He begins by discussing human nature and positing that man is an animal guided by reason. Man's animal instincts are led towards perfection by our very nature. Because we can reason we will see errors and correct them. One man cannot improve alone, it takes mankind as a whole to find perfection and this can only occur over time. Each generation building onto the reason and innovation of the generations before. "...it will require a long, perhaps incalculable series of generations, each passing on its enlightenment to the next, before the germs implanted by nature in our species can be developed to that degree which corresponds to nature's original intention."
Then he establishes what about human nature allows for such growth and enlightenment. He claims it comes from the inner struggle of man to be both a social animal and independent. Independence leads to wanting to have his own way but he must enter society then expecting confrontation and then is inclined to offer resistance and confrontation himself. "It is this very resistance which awakens all man's powers and induces him to overcome his tendency to laziness. Through the desire for honour, power or property, it drives him to seek status among his fellow, whom he cannot bear yet cannot bear to leave. Then the first true steps are taken from barbarism to culture, which in fact consists in the social worthiness of man." and it is through this confrontation and struggle man finds his true purpose and advances towards the greatness that nature intended.
"Nature should thus be thanked for fostering social incompatibility, enviously competitive vanity, and insatiable desires for possession or even power. Without these desires, all man's excellent natural capacities would never be roused to develop. Man wishes concord, but nature, knowing better what is good for his species, wishes discord."
Here is where it gets really interesting, the above is setting the stage for how man's nature affects politics and what the purpose of politics is to man. He posits that the best that man can be exists when man is in society.
"This purpose can be fulfilled only in a society which has not only the greatest freedom, and therefore a continual antagonism among its members, but also the most precise specification and preservation of the limits of this freedom in order that it can co-exist with the freedom of others. The highest task which nature has set for mankind must therefore be that of establishing a society in which freedom under external laws would be combined to the greatest possible extent with irresistible force, in other words of establishing a perfectly just civil constitution."
This level of restriction is required, for though he is "enamoured with unrestrained freedom" he must sacrifice some of his freedoms for the freedoms of others. Inside a good governmental structure man can interact in such a way as to enhance the purpose of nature. Pure freedom leads to destruction and imperfection but freedom within structure allows for growth.
Government is a form of master over a man, forcing structure into a creature otherwise anarchic in nature. "...man is an animal who needs a master..." for he will be "misled by his self-seeking animal inclinations into exempting himself from the law where he can. He thus requires a master to break his self-will and force him to obey a universally valid will under which everyone can be free."
It is a strange paradox of freedom under a master. What is freedom? I have read several definitions since beginning my degree from medieval and early modern sources but none seem to fit. What is freedom exactly? How is it best preserved?
Anyway, Kant continues and wonders where one may find such a master.
"Nowhere else but in the human species. But this master will also be an animal who needs a master. Thus while man may try as he will, it is hard to see how he can obtain for public justice a supreme authority which would itself be just, whether he seeks this authority in a single person or in a group of many persons selected for this purpose. Each one of them will always misuse his freedom if he does not have anyone above him to apply force to him as the laws should require it. Yet the highest authority has to be just in itself and yet also a man. This is therefore the most difficult of tasks, and a perfect solution is impossible."
True enough. No matter the justice and freedoms allowed from a system of laws there is no perfect leadership of any kind because man is flawed. A perfect solution cannot come from mankind. Yet we are all we have. We seek leadership to lessen our imperfections but no leader is perfect.
Kant continues then to describe nations as if they were individuals. Man as individuals has discovered that there needs to be order and law within a society. Kant says that it is only a matter of time before nations see also that they must have a law and order amongst themselves or chaos and war will reign. It is only through being united under a body of laws that nations will find peace.
"And in the present case, it is especially hard to be indifferent, for it appears that we might by our own rational projects accelerate the coming of this period which will be so welcome to our descendants."
How selfless a concept. It is our duty as rational creatures to do right and lay the groundwork for future generations. He said earlier it was kind of the past generations to build such a cannon of works for us so that we might have such a great civilization even though they did not. Because of the progression of nature Kant seems to argue that it is the duty of man now to utilize his rational mind and to search out solutions so that the future can be good. It is our duty to think ahead and do what we can so that mankind can fulfill the purpose nature has set.
Though what the end will truly look like he doesn't say, but then again, can we really know? Does nature have a goal? Does this view of man answer to reality? I'm not sure, but we in democratic society certainly maintain freedom under a master in a way. Is the master preserving our freedoms? Is the master accountable for its actions? Where is the master's master? Can we as citizens manage our masters? Does the average citizen even bother? Or are we so accustomed to the baser nature of man that we stopped questioning it?
(I hope you all enjoy my political ramblings, I probably should rename my blog since you are learning nothing about Yorkshire nor England)
[Kant, Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss, (Cambridge 2nd ed. 1991).]
No comments:
Post a Comment