Links Between East and West 39 Kant and Hegel 1 东西方的连接39 - 康德与黑格尔1

Today, the term “conflict” is often brought up in informal and formal conversations. Most people view conflicts as a negative occurrence in group interactions and have concluded that conflict is to be avoided. Additionally, most individuals do not ascribe any intrinsic value to conflicts. They are viewed as processes that only lead to bloodshed and degeneration of the current international order.

These views can be traced back to the momentous events of the twentieth century. From around 1945, when World War II ended, to 2021, nations were focused on the prevention of renewed conflict. The United Nations was formed because of World War II in 1945. Other international institutions and non-governmental organizations that aimed to maintain the hard-fought peace were formed as well. Just two or three years ago, the term “conflict,” in the sense of a large-scale war, seemed a distant idea in the developed regions of the globe. In the past seventy-plus years, humanity generally forestalled large-scale conflicts by making carefully considered choices. However, in late 2021, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin began amassing more than 150,000 troops at Ukraine’s border. The ensuing Russian-Ukrainian War that has lasted to the current day immediately brings the concept of “conflict” in the developed world back into discussion. More alarmingly, the prospect of World War III seems closer at hand than ever.

The Russian-Ukrainian War raises the question whether the modern world has been peaceful since the mid-twentieth century. Even if one looks around the globe today, beyond Ukraine, other countries are embroiled in conflict, one notable example being Yemen. The modern world is still intrinsically conflictual.

Historically, the subjects of political science and political philosophy have undertaken the task of interpreting human conflicts. In the Western tradition, since Plato and Aristotle, political scientists or philosophers have attempted to devise theories and models to explain the origins of conflicts, their nature, and the means to tackle them. In more recent history, two of the most significant political philosophers who contributed to the academic conversation about “conflict” were the two Germans Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Both philosophers were impacted by the revolutionary atmosphere of the European Enlightenment. Their understandings of conflict were based on observing history and closely examining human nature. The uniqueness and boldness of their thinking have made their conflict theories a heated topic of debate in academia. More importantly though, the two philosophers’ focus on observing history and human nature give theories great applicative purpose and value. One can attempt to utilize their ideas to think about conflicts throughout human history.  

Driven by this hope that Kant and Hegel might help navigate the sheer complexity of human conflict, this series of essays will aim to complete a thorough investigation of their conflict theories. By first examining the definition of conflict and the role it plays in the historical narratives of these philosophers, this series will demonstrate that both the Kantian and Hegelian views on conflict can help analyze the various causes, processes, and aftermaths of modern warfare. This essay will begin by looking at the definitions of "conflict."

The concept of “conflict” is, by its nature, a broad one. In the works of Kant and Hegel, both philosophers attempted to define the term to ensure that their explanations and reasonings were understandable and logical. However, while Kant and Hegel were formatively influenced by their German culture and belonged to the same group of political theorists during the Enlightenment, the defining characteristics of their conflict theories are quite different.

In the Kantian system, conflict is related to social antagonism, which can be attributed to traits of human nature. This social antagonism is quite like Thomas Hobbes’ notion that humans are naturally barbaric and pitted against each other. Kant recognizes Hobbes as a predecessor that seriously influenced his thinking, though he did not agree with many of Hobbes’ political theories. In the introduction to his Political Writings, he states decisively that “history can be interpreted only if we fully understand the conflict among men [as] man…is anti-social too”. This sentence suggests that conflict is tied to man’s anti-social nature, which prevails in society. Kant additionally argues that “wars, tense and unremitting military preparations, and the resultant distress which every state must eventually feel within itself” stem from the “inevitable antagonism” between large societies and states.

In Kant’s essay “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose”, he expresses nine propositions on the progression of history. In the fourth proposition, Kant writes, “Nature should thus be thanked for fostering social incompatibility, enviously competitive vanity, and insatiable desires for possession or even power." Here, social incompatibility implies social antagonism and conflict within human society. The “vanity” and “insatiable desires” that are tied to “social incompatibility” are facets of human nature, which dictates social behaviors.

In his conflict discussion, Kant specifically focuses on the phenomenon of “warfare.” In his political writings, he appears interested in discussing “warfare” and not other kinds of conflict. Kant does, however, possess an account of conflict beyond warfare. Initially, he explains the contradictory aspect of human nature as “unsocial sociability.” This trait refers to a person’s “tendency to come together in society, coupled, however, with a continual resistance which constantly threatens to break this society up.” This term allows Kant to establish a discussion of conflict in relation to human nature, which is, by its scope, much broader than a discussion of warfare alone.

However, after explaining the broad relationship between conflicts and human nature, Kant does proceed to examine warfare as a type of conflict more carefully. For example, when Kant discusses the consequences of state expansion, he claims that “the increasing culture of the states, along with their growing tendency to aggrandize themselves by cunning or violence at the expense of the others, must make wars more frequent." Kant recognizes that the inevitable outcome of state expansion would be intensifying warfare. In his other work, “The Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, when he lays out several articles for peace between states, he frequently mentions the phrase “wars of aggression.” This points again to his emphasis on warfare as representative of all human conflicts. In Kant’s system, wars of aggression refer to fighting between individuals along with the use of military force. Some scholars, such as Sharon Byrd and Joachim Hruschka, postulated that wars of aggression can happen when “individuals in a state of nature…use force in order to replace their lawless condition with a juridical state…States in a state of nature may use force for an analogous purpose." This potentially means that wars of aggression happen whenever societies attempt to forcefully establish a more advanced and peaceful state.

For Kant, warfare or conflict is resolved through establishing universal principles and a “federation of peoples.” He clarifies this point in the seventh proposition in his essay “The Idea,” where he writes that “these are the means by which nature drives nations to…[enter] a federation of peoples in which every state, even the smallest, could expect to derive its security and rights…solely from this great federation." The end goal of this global federalism is to make people citizens of the world. Universal hospitality is the defining characteristic of a citizen of the world. Kant clarifies, “in this context, hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility when arriv[ing] on someone else’s territory." Kant believes that nature only requires humankind to “approximate” this proposition of a federation. This does not mean that such an aim is chimerical. The term “approximate” only implies that since a global federation is an ideal, it is unlikely to be fully realized. However, it is an ideal that can be increasingly aspired to by continuously improving the existing systems of law.

Kant busies himself with creating a plan for conflict management. With his concepts of a federation and universal peacekeeping principles, he hopes that the frequency and severeness of conflict could be eventually minimized. Thus, to an extent, Kant does demonstrate a worry about nation states warring against each other. Such warring activities are not only evil, but also impede the realization of Kant’s vision of a peaceful future.

Hegel’s definition of conflict is broader and more fundamental than Kant’s. In his bookThe Science of Logic, Hegel defines conflict as “the root of all movement and life." While Kant concentrates his study on the conflict between individuals and states, Hegel expands the sites upon which he could examine conflict. He holds that conflict can be applied to all aspects of human life, including communities, social classes, or even cultural and historical traditions. In other words, one can find conflict at all levels of social and political organizations. Since Hegel has a broader perspective, his discussions appear more abstract at times. Thus, his arguments possess a greater range of applicability.

For Hegel, conflict resolution appears to be a more general process, when compared to Kant. Hegel believes that conflict resolution entails a spiraling, dialectical process in which opposing ideas and interests are synthesized. In the end, conflict resolution will push humankind increasingly closer to the Idea, the essential nature of which is the Spirit. Quite differently from Kant, Hegel does not seem bothered by the reality of national states engaging in warfare with each other. His decision to tie conflict analysis into his dialectics hints at the notion that he categorizes conflict as a natural occurrence – one that does not require excessive human interference.

Hegel’s framework of conflict, in contrast to Kant’s, requires the concept of “freedom.” For Hegel, the core of the Spirit is freedom. As he writes in Introduction to the Philosophy of History, “As the essence of Matter is Gravity, so, on the other hand, we may affirm that the substance, the essence of Spirit is Freedom." Unlike Kant, Hegel definitively argues for freedom in a social setting. Hegel was inspired by Aristotle, as both argued that freedom can only be realized in a collective society (Hegel). Individual freedom does not make sense for Hegel, as freedom is not something that can be achieved in isolation but is intertwined with one’s relationships and role within society. True freedom can be quite positive and is only realized in a state setting where an individual obeys the laws of that state. As he writes in Chapter Three of Introduction to the Philosophy of History, “on the contrary, such limitation [of the impulses, desires, and passions of an individual] is simply the condition from which emancipation proceeds; and society and the State are the conditions wherein freedom is actualized." If the actualization of freedom is the end goal of history, then the violence and conflicts caused by the passions of human nature would push states to enact laws and set up juridical institutions, eventually approaching freedom.

The above explanations display some of the differing elements in Kant and Hegel’s definitions of conflict. Nevertheless, the two philosophers do share some outlooks. First, both philosophers view the result of conflict as a form of progression. For Kant, antagonism becomes, in the long run, the cause of a law-governed social order, deeming the development of civilization as a result of conflict. Hegel identifies human passions as a source of violence, yet he expresses, “th[at] human passions satisfy themselves; they fulfill their goals according to their natural determination, and they bring to force the edifice of human society, in which they have provided for law and order as forces against themselves." Hegel believes that the “law[s] and order” restraining human passions are born from the conflicts brought about by those passions.

Second, Kant and Hegel admit that conflict entails negative consequences. In his work “Perpetual Peace,” Kant explains, “If the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared, nothing is more natural that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war." Kant warns governments of the unavoidable costs of war, including the costs of harnessing resources to repair “the devastation war leaves behind." Similarly, for Hegel, conflict inadvertently brings violence and bloodshed. As he writes in Introduction to the Philosophy of History, “when we see arising from [those human passions] all the evil, the wickedness, the decline of the most flourishing nations mankind has produced, we can only be filled with grief for all that has come to nothing." This quote suggests that the violence stemming from human passions inevitably destroys elements of human civilization.

Now that Kant and Hegel’s definitions of conflict have been laid out, it is necessary to examine the importance of this concept in the historical frameworks of the two philosophers. What roles does conflict play in Kant and Hegel’s historical narratives? To be continued...

Works Cited

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Introduction to the Philosophy of History: With Selections from the Philosophy of Right. Translated by Leo Rauch, Hackett Pub. Co, 1988.

Kant, Immanuel. Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

如今，"冲突 "一词经常在非正式和正式谈话中被提及。大多数人认为冲突是群体互动中的负面现象，并认为冲突是应该避免的。此外，大多数人不认为冲突有任何内在价值，冲突被视为是只会导致流血和当前国际秩序恶化的现象。

这些观点可以追溯到人们对20世纪的重大事件的理解中。从1945年左右第二次世界大战结束到2021年，各国都把重点放在防止冲突再起上。1945年，联合国因第二次世界大战而成立，其他旨在维护来之不易的和平的国际机构和非政府组织也相继成立。就在两三年前，大规模战争意义上的"冲突 "一词在全球发达地区似乎还是一个遥远的概念。在过去的七十多年里，人类通常通过深思熟虑的选择来避免大规模冲突。然而，2021年底，俄罗斯总统普京开始在乌克兰边境集结超过15万军队，随之而来的持续至今的俄乌战争立即现代国家的 "冲突 "概念拉回到日常讨论中。更令人担忧的是，第三次世界大战的前景似乎比以往任何时候都更加近在咫尺。

俄乌战争提出了一个问题：自20世纪中叶以来，现代世界是否一直是和平的？即使环顾当今世界，除乌克兰外，其他国家也陷入冲突，也门就是一个明显的例子。现代世界在本质上仍然是充满冲突的。

从历史上看，政治学和政治哲学学科一直承担着解释人类冲突的任务。在西方传统中，自柏拉图和亚里士多德以来，政治学家或哲学家一直试图设计理论和模型来解释冲突的起源、冲突的性质以及解决冲突的方法。近代历史中，对 "冲突 "的学术讨论做出贡献的两位最重要的政治哲学家是两位德国人康德（Immanuel Kant，1724-1804）和黑格尔（Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel，1770-1831）。这两位哲学家都受到了欧洲启蒙运动革命氛围的影响，他们对冲突的理解基于对历史的系统观察及对人性的深刻研究。他们思想的独特性和大胆性使他们的冲突理论成为学术界激烈争论的话题。但更重要的是，两位哲学家对历史和人性的关注赋予了他们的理论巨大的应用目的和价值。人们可以尝试利用他们的思想来思考人类历史上的冲突。 

康德和黑格尔的理论能够帮助我们理解人类冲突的复杂性，本系列文章将对他们的冲突理论进行深入研究。通过首先研究冲突的定义及其在这些哲学家的历史叙述中所扮演的角色，本系列文章将证明康德和黑格尔关于冲突的观点有助于分析现代战争的各种原因、过程和后果。本文将首先解释两位哲学家对“冲突”一词的定义与基本理解。

“冲突 "的概念就其本质而言是一个宽泛的概念。在康德和黑格尔的作品中，两位哲学家都试图定义这一术语，以确保他们的解释和推理是可以理解和符合逻辑的。然而，虽然康德和黑格尔都受到德国文化的影响，属于启蒙运动时期的同一批政治理论家，但他们的冲突理论的定义特征却大相径庭。

在康德的体系中，冲突与“社会对立”一概念有关，而社会对立可归因于人性的特征。这种社会对立与托马斯-霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）的观念颇为相似，即人类天生野蛮并形成直接的彼此对峙。霍布斯是对康德思想产生过深远影响的前辈，尽管他并不同意霍布斯的许多政治理论。在《政论文》的引言中，康德果断地指出："只有当我们充分理解人与人之间的冲突时，历史才能得到解释，因为人......也是反社会的"。这句话表明，冲突与人的反社会本性有关，而这种本性在社会中普遍存在。康德还认为，"战争、紧张和不懈的军事准备，以及由此产生的每个国家最终都必须在自己内部感受到的痛苦"，都源于大社会和大国家之间 "不可避免的对立"。

康德在《具有世界性目的的普遍历史的构想》一文中表达了关于历史发展的九个命题。在第四个命题中，康德写道："因此，应该感谢大自然培养了社会的不相容性、妒忌竞争的虚荣心和贪得无厌的占有欲甚至权力欲"。在这里，社会不相容意味着人类社会的对立和冲突。与 "社会不相容"相联系的 "虚荣心 "和 "贪得无厌的欲望 "是人性的重要一面，决定着社会行为。

在对冲突的讨论中，康德特别关注 "战争 "现象。在他的政治著作中，他似乎只对讨论 "战争"感兴趣，而对其他类型的冲突不感兴趣。当然，康德对战争之外的冲突也有论述。最初，他把人性中的矛盾解释为 "非社会的社会性"。这一特征指的是一个人 "在社会中聚集在一起的倾向，但同时又有一种持续的反抗，这种反抗不断威胁着这个社会的解体"。这一术语使康德得以将冲突与人性联系起来进行讨论，其范围比单纯讨论战争要广泛得多。

然而，在解释了冲突与人性之间的广泛关系之后，康德确实开始更仔细地研究作为冲突类型的战争。例如, 当康德讨论国家扩张的后果时, 他说： "国家文化的不断发展, 加上它们越来越倾向于通过狡诈或暴力来壮大自己, 而牺牲别人的利益, 这必然使战争更加频繁"。康德认识到，国家扩张的必然结果是战争的加剧。在他的另一部著作《永恒的和平》一文中，当他为国家间的和平提出若干条款时，他频繁提到 "侵略战争 "一词。这再次表明战争可以代表人类的所有影响到和平的冲突（康德 95）。在康德的体系中，侵略战争指的是个人之间的战斗以及军事力量的使用。一些学者，如Sharon Byrd和Joachim Hruschka，假设侵略战争可能发生在 "自然状态下的个人......使用武力，以便用一个法治国家来取代他们的无政府状态......自然状态下的国家可以为了类似的目的而使用武力"。这可能意味着，每当社会试图用武力建立一个更先进、更和平的国家时，侵略战争就会发生。

在康德看来，战争或冲突可以通过建立普遍原则和 "民族联邦"来解决。他在《具有世界性目的的普遍历史的构想》一文的第七个命题中阐明了这一点，他写道："这些是大自然驱使各国......[进入]一个民族联邦的手段，在这个联邦中，每个国家，即使是最小的国家，都可以期望......完全从这个伟大的联邦中获得安全和权利"。这种全球联邦制的最终目标是使人们成为世界公民。普遍的好客是世界公民的决定性特征。康德明确指出，"在这里，好客意味着一个陌生人来到别人的领地时不被敌视的权利"。康德认为，自然只要求人类 "接近 "联邦这一命题。这并不意味着这种目标是空想的。“接近 "一词仅意味着，由于全球联邦是一个理想，它不可能完全实现。然而，通过不断完善现有的法律体系，这个理想是可以不断去迫近的。

康德忙于制定冲突管理计划。通过他的联邦和普遍维和原则的概念，他希望冲突的频率和严重程度最终可以降到最低。因此，在某种程度上，康德确实表现出了对民族国家相互战争的担忧。这种战争活动不仅是邪恶的，而且阻碍了康德和平未来愿景的实现。

黑格尔对冲突的定义比康德更宽泛、更根本。在《逻辑的科学》一书中，黑格尔将冲突定义为 "一切运动和生命的根源"。康德的研究集中于个人与国家之间的冲突，而黑格尔则扩大了研究冲突的范围。他认为，冲突可以适用于人类生活的各个方面，包括社区、社会阶层，甚至文化和历史传统。换句话说，人们可以在社会和政治组织的各个层面发现冲突。由于黑格尔的视野更为开阔，他的论述有时显得更为抽象。因此，他的论点具有更大的适用范围。

与康德相比，黑格尔认为冲突的解决是一个更为普遍的过程。黑格尔认为，冲突的解决需要一个螺旋式上升的辩证过程，在这一过程中，对立的思想和利益得到综合。最终，冲突的解决将使人类越来越接近“理想的理念”，而这理念的本质就是“精神”。与康德截然不同的是，黑格尔似乎并不为民族国家相互交战的现实所困扰。他决定把冲突分析与辩证法结合起来，这暗示着他把冲突归类为一种自然现象--一种不需要人类过度干预的现象。

与康德不同，黑格尔的冲突框架需要 "自由 "的概念。对黑格尔来说，“精神”的核心就是自由。他在《历史哲学导论》中写道："正如物质的本质是重力一样，另一方面，我们可以肯定，精神的实质、本质是自由"。与康德不同，黑格尔明确地论证了社会环境中的自由。黑格尔受到亚里士多德的启发，两者都认为只有在集体社会中才能实现自由。对黑格尔来说，个人自由是没有意义的，因为自由不是孤立的，而是与个人在社会中的关系和角色交织在一起的。真正的自由是积极的，只有在个人遵守国家法律的情况下才能实现。黑格尔在《历史哲学导论》第三章中写道："恰恰相反，这种限制[个人的冲动、欲望和激情]只是解放的条件；而社会和国家则是自由得以实现的条件"。如果自由的实现是历史的终极目标，那么人性的激情所导致的暴力和冲突就会推动国家制定法律，建立司法机构，最终接近自由。

上述解释显示了康德和黑格尔对冲突定义的一些不同之处。尽管如此，这两位哲学家在某些观点上是一致的。首先，两位哲学家都认为冲突的结果是一种进步。康德认为，从长远来看，对立是社会秩序法治化的原因，文明的发展是冲突的结果。黑格尔认为人类的激情是暴力的根源，但他表示，"人类的激情满足了自己；它们按照自己的自然决定实现了自己的目标，它们迫使人类社会的大厦坍塌，在这个大厦中，它们规定了法律和秩序，作为反对自己的力量"。黑格尔认为，约束人类激情的 "法律和秩序 "产生于人类冲动情绪所带来的冲突。

其次，康德和黑格尔都承认冲突会带来消极后果。康德在他的著作《永久和平》中解释说："如果需要公民的同意才能决定宣战，那么他们在开始这样一场拙劣的游戏时自然会非常谨慎，为自己规避战争的一切灾难"。康德警告各国政府，战争的代价是不可避免的，其中包括利用资源来修复 "战争留下的破坏"。同样，对黑格尔来说，冲突也会在不经意间带来暴力和流血。正如他在《历史哲学导论》中所写的，"当我们看到[那些人类激情]所产生的一切罪恶、邪恶，以及人类所创造的最繁荣国家的衰落时，我们只能为一切都化为乌有而充满悲痛"。这句话表明，源于人类激情的暴力不可避免地摧毁了部分人类文明。

既然康德和黑格尔对 "冲突 "的定义已经阐述完毕，我们就有必要研究一下这个概念在两位哲学家的历史框架中的重要性。冲突在康德和黑格尔的历史叙事中扮演什么角色？未完待续...‍