.jpg)
According to Kant, there is little pattern in the behaviour of individuals because of our free will. However, when man is considered as a species, patterns appear and can be “recognised as a steadily progressing through slow development of its original predispositions […] proceeding unnoticed, as by a guiding thread, according to an aim of nature”. [2] He believes it is a job for the philosopher to attempt to find such an aim of nature.
Kant’s first proposition to this end is premised on how all animals have a purpose due to their “natural predispositions”. He asserts that the “teleological doctrine of nature” is valid since animal organs all have a useful function. Kant cautions that “if we depart from that principle, then we no longer have a lawful nature but a purposelessly playing nature; and desolate chance takes the place of the guideline of reason.”[3]
He next proposes that the goal of man’s natural predispositions is to use his capacity to reason, since we are the only animal to have that capacity. However, the complete development of this capacity will develop only at the species level and not at the individual level. This is because the capacity to reason requires practice and education to grow, which means individuals have to live inordinately long lives to develop their reason maximally. Even for the species, mankind would require many generations, each handing down its wisdom, to finally arrive at the complete development of man’s reason.[4]
The next four propositions deal with how man’s struggle with himself and others is a process of refinement. Kant posits that nature is frugal, and does not do the unnecessary. It has given man reason, with free will embedded in that reason. Hence, beyond the physical body granted to man by nature, man needs to create everything else, such as how to feed himself, provisions for safety and a satisfactory life including character traits such as an ability to share. Nature does not guarantee man a good life but leaves it to him, that through his labour he might become “worthy of well-being.”[5]
Man and Society
Part of this well-being is living in society. However, man is conflicted in his relations to others. “(Man’s) propensity to enter into society […] is combined with a thoroughgoing resistance that constantly threatens to break up this society,” because man also wants to retain his own individuality, writes Kant. This relation to his fellow men creates an “insatiable desire to possess or even to dominate.” Such competition, possibly unhealthy at a micro level becomes a source of progress at the societal level. Kant believes this is Nature’s design: “Nature knows better what is good for his species: it wills discord.”[6]
Kant explains that only in society can humanity reach its peak. Society needs to balance individual freedom with institutional power to develop a “just civil constitution.” Some coercion is necessary so that man can live in society with one another. An “antagonism” exists between men but Kant believes it is this tension and struggle that makes the individuals strong, the way trees in a wood need to compete for sunshine to “achieve a beautiful straight growth.” He attributes man’s cultural achievements to this competition: “All culture and art that adorn humanity, and the most beautiful social order, are the fruits of unsociability.”[7]
Because of man’s self-serving nature, Kant proposes that man needs a “master”, one that will compel him to obey laws so that everyone in society can live freely. However, this master must by necessity also be a human being, who will then be in need of a master, since any leader without someone higher to control his behaviour will run awry. This supreme authority will need the right understanding of principles of governance, and possess vast experience and a good nature. Kant believes the conjunction of all three requirements in a single person to be nigh impossible.[8]
From Societies to States
Having articulated his ideas on an individual and societal level, Kant moves on to how states co-exist with other states in his seventh and eight propositions. States also have an antagonism similar to human beings because states are composed of people. This leads to repeated cycles of arming for war, war and its resulting devastation. These cycles ultimately lead states to conclude that they should form a “federation” of countries, where nations big and small can have peace, not from their own might but from the unity of the federation. However, such federations can fail. The internal civil constitutions of the individual states then need to be modified, alongside agreements and laws with the other states, to create a commonwealth. Hence Kant sees war as “only so many attempts […] to bring about new relationships between states.”[9]
In all this, Kant sees a “hidden plan of nature” in the history of man towards such a “perfect state constitution” and “universal cosmopolitan condition,” where nature can then “fully develop all its predispositions in humanity.” In line with the development he has outlined, Kant’s ninth and final proposition speaks to how philosophers can hence create a “universal world history according to a plan of nature that aims at the perfect civil union of the human species.”[10]
Hope for Our Future
Kant’s vision for a universal history demonstrates his optimism and hope for mankind. Despite all the conflicts and setbacks at the individual, societal, national and federation levels, Kant sees these painful events as a process of refinement for our species, preparing us to achieve finally a state of perfection. However, when he published his essay in 1784, he could not have foreseen a world that would possess enough nuclear weapons to end human life on the planet, or in more optimistic scenarios return man to the proverbial stone age. Even if man remains sober enough not to trigger a nuclear conflict, our planet faces an even more imminent and pressing danger of climate change. In the near future, an increased frequency of natural disasters, famines, droughts and other humanitarian crises caused by climate change may exacerbate the competition for scarce resources needed for survival such as water, food and fuel. This struggle for vital resources compounded with the antagonism between states might be the trigger for devastating conflicts including nuclear war. Kant has written that the journey towards perfection will not be easy but he did not consider the case where mankind has wiped itself off the face of the earth before it could reach the pinnacle of perfection.
Not all hope is lost. Kant could still ultimately be proven right, if our ability to reason prevails. The common threats to the planet may yet unite mankind to create novel solutions to roll back the deleterious effects of global warming and to rehabilitate the environment by taking a more responsible and sustainable path in our consumption. If all else fails, the impending threat of extinction may accelerate our quest for new worlds to inhabit. Meanwhile, we should not rest on our laurels and take it for granted that the force of nature Kant posits will ultimately return us to a good and stable equilibrium. Instead, we as a species need to unite and confront the troubles facing humanity, and in that way, we might indeed reach the cosmopolitan aim that Kant envisions for mankind.
Bibliography
Kant, Immanuel. “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim.” In Anthropology, History and Education, edited by Günter Zöller and Robert B. Louden, translated by Allen W. Wood, 108–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1784) 2007.
[1] Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim,” in Anthropology, History and Education, ed. Günter Zöller and Robert B. Louden, trans. Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1784), 108–20.
[2] Ibid., 108.
[3] Ibid., 109.
[4] Ibid., 109-10.
[5] Ibid., 110-11.
[6] Ibid., 111-12.
[7] Ibid., 112-13.
[8] Ibid., 113-14.
[9] Ibid., 114.
[10] Ibid., 116-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment