Kant's view of nature and its role is very different than what comes before, in my understanding of it. In the idea that nature is inherent in us as a species and is a driving force in how the human race is shaped throughout time. This deterministic, and almost predestined view of human history/future (we may not get to a state of peace or concord between nations on the first try, but eventually it will happen) seems strongly rooted in a Calvinistic or at least Protestant view of predestination.
Interestingly, he does not seem optimistic about the fact that eventually nations will learn to work together despite his reasoning that it must occur. I thought that there may be two reasons for this: (1) He believes that it will be so far in the future that there is no use for him to think about it as he won't be around anymore, nor would he have expected it to occur in a few hundred years; (2) Staying at a position of formal relations between nations and cooperation between them may be difficult and the moral aspects may not be easily maintained either.
One thing that struck me as being, as far as I am aware, relativity new thinking was the idea that the even the politics of one state should not be interfered with by others. Although this likely has its roots in ideas coming out of the Peace of Westphalia and ideas for sovereignty, the way it was stated and laid out also made it clear that Gene Roddenberry must have been in some ways a Kantian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment