UNIVERSAL HISTORY
Achieving Perfection within the Horizon of Cosmopolitanism
by Priyasha Kushwaha (2012CH10106)
ABSTRACT
“Universal history”, as a Kantian concept, arises from the fusion of philosophy with history. This treatise explores Kant’s essay, “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View”. Analysis of this essay leads to a hope that history, when studied in its entirety, reveals Nature’s intentions for man; and all human actions confirm to Nature’s intention of achieving perfection within the horizon of cosmopolitanism.
INTRODUCTION
Asserting universal meaning to the entirety of human history, instead of being limited to one historical phenomenon is known as “universal history”. Historical events, when studied
…show more content…
As Kant proposes in his Fifth Thesis, this social state can thrive only when freedom of individual is consistent with that of society. This freedom of will would lead to antagonism and mutual opposition, which would determine the exact limitations to the freedom, so that individual freedom does not oppose social freedom. This perfectly just civic constitution would therefore combine the utmost possible freedom along with mutually accepted rigorous boundaries of this freedom. However, according to Kant’s Sixth …show more content…
Cosmopolitanism as history’s final end becomes figured as precisely what must be desired, worked toward, and ultimately hoped for in order for the development of humanity to attain its perfection.
When natural histories of all generations, civic constitutions, laws, relations with other states, development of art and science are added, they seem capable of justifying the actions of human species and confirming them to the fact that Nature has an underlying purpose for everything it creates. Thus, the “idea” of universal history may not be concrete and it may not be able to explain all the complex internal workings planned by Nature, but it may still serve as a guiding thread.
Nature does not reveal its plan explicitly. However, studies made throughout the generations suggest a guiding thread which leads to the conclusion that Nature has planned a great revolution for man- the ultimate end being the attainment of a
Kant’s notion of freedom connects to morality, which displays contrast between duty and inclination, explaining how only the motive of duty, doing the right thing for the right reason, confers moral worth of an action. Kant believes that everything in nature, including humans, “works in accordance with laws,” that all actions must be appointed by law, The formula of universal law that basically states how you should treat humanity as an end rather than as a means. He says we should only act upon the maxim, a principle that gives a reason for action, without contradiction. Davis claims that law is not always reliable when insuring justice; moreover, Kant can support
Due to the invention of modern technology, America has become the melting pot of different cultures and it shows most people are open to becoming cosmopolitan. The invention of technology have given society the ability to communicate with each other from all over the world. Americans have not fully embraced the idea of mutually agreeing about a topic through conversation alone because not every generation of people can see eye to eye. For example, the millennials and the Baby Boomers have two different perspectives on life because of their upbringing and many other factors. There is no peaceful mutual agreement between topics such as abortion, gay marriage or police brutality between the generations.
Appiah’s mechanically effective assertion contrasts with the content of argument, and its flawed foundation. Of the many ideas that Appiah presents to discuss his idea of Cosmopolitanism, one of the main premises on he bases his argument is that “we must care for the fate of all human beings, inside and outside our own societies” (87). This premise is based on the erroneous assumption that all humans have the same regard for others, and the daily world tragedies caused by human hands, things such as school shootings, terrorism, kidnappings, homicide, etc., contradict this idea. Appiah then goes on to say, “It is the obligation of every human being to do his or her fair share in making sure that everybody gets what they are entitled to” (95).
Locke’s definition of liberty depends on whether the person is in the state of nature, in which people are “without subordination or subjection” (Locke 101) or if they have formed into a commonwealth, or whenever “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and resign it to the public” (Locke 137-38). In the Lockean state of nature, men have a “freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Locke 101). This freedom is still limited by what Locke refers to as the law of nature, or that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 102). He also defines the liberty of the state of nature as “not to be under any will or legislative authority of man” (Locke 109). In his form of commonwealth, there is more limited freedom, in which liberty is to “be under no legislative power, but that established, by the consent of the commonwealth” (Locke 110).
We try to conquer the nature, and we might get close to accomplish this goal. In the end, we are just setting the procedure for other people to follow and to enslave the next generation with our power. The Abolition of Man is a book that opens the different perspectives of different views of our
Darwin and Bacon (The Analysis of the Concurrences between Darwin and Bacon) The anomaly that is the Earth works in strange ways, while failing to balance on one foot all one has to do is place one finger on the wall and you are safe from crashing to the ground. This phenomenon seems to suggest that all things are connected; however there is a delicate balance to be maintained. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection proposes that there is a balance that allows for the life on Earth to maintain the equilibrium of evolution. On the other hand, Francis Bacon composed an idea of the levels of the mind called the four idols which obstructed the path for scientific reasoning and observation.
The differences in customs, religion, and basic moral and human ideology prevented the Native American and European cultures from sharing the common bond of human fellowship to serve as the basis and foundation for the growth and betterment of human civilization. Unfortunately, this is a trait seen by the human species that have led to the collective downfall of civilizations throughout time, and will repeat itself until the human perspective of its remarkably fortunate place in the universe is dramatically
2. The three main objections to answering Yali’s question are that by answering the question we justify dominance of other societies, glorify the Europeans, and imply that civilization is good and hunter-gatherer societies are bad. 3. A Eurocentric approach glorifies western Europeans. This approach tends to be centered on Europeans and interprets the world in their ways.
When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism. It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract.
Ava Wright Miss Stevens Honors English 10 Period 1 8 May 2023 Rich Histories and Cultural Legacies Creating a deeper understanding of history is like having a compass guiding us through uncharted waters of the present into the future. Just as a compass helps us navigate unknown terrain, knowledge of history can enable us to travel in the right direction and make adequate choices. The forces that have shaped our world and the decisions that have led us to the present are essential to understand. Researching the past and the different societies that constructed it is a vital tool that helps us make sense of the world. While analyzing world history, the focus should not only be on Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
In “The Birth and Death of Meaning” by Ernest Becker he is making an argument on the problems of man (Becker, 1971). Becker makes an argument on the reasons why people act the way that they do (1971). In chapter 10 Becker lists six of the common problems with humans (1971). The first question with the problem with humans is “what is the relation of man to nature?” (Becker, 1971, p. 114).
The Enlightenment was a time where people were beginning to find out that they could speak out against their oppressive leaders and bring to light many of the wrongdoings happening within the many institutions at the time. Two main philosophes who argued for the Enlightenment and its benefits to society in the 18th century were Immanuel Kant and Voltaire, also known as Francois Marie Arouet. These two prominent thinkers criticized the current social, political, and religious systems in place at the time. While both philosophers argue that the Enlightenment is essential to human growth, they both use different ideas and criticisms to prove their point. Both Kant and Voltaire argued that Enlightenment is important in mankind’s growth as a whole
The main point that Kant is trying to get across in this part of the reading that a good King allows freedom in the ways that people think and believe in different religions. Kant states “He [a good king] sees that there is no danger to his lawgiving in allowing his subjects to make public use of their reason and to publish their thoughts on a better formulation of his legislation” (6). Kant wants men to be able to speak freely and have the ability to criticize different views from their own instead of being fed what they are supposed to say and do. On pages four and five Kant says, “The touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself.” I believe
As the title suggest, the author’s essential concern has to do with the crisis of the European mind. The very first words of the text, “We later civilisations”, encapsulate this identity. First of all they show that a common identity, to a certain degree, is in fact conceived: that we, so strongly put at the beginning, is a statement, a word of inclusion, that relies on the following word for validation. Later declares that this common identity is deeply rooted in the past, “so ancient that we rarely go back so far”, giving to it historical authority. Lastly, civilisations is a clear proclamation of what that we, i.e. Europe, means, what it should be and what it is not living up to.
Giuseppe Mazzini and Mikhail Bakunin were born in the 19th century, 1805 and 1814 respectively. Mazzini, a politician, and Mikhail Bakunin, a philosopher, had different ideas, but they both seemed to agree with their different arguments, that cosmopolitanism, even though its arguments were ideal, they wouldn’t be able to put in practice in reality. The term cosmopolitanism comes from two different Greek words, kosmos which means “world” and polis, “city”. Thus, a cosmopolitan is a “citizen of the world”.