined in earlier works; some important ones to be aware of here are the Good Will, universality, cosmopolitanism ("universal history"), and universal hospitality. Additionally, in Perpetual Peace, Kant assumes his previous linkings of reason with freedom, and freedom with morality, mainly found in his explanation and reasoning towards a "republican" constitution (see Section II, Definitive Article I)—[which in itself is presumed from the legacy of the three critiques and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals]—it is also clear that Kant has a profound understanding of the contemporary political thought of his time.
Lastly, before diving into this vast concept, oh so beautiful, I have to share a beautiful passage: Rousseau's first paragraph of A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe on Saint-Pierre's admirable theory for peace.
Never did the mind of man conceive a scheme nobler, more beautiful, or more useful than that of a lasting peace between all the peoples of Europe. Never did a writer better deserve a respectful hearing than he who suggests means for putting that scheme in practice. [...]
Rousseau held Saint-Pierre's profound "noble scheme" in the highest regard. The nobleness of Saint-Pierre's attempt can be agreed upon by all rational beings. (Likewise, we could imagine how Rousseau might have reacted to Kant's project in a timeless world).
[...] What man, if he has a spark of goodness, but must feel his heart glow within him at so fair a prospect? Who would not prefer the illusions of a generous spirit, which overleaps all obstacles, to that dry, repulsive reason whose indifference to the welfare of mankind is ever the chief obstacle to all schemes for its attainment?
This could be dwelt deeper into, viewed as a critique of the Hobbesian nature of Man. Ironically, it is just as much a critique of Kantian "coldness." But it is just as well a question of utmost importance for our inquiry on perpetual peace, namely, whether universal peace [and the methods of implementing it] is an inexplicably beautiful gesture of goodness, which is, by all accounts, attainable, or whether it is simply a noble but illusionary view, a misunderstanding of human nature, and unfortunately unattainable.
Finally,
Now, I will present Kant's perpetual peace. Afterward, I will apply it to our previous discussion [on the nature of Man and conflict], additionally looking at the concept of universal peace from 21st-century eyes.
In Essays on Perpetual Peace, the editors James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann describe in the introduction that in Perpetual Peace, Kant gives the ironically two ways of reaching lasting peace [the original reference: Kant, "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch," in Kant's political writings, ed. H. Reiss (Cambridge University Press), p.105] - which we will discuss in this essay.
In 1795, Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest minds ever to grace Earth, published his work on peace, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf, an essay on the means that would lead to everlasting peace. A political piece meant to show the possibility of implementing a "universal," the so-called "perpetual peace." The "philosophical sketch" part in the proper title suggests Kant found the idea more as a theory than practical; regardless, we shall dive deeper. Kant presents six "preliminary articles," principles that will lead to perpetual peace and for it to not be worthwhile to wage war anymore. Let's look at them one by one.
"No treaty of peace shall be esteemed valid on which is tacitly reserved matter for a future war" - Kant comments on this being what we call a truce. Yet, perpetual peace is more elaborate, for there cannot be any pretext on which one would renew a war, the so-called "future war." Thus, the first principle has been laid as the groundwork for universal peace. Of this, we have unfortunately plenty of examples in the shift from the 20th to 21st century. In the Balkans, we saw it with Yugoslavia and Josip Tito, where people lived in a condition of a mere grasp of naivety, in a veil awaiting the growing hatred of one another, a foolish agreement to supposedly bury the hatchet after the tormenting world wars ─ all relying on the unstable thought of a popular "people's" ruler, legendary Tito. And what did it lead to? Furthermore, we have more recent examples in the Middle East, with rulers such as Saddam Hussein and the Assads (father and son) clinging to power with radical and authoritarian methods, that is, by any means necessary. In addition to that, there follows a creation of space for radicalization, allowing hardcore Islamists and fanatics to seize power within the country, bringing on conflict once more, now in a new dimension called civil war. And dare I speak about the Americans? What did the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror really teach us? Not that some countries cannot be “democratized” (a favorite justification for neo-liberal pro-NATO apologetics), but rather that you cannot (or rarely can) successfully impose your ideology on others. In addition, this further engulfs into an additional war, with forceful exertion and imposition, consequently leading to not merely conflict among the Syrians and Iraqis themselves, but also a resistance, a War on the West. As Rousseau put it perfectly (as presented in Part II), the resistance meets the enforcer with the same weapons by which she was shackled in the first place, namely force.
Another prime example of this façade, a veil called "peace" (or another name) hiding the intentions for a future war, was the Iranian revolution. First proclaimed as the liberation of the Persian people and Shia Muslims, it was a revolution in the name of abolishing Anglo-American totalitarian and oppressive rule, which eventually turned into the very same thing it supposedly swore to fight against, thus only differing by name. As with countless other examples, as said [they only differ by name], everything is simple yet simultaneously a sophisticated masterpiece of deception; it smells of change, peace, and goodness, but it tastes as everything has done before, like that bitterly rotten fruit. Perhaps, once more, we must concede that conflict is unavoidably natural.
To conclude, whether it be the popular leader (often also authoritarian) like Tito and Stalin, or the Hobbesian-esque authoritarians (holding onto peace with merely the fear of death found in people), like Hussein, Khomeini, and Assad(s), both are alike in dragging on the inevitable, both embracing furthermore the precondition to war. Be the precondition the ruler himself, soaked and greedy in power and desiring even more power (that is, desires to wage war himself, sees it as beneficial), or in the society and that which the ruler and state attempt to desperately hide, viz., the raging conflict only ceasing momentarily as long as the veil of peace remains. And dare I even speak about how this could be used to attack democracy…naturally, someone must always control the yoke, power is contagious, and once this position is achieved it is hardly conceivable that one would give it away.
"Any state, of whatever extent, shall never pass under the dominion of another state, whether by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation" - States cannot be permitted to usurp one another, including other measures than war. Thus, abolishing the most common reason for waging war, expansionism. No royal marriages (cousins marrying each other), prestige lineages (Habsburgs), or personal unions all over Europe. States are not to be bargained with; they are entirely independent enterprises. The second article also forbids the use of another state's soil to transfer or store troops if they do not share a common enemy.
"Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished" - Here, Kant lists two significant reasons why "standing armies" obstruct the formation of peace. Firstly, they always provide a solution for disputes and a method for states to wage war. Secondly, standing armies bring forth rivalship, an arms race with the goal of who can bolster the largest killing machine. - Additionally, Kant finds it utmost troublesome that by killing or by being killed, you get paid, and you serve as an "instrument" or a "machine" in the hands of another, completely contradicting our nature as free rational beings. In the same way, "treasure" serves just like a "standing army" as a method to wage war, the ability to purchase weapons, ammunition, and even a whole mercenary army.
"National debts shall not be contracted with a view of maintaining the interests of the state abroad" - To be able to take someone else's debt, to give a "favor", that is, have another state owe you, to be indebted to you, cannot be allowed. For Kant, this is a "dangerous political engine," a treasure to wage war. This would also lead to prolonged conflicts if other states were allowed to support a war-waging bankrupt state. Kant continues: "This facility of carrying on war, united with the natural inclination men have for it as soon as they possess the power, is an invincible obstacle to a perpetual peace." So, the abolition of any system of funding of another state, be it in war or the precondition leading up to war, is required as a preliminary article for perpetual peace. We can also understand, from the quote, that Kant views that we humans are inclined to war once we possess power. There is an undeniable relationship between power and conflict, or perhaps power merely refers to "the methods to wage war."
"No state shall by force interfere with either the 'constitution or government of another state'"- The fifth preliminary article asserts (very much tied with article 4) that states cannot be allowed to interfere with other state's autonomy and independence, in article 5 now with the emphasis on political, governing and judicial spheres, in contrast to article fours against economical influence. Kant adds that in a state of anarchy, a country embroiled in civil war, interference cannot be rendered as influencing the "government" as no such thing exists; thus, in such conditions, lending assistance to one side is not forbidden - but as long as a country remains internally not in condition of civil war, including a period preluding to internal conflict [the precondition of civil war] it is strictly forbidden and an offense endangering the independence of all autonomous states.
"A state shall not, during war, admit of hostilities of a nature that would render reciprocal confidence in subsequent peace impossible: such as employing of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), violation of capitulations, secret instigation to rebellion (perduellio),&c." - Lastly, perhaps the most important one of them all, Kant sees that there must be some confidence or trust in other states, even when waging war against them, or even simply a belief, otherwise reaching peace would be impossible. (Unbeknownst to Kant, an unrealized resilience against peace would be proven in the following centuries, mainly the savageness and unwillingness to surrender, bring peace, by Nazi Germany, Japan, (and even Great Britain), that a change of government was necessary (most notably with Imperial Japan). Kant includes methods such as assassination and supporting rebellions in other states as condemning and contradicting a way to peace. Such methods in war cannot be allowed, just as well outside of war, for these ruthless methods do not cease with the end of the war; assassinations, spies, and co., are far too convenient and are among the methods leading to war; thus, only a complete ban is an acceptable requisite to perpetual peace. Here Kant expresses profoundly, and surprisingly (non-Kantian) manner, beautifully (in a horrifying sense):
"A war, ad itnernæcionem, therefore, which might cause the destruction of both parties at once, together with the annihilation of every right, would permit the conclusion of a perpetual peace only upon the vast burial-ground of the human species." [Section I,p.7-8]
Kant refers here back to a state in which there is no confidence between enemies; such a condition would lead to bellum internecinum, a war of extermination, possibly the "destruction of both parties at once." Then, perpetual peace would only be achieved at the sight of every human being buried in the graveyard of Earth. Thus, we have arrived [ironically] at the first way humanity can find peace, namely, in the destruction of humanity; not very optimistic, eh?
In the same passage comes Kant's definition of war:
"[...]war in fact is but the sad resource employed in a state of nature in defence of rights." [Section I, p.7]
Concluding Section I, Kant defines the importance of the preliminary articles, the so-called "prohibitory laws," of which numbers 1, 5, and 6 demand absolute execution. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are less rigorous and can include exceptions and subjective observance of importance in our current state while remembering that these laws are part of the path to our desired end of reaching perpetual peace.
In Section II, Kant states the three definitive articles and the practical implementations required to achieve perpetual peace. A "definitive article" is not sufficient single-handedly; all three of the definitive articles and the laws of the preliminary articles are requisite to establish perpetual peace. This is the densest part of Perpetual Peace, but for our inquiry, let's settle to analyze only the meaning of the definitive articles, one by one:
(I) the constitution of every state ought to be republican;
republican, not democratic*
representative governments, with separate legislative, executive, and judicial bodies
Kant states that a republican constitution follows three principles, uniquely, which makes it compatible [with the nobly desired perpetual peace], namely, (I) with the qualities men possess (most likely, as free rational beings) liberty of all members of the society can be found, (II) as subjects everyone submits to one common legislation to all, (III) and as members of the state all share the right to equality (yes, you just heard Kant mention the "forbidden" egalitarian word).
The constitution must be republican, for Kant sees it as the only constitution in which every subject is a citizen of the state (very similar to our modern concept of representative democracy, yet different, see previous footnote). Thus, in a republican constitution, every citizen is necessarily part of deciding whether the state shall or shall not declare war. By reason, one can derive that not under any circumstances will waging war beneficiate the citizens, as Kant describes: "to decree war, would be to the citizens to decree against themselves." To bring the calamity and horror of war upon oneself would be to dig the grave of Mankind proudly in stupidity. On the contrary, in a non-republican constitution, war would be an easy method to resort to; a dictator would only need to snap his fingers, and the general would at once pounce at the opportunity of bombarding humanity into oblivion, and who would be there left to shout genocide? Oh, for God's sake...even a Middle Eastern democracy can evade the law and any regard for human life.
Besides the republican constitution's "purity of origin," it can also bring forth perpetual peace ("the happiest effect"). Kant asserts that a "republic" is:
"[...] a government which in its nature inclines to a perpetual peace" — Section II, p.21
(II) public right ought to be founded on a federation of free states;
federation of independent states — not one unified state, "world government", for such have the condition which leads to tyranny
partly Eurocentric (unsurprisingly)
The paradoxical-sounding theory here is that sovereign and (republican) constituted states shall form a federation of states without hampering their independence or creating one single state of states. "A pacific alliance," a defense pact, would be formed between the states belonging to the federation. Thus, this alliance would tend "solely to the certain maintenance of the liberty of each particular state." Kant believes that such a federation can be extended to contain every state:
It can be proved, that the idea of a federation, which should insensibly extend to all states, and thus lead them to a perpetual peace, may be realized. — Section II, p. 21
Other states would adhere to the federation, namely, become republican and part of the federation, for they value their perseverance and liberty, following the principle of public right; a dictator wants to maintain his rule and thus agrees reluctantly that his people benefit from partaking in the federation, a democracy more willingly desires to remain in peace (though Kant might disagree with this notion, being oh-so anti-democratic). In addition, in the above quote, Kant disagrees with Rousseau that perpetual peace cannot be realized, for it can be (that is, society does not necessarily corrupt the brilliance of the man naturalis). Though, such realization requires the enlightening of people, a realization of cosmopolitan rights, renouncing one's anarchic liberty as savages [in the state of nature, and of war], realizing our shared history, and the ideal of the republic (that sounds accidentally so Platonic). Thus, perpetual peace remains hindered and highly contingent, thankfully only because of the reluctance and ignorance of Mankind.
"That a people should say, "There shall not be war among us: we will form ourselves into a state; that is to say, we will ourselves establish a legislative, executive, and judiciary power, to decide our differences," —can be conceived." — Section II, p. 22
(III) cosmopolitical rights ought to be limited to universal hospitality;
cosmopolitan right/law = As humans are free, equal, rational beings, we must come to understand each other as equals and part of a universal community, thus we have ius cosmopoliticum — the rights of the citizens of the world
universal hospitality = right to travel freely and be welcomed to foreign territory, on the contingent that you act as a peaceful and respectful guest
Kant summarizes the third definitive article perfectly in the first sentence:
"[...] it is a question of right, not of philanthropy." — Section II, p. 23
And continues to explain universal hospitality:
"Hospitality there signifies solely the right every stranger has of not being treated as an enemy in the country in which he arrives." — Section II, p. 23-24
No hostility can be permitted against a citizen of the universal republic, the "federation." The right to be admitted into other states within the universal republic, according to Kant stems from: "the common possession of the surface of the earth" (sounding very similar to Rousseau, as observed in Part II of this blog series). This sort of free passage and admittance between states can be seen in our modern age, for example, in the Schengen area in Europe.
Thus, Kant's notion of perpetual peace has been established.
III. The remedies and possibility of Kantian perpetual peace. And a critique of its universality.
Kant's primary political work, Perpetual Peace, is both a new contribution and a continuation of a vast tradition of political and philosophical writings on universal peace and the possibility of a federation of states. Many of Kant's ideas can be found today: federal elements in the European Union, universal hospitality within the Schengen area, and the articles can be seen in international conventions and treaties on the treatment of war, and in the principles of the United Nations. Kant has a striking legacy in political thought, even though his main fields are often said to be ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Despite the significance of Kantian political thought, it must come under the spotlight in a twofold critique. Firstly, is perpetual peace truly as realizable as Kant made it out to be? A deeper look into the validity of the definitive articles is required. Secondly, and probably inseparable from the first critique (yes, irony at its best), the most common objection to Kantian perpetual peace is to criticize its fundamental proponent of universality, which seems to have elements of Eurocentrism, racism, and elitism. That is, is Kantian political philosophy truly universal?
Firstly, are we truly more peaceful than in 1795? Maybe, maybe not. In hindsight of two World Wars, dozens upon dozens of civil wars, and disastrous and unnecessary disputes, with an evermore evolving military technology and industry [Man keeps making sure it is even easier to wipe each other out of existence], it would not be entirely wrong to proclaim that we are in much closer proximity to conflict than ever before. Oh, I pronounce: "Long live and missed be the days of the caveman." And one thing I am most definitely certain about is that we are not floating today in a state of perpetual peace. Maybe you are in [a condition of perpetual peace] in your imaginary neo-libertarian Western hallucination, but I, for one, am absolutely, absolutely fucking not. We are on a path of grave danger! The foremost issue with Kant's perpetual peace is that it relies on the optimistic belief in humanity's goodness. (I swear I am not purposefully being pessimistic here). Somehow we are back at the question of human nature. And even if Kant does not necessarily rely on human nature as good, at the very least there is a belief in the possibility of goodness, that is to say, we humans can develop our goodness and dutiful nature as free rational human beings that we are, which may, possibly, lead to the true values of equality and cosmopolitan rights. Here, I would not even attack or attempt to criticize Kant's belief in the development of humanity or what human nature is but rather strike at the heart of it all, the presumable infallible human. Does the human being truly desire peace? Does the human being truly desire to change? Do we possess the capability of being peaceful? Or is our very nature unchanging, one of avoiding peace at all costs?
Secondly, I will present and discuss the most common objections to Kant's perpetual peace and republican federation of states, namely, on its universal not being universal, but rather eurocentric, racist, inegalitarian, and even elitist.
It is inexplicably and undoubtedly true that until the value of man against man is indubitably equal, there cannot be peace, dare say, perpetual peace. To hold the value of one man over another is a conflictual nature. It could be said that war is inequality. Like the philosophers hitherto presented, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant, until the prerequisite of conflict is ridden; until man is stripped of his palace and marble; until man is made to realize his equal and naked nature and his equality in front of the judgment of God, perpetual peace remains a far-fetched dream.
Bob Marley's famous protest song War fits perfectly with our theme. It was almost entirely composed of the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie's speech to the U.N. on October 4th, 1963. In the speech, Selassie pleaded for all countries to disarm nuclear weapons and capability, to end all exploitation (worldwide, and most notably in Africa), and called for immediate action against racial inequality and international injustice.
Surely, this is one of the most beautiful and brutally honest examples of lyrical brilliance (and speeches at the UN), which unfortunately is not often realized until a closer look. The opening lines shed tears and a distasteful realization:
Until the philosophy which hold one race Superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned Everywhere is war, me say war.
That is war. Furthermore:
That until there are no longer first class
and second class citizens af any nation
Until the color of a man's skin
is of no more significance than the color of his eyes
Me say war.
On race.
That until the basic human rights are equally
guaranteed to all, without regard to race
A dis a war.
Equality.
Here comes the part most obviously tied to Kantian perpetual peace:
That until that day the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship rule of international morality will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained Now everywhere is war, war.
And finally on the African struggle:
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique, South Africa sub-human bondage have been toppled, utterly destroyed Well, everywhere is war, me say war.
War in the east, war in the west
war up north, war down south
war, war, rumours of war.
Ever-glowing Kantian optimism...
And until that day, the African continent will not know peace, we Africans will fight we find it necessary and we know we shall win as we are confident in the victory.
...of morality...
Of good over evil, good over evil, good over evil Good over evil, good over evil, good ever evil.
I dare to state that Kant can be fairly easily forgiven on the account of being Eurocentric, after all, we are talking about a man who never left his hometown of Königsberg. What cannot be disregarded is Kant's view on race and women, for it completely contradicts the universal sentiment of perpetual peace. To be noted, Kant has dropped all racist remarks in Perpetual Peace, that is, in his political masterpiece perpetual peace and human nature are presented as universal and equal with no buyouts. Kant's position has shifted in opposition to colonization and goes as far as to idolize Bedouin Arab's barbaric counters with Europeans:
Bedouin Arabs exercise of pillaging all those who approach their wandering tribes; all these customs then are contrary to the right of nature, which, nevertheless, in ordaining hospitality, was contented with fixing the conditions on which one may endeavour to form connections with the inhabitants of a country. In this manner distant regions may contract amicable relations with each other, sanctioned in the end by public laws, and thus insensibly mankind may approach towards a cosmopolitical constitution.
Kant goes on to disapprove of colonialism:
At how great a distance from this perfection are the civilized nations, and especially the commercial nations of Europe? At what an excess of injustice do we not behold them arrive, when they discover strange countries and nations? (which with them is the same thing as to conquer). America, the countries inhabited by the negroes, the Spice Islands, the Cape, &c. were to them countries without proprietors, for the inhabitants they counted as nothing.
But then again [these supposedly noble sentiments] are coming from the same man who quoted French naturalist Buffon while presenting his view on race in Physical Geography:
“Humanity have achieved its greatest perfection in the white race. The yellow Indians already have lesser talent. The Negroes stand far lower, and the peoples of America are lowest.”
So, the contemporary dialogue is whether or not Kant's past remarks on race in his anthropological, ethical, and other treatises deter and define his conception of humanity in perpetual peace. Thus, two opposing theories may be presented. On one hand, Kant was and still is a racist, and his later political theories are inevitably bound to his prior works, including his conception of race and inequality. Perhaps for his new "universal" and "cosmopolitan" purpose, Kant has simply avoided racial claims in Perpetual Peace. On the other hand, maybe there was a change in Kant's thought; maybe he truly moved beyond his racial views and developed an equal and universal view of mankind, however dubious that might sound. The question then raised is whether or not Kant's political philosophy and theory are tainted by his prior racist ventures in anthropology.
Pauline Kleingeld provides evidence to the contrary [evidence of the second theory] in her paper Kant's Second Thoughts on Race. Kleingeld claims that, unlike other German cosmopolitanism, in Kant's moral cosmopolitanism, elitism is not a necessary element (that there are morally higher human beings who know what is and what is not cosmopolitan-morally right).
...[Kant] defends a version of moral cosmopolitanism according to which all humans are regarded as "citizens" of a moral community, as "citizen[s] of a supersensible world. — Kleingeld, Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany, p. 5 (509)
The strongest defense for Kant would be his definition and account of Man and person. To that category belongs anyone endowed with reason, not merely whites. For Kant to be a human being, is to be a rational being. Thus, a necessary distinction must be understood. Kleingeld presents it in the following way:
There is a genuine contradiction between, on the one hand, Kant's stated universalist moral principles, which are formulated as applying equally to all humans (and even to all rational beings), and, on the other hand, his specific views on racial hierarchy and the various alleged deficiencies on the part of non-whites. — Kleingeld, Kant's Second Thoughts on Race
That is, as Kleingeld calls it, Kant is an "inconsistent universalist". Kleingeld presents that for no known reason, Kant drops all mentions of racial hierarchy in his 1790s publications. He develops a more egalitarian view of the human race, all non-whites share the same juridical status and Kant reverses his defense of slavery. Although, Kleingeld notes with a footnote:
This is not to imply that Kant became more egalitarian in all respects. His views on women, for example, did not undergo a similar developmemt.[U]
In Kant's changed view, with the law of first possession, natives have the right to their land, and any "conquering" or territorial gain by Europeans requires the natives' consent. In Kant's notes on Perpetual Peace, he condemns the slave trade as a vile disregard and violation of the cosmopolitan rights of blacks [their rights as free rational beings], against their freedom.
Kant summarizes his critique further (notes for Perpetual Peace):
The principles underlying the supposed lawfulness of appropriating newly discovered and purportedly barbaric or irreligious lands, as goods belonging to no one, without the consent of the inhabitants and even subjugating them as well, are absolutely contrary to cosmopolitan right.
In Perpetual Peace, Kant views slavery on sugar islands as most cruel, and notably as to have no true purpose or benefit:
The worst, or to speak with the moralist, the best of the matter is, that all these outrages are to no purpose; that all the commercial companies, guilty of them, touch upon the instant of their ruin; that the sugar islands, that den of slavery the most refined and cruel, produce no real revenue, and are profitable only indirectly, serving views not very laudable, namely, to form sailors for the navies, consequently to carry on war in Europe; which service they render to powers who boast the most of piety, and who, whilst they drink iniquity like water, pretend to equal the elect in point of orthodoxy. — PP, p. 26
Whatever view you may have on Kantian universalism, I will refrain from taking a final position on the matter; however, there is a remark I will introduce. If you are unable to separate the intellectual from the personal, dare I say, if we [all] are incapable, what truly separates a man from a wooden tool or a giraffe?
So, Kant was [partly] right; unfortunately, it can be said that we have both attempted to and actually realized (actualizing) perpetual peace — but a slight hesitance stops us at the crossroads — for which definition of perpetual peace must we be talking of here? With the hindsight of two world wars, a cold war spanning more than five decades, constant never-ending disputes and conflicts, and civil wars properly articulated as proximity wars of the major global or regional powers, today conflict is ever more prominent between Russia and Ukraine, between Hamas and Israel, growing tensions in Myanmar, in Guyana—one would have to be a blind optimist and mistaken not to shout here: "we are shaping the graveyard of Mankind, of Earth." Hereafter, pronounce jubilantly as a Neo-Kantian (with a slight inclination towards sadness): "Can't be right, Kant was right." And again we arrive at the Rousseauian sentiment, of which Kant agrees on the first notion, [when Man mistook the fruits of Earth to belong to himself] and today Kant would certainly have to concede to the second part: [... and Earth itself to be made for Mankind, there was no going back.] Thus far, this remains our most precise understanding of the origin of Conflict; it pains us to say: "Maybe, it is in our blood." Or as Kant described it perfectly, "ever ready to break out". Fortunately, peace remains valid, a utopian dream certainly, but potentially potential...
IV. Concluding, the intertwining of love and perpetual peace
Firstly, I presented a possible explanation for conflict, namely, love. Secondly, we delved into the vast ocean of Kantian political thought and arrived at the notion of realizing perpetual peace, mainly by realizing three points: (I) the necessity of a republican constitution, from which (II) a federation encompassing all independent republican states (eventually consisting of all states in our world) could establish a universal republic, but only to (III) grant universal hospitality, not to create "one state." Finally, the possibility of perpetual peace saves our souls. But (at least) one question remains: can perpetual peace be achieved? And now, we are not merely inquiring from the Kantian perspective. In our world, evermore embroiled in savage and pointless conflicts, disputes, and wars — is there an escape — and will this path ever be provided for now-existing mankind? Who will remain, mankind — or mankind's persistence to wipe itself out of existence?
Yet again, I ponder whether I can bring myself to answer this task of impossibility. Once again, I will adhere to the story of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Remember, the magnificent politician and leader, embracing the Pax Romana principle of peace and unity. As well as being the famous Stoa philosopher. Uncomparably successful during his reign, his legacy was smothered by one decision, and thus with his death Pax Romana was at its end. The costly decision was none other than appointing his son Commodus as his successor. Commodus, reckless, foolish, incompetent, young, neurotic, egoistic, and a complete outsider, went against his father's successful and peaceful rule. He reversed Aurelius' decision to pardon the rebels (who had previously instigated civil unrest), he hunted and murdered them. In no time the once peacefully striving Roman Empire was once more on the brink of civil war, a game of thrones, where only one could reign supreme, and the consequences for all else, and the people of Rome, were suffering and death.
Similarly, our peaceful desire can be reversed by one single act or clown. And once more, we are embroiled in perpetual conflict. Can we believe in the next generation to hold up their part of the deal? Yet, there is love—but what is love other than a sacrifice into the darkness of some foolish faith in life, humanity, or God... a desperate leap into the unknown? As such, love is the determinant, the un-Kantian hope for a remedy and realization of perpetual peace.
V. Concluding Remarks
I have to confess, as you probably have observed thus far, I have not gotten to elaborate on the Nietzschean eternal recurrence as part of War, Conflict, and Bloodshed; unfortunately, that will remain the case, but not for an eternal present, namely, I am pleased to inform you that War, Conflict, and Bloodshed will be returning for two additional parts:
War, Conflict, and Bloodshed — Part IV: Masters of War — Marx, Freud, Jung...
War, Conflict, and Bloodshed — Part V: Transcending our Realm: Stoa, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard
I will provide you with a little preview into parts iv and v of War, Conflict and Bloodshed:
One of the most beautiful quotes from despair itself:
“The bird keeps silent and suffers. However much heartache it has, it keeps silent. It does not complain; it accuses no one; it sighs only to fall silent again. The bird is not free from suffering, but the silent bird frees itself from what makes the suffering more burdensome: from the misunderstood sympathy of others; frees itself from what makes the suffering last longer: from all the talk of suffering; frees itself from what makes the suffering into something worse than suffering: from the sin of impatience and sadness.” ―Søren Kierkegaard, The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air: Three Godly Discourses
Yes, you heard it right, I will be back for two more parts. Hopefully, you do not have to wait an eternity. My sincerest wishes.
In the meantime, do remember, Act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only.
Peace,
O.K
Footnotes
[l] Amelie Rosengren. History of Omnia Vincit Amor: Love in Ancient Rome. https://latinitium.com/omnia-vincit-amor-love-in-ancient-rome/
[L] both Mankind, but moreover men (blinded by love)
[J] Potential exceptions: Poděbrady's Tractatus (1462–1464) and Émeric Crucé.
[F] Though, Rousseau's critique could also be read as merely a cautious view regarding whether a European federation could be successfully implemented, not as a critique against the idea.
[K] perhaps a bit exaggerated
[Z] Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch; https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/kant92280-002/html
* I will refrain from analyzing Kant's four-page (Section II, p. 14-17) critique on democracy (being a despotic form of governance) and why even an autocracy is a far better form of sovereignty as its nature is representative governance (a dictator can be a servant of the state, thus the servant of the people). In summary, for Kant Republicanism is simply a state with separate executive (the government) and legislative bodies. According to Kant, this is not to be found in democracy. In a democratic state elected jurors (politicians) may decide against those who differ, thus, the democratically elected no longer serve the will of all, which is in the first place the pillar of liberty. So, Kant dissolves democracy by accusing it of contradicting its very founding principle.
[S]Haile Selassie I, full UN 1963 speech, timestamp: 09.15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDscnpF4RsI
[U] Unsurprisingly.
Further reading:
Comentários