Links Between East and West 42 Kant and Hegel 4 东西方的连接42 - 康德与黑格尔4

Hegel’s conceptions of conflict differ significantly from that of Kant. Hence, Hegelian conflict theories can be used to analyze conflicts that vary in nature from conflicts that apply to Kantian theories. World War I and the Vietnam War (after America’s participation in 1965) were both conflicts that were straightforward relatively speaking. For the final example, this paper will examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most long-lasting in recent history. In general, Hegel’s conflict theories have a greater scope, making them more fit for analyzing conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one that have a plethora of different influencing factors.

The strife between Israelis and Palestinians can be traced back to the late nineteenth century. However, their conflict became serious and direct starting in 1947. Since then, the conflict has become increasingly vehement and wide-reaching. The conflict can be divided into four stages. The first stage spanned from 1948 to 1967, covering the establishment of the state of Israel and the Six-Day War in 1967; the second stage was from 1967 to 1993, covering events including the Six-Day War and the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993; the third stage spanned from 1993 to 2000, right to the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000; the final fourth stage covers the period from 2000 to the present day, in which the conflict gained an international scope.

The causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be understood with Hegelian conflict theories. One cause was that the Jews who migrated into Palestine wanted recognition and power in the region during the 1940s, pitting them against the Muslim Palestinians in the region. According to Hegel, the desires for recognition and power are the “springs of human action.” The battle between men on both spiritual and concrete levels ultimately leads to the bestowing of leadership to the few and bondage for the vanquished. This division further implies the concept of a “master” who wields visible power and is recognized by the defeated. In other words, mastery is a vital moment in the struggle for recognition. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Jews were unrecognized and even discriminated against across Europe. Their aim in Palestine was to reclaim their homeland and be in control of the land, the people, and their destiny.

Another cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the will demonstrated by both sides to establish a sovereign political state and consequently obtain freedom. This will can be understood by referencing Hegel’s theory about the realization of the Spirit. For Hegel, the state is where Spirit can be objectified and actualized. Hegel introduces this theory by first defining the state as “the union of the universal essential will with the subjective will." This union means that the state contains both the interests of the Idea and the personal passions of an individual. Later, Hegel directly identifies that “the State is the realization of freedom, i.e., of the absolute end-goal, and that it exists for its own sake.” The formation of a state usually entails conflict and many cycles of the dialectical process. Looking from this Hegelian perspective, the Israelis’ and the Palestinians’ desire to establish a state, which brings them to war, can be interpreted as their larger will to realize freedom under a state setting.

Religion has played a key role in fueling this conflict as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be classified as a partially religious battle. The Jews believe that Israel is their biblical homeland – they must reclaim it. The Muslims value Palestine because it is the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. The presence of holy sites makes the region the sacred source of their identity for Palestinians. According to Hegel, religion is one of the principles of the state. The final sections of The Philosophy of History stress the eventual unity of religious and political life. In an early writing from 1788 he further argues for the close-knit bond between the church and state. Hence, religious pursuits are tied with state or political pursuits. This statement explains the interconnectedness of the political and religious aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as mentioned above, can be divided into different stages. This act of division already evokes Hegel’s presentation of conflict in a dialectical manner. To prove the link between Hegel’s dialectical view of conflict and the actual development of this conflict, one can examine the changes between consecutive stages. The first stage spanned from 1948 to 1967. During this stage, the two opposing powers (thesis and antithesis) were Israel and some local Palestinian forces. There were some initial wars waged by Israel to gain territories around the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The 1967 Six-Day War ended the opposition of these two powers by establishing Israel as the preeminent power in the region. This result resembles a first synthesis from the conflict between the thesis and antithesis.

During the beginning of the second stage, this first synthesis began to face its own antithesis at a higher level. In 1968, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged, representing an officially organized Palestinian resistance against Israel. The PLO launched many counterattacks against Israel. This series of minor conflicts ended in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accord. The Oslo Accord essentially created a new synthesis in which countries would recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and the war would ideally end. 

However, as the conflict progressed to the third stage (1993 to 2000), the synthesis introduced by the Oslo Accords immediately faced its antithesis. This antithesis consisted of the Palestinians themselves and the Israelis. Some Palestinians were unsatisfied that there was still no formal Palestinian state and refused to accept the Accords. Additionally, the failure at the 2000 Camp David Summit allowed Israel to resume its fighting against Palestinians at a higher level. The Second Intifada from 2000 to 2002 brought Israeli and Palestinian civilians into the scene, increasing the impacts of this conflict.

Overall, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally followed Hegel’s dialectical pattern. He claims that dialectics would progress when quantitative buildups or qualitative shifts occurred. In the case of this conflict, quantitative buildups did occur at multiple stages, especially with the introduction of the PLO in the second stage, which increased the number of forces involved. Qualitative shifts also happened during the third stage. Previously, the conflict was largely a political one over state sovereignty. The Second Intifada, starting from 2000, introduced religion as an increasingly important element at play. This third stage marked a qualitative shift as the nature of the conflict changed.

World War I, the Vietnam War, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict illustrate that human conflicts have only grown more complex, requiring the establishment of increasingly multi-faceted international principles of peace. For instance, the main solution to World War I, the League of Nations, was eventually unsuccessful because it did not factor in the sheer complexity of the war and the interests of all participating parties. To put an end to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one needs not only to settle political disputes, but also cultural and religious ones.‍‍

Overall,by investigating the definitions of conflict and the role that it plays in the historical narratives of Kant and Hegel, this paper showed that the conflict theories of both philosophers can be utilized to analyze modern warfare, namely World War I, the Vietnam War, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This paper displayed not only the relevance of the philosophers’ theories, but also the relevance of the concept of “conflict” itself, as all three wars demonstrate the still extant conflictual nature of the modern world. 

This essay acknowledges the continued relevance of Kant and Hegel. Both, as two of the most groundbreaking thinkers of their age, left profound marks on international politics through their conflict theories. For example, Kant’s hope for international federalism has found partial realization in the United Nations. Hegel’s dialectics not only apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also to other wars around the world, including Afghanistan and Yemen.

This paper’s application of Kantian and Hegelian conflict theories to modern conflicts leaves some room for future research. Future researchers can attempt to apply the philosophers’ theories to a greater range of conflicts. This paper only focused on recent international wars. One can potentially look at tribal conflicts, economic conflicts, religious conflicts, and other types of human conflict to examine the flexibility and universality of Kantian and Hegelian theories, as has already been done many times.

Essentially, what Kant and Hegel proposed in their works resembles a utopia. For Kant, this utopia takes the forms of a federation of the peoples and a globe that is ridden by warfare. For Hegel, this utopia manifests itself in the ultimate realization of Spirit and freedom. The utopic nature of their thinking indicates the intrinsic values of studying their thoughts. As with any other conception of utopia, their thoughts cause one to reflect and find the extant problems in modern states. Based on the perfect model, countries in real life can fix internal issues and implement increasingly more fitting models to sustain development and peace.

Kant and Hegel provide a directional blueprint for civilizational progress. The constant process of trying to envision an ideal future can be the driving force behind the advancements of human society. Countries have already attempted to prove the value of Kant and Hegel. Seeing the failure of the League of Nations, the global society created the United Nations – a far better institution than its predecessor. With the establishment of increasingly advanced conflict-prevention mechanisms, the world can potentially progress toward a more peaceful future.

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.

康德和黑格尔的冲突理论具有普遍的逻辑性，可以用于分析历史上重要的冲突。上个世纪影响全球历史走向的三场冲突分别是 1914 年至 1918 年的第一次世界大战、1955 年至 1975 年的越南战争以及始于 1948 年的巴以冲突。这些冲突之所以重要，首先是因为其规模空前之大。第一次世界大战被称为 "终结所有战争的战争"。虽然战争只持续了四年，但却是当时最残酷、广泛的战争；越南战争实际上持续了二十多年，是二十世纪最持久的冲突之一。越南战争也是代理人战争的典型例子，美国和苏联在越南支持对立的势力；巴以冲突常常被视为历史上最旷日持久的冲突，其复杂程度无与伦比。这些冲突之所以值得关注，不一定是因为它们提供了众多关键教训，而是因为它们具有极强的代表性，可以帮助人们找到人类冲突的普遍模式与规律。

有观点认为，康德和黑格尔可能不适合分析重要冲突，这种观点诚然有一定道理。关于康德，有些人可能会说，他关于战争的本质、过程和结果的观点已经过时，因此与现代战争无关。现代战争的复杂性是康德时代无法预见的。例如，康德肯定无法预见机器技术的飞速发展以及自动武器、潜艇、制导导弹和核武器的发明。这些技术和发明使战争变得更大规模、更严重，同时也引入了以前不存在的决定性因素。特别是，核武器的扩散得到了某些团体的支持，他们认为，由于不可避免的相互毁灭，核武器可以阻止战争。战争发展的空前速度使康德的冲突理论（战争不可避免且有利于社会进步）可能变得过时。

关于黑格尔，人们同样可以批评将其理论应用于现代冲突的做法。他的冲突理论与他的辩证法紧密相连，而他的辩证法容易被批评为过于抽象。在黑格尔的著作中，他没有提供足够多的例子来展示他的辩证法在历史行动中的应用。因此，代入黑格尔理论在现代的具体冲突可能并不准确，因为其背后的含义或目的可能并不明确。

不过，尽管两位哲学家的理论细节可能确实与现代冲突不符，但它们仍然具有相当的现实意义，因为人类冲突的本质并没有发生实质性的改变。从第一次世界大战开始，当人们研究战争的起因、过程和结果时，康德的一些理论可以帮助进行解释。在此，使用康德理论是合适的，因为如前所述，康德特别关注战争。从逻辑上讲，用一位旨在在其著作中深入研究战争的哲学家的思想来分析如此宏大的战争是有意义的。此外，与黑格尔不同，康德对战争的解决持有明确的观点--他为结束战争必须建立的制度和必须实现的理念（即自由国家的联邦和一套普遍原则）描绘了详细的蓝图。

第一次世界大战爆发的一主要原因是大肆的联盟。1914 年前，许多欧洲国家通过与其他大国结盟来寻求保护。例如，德皇威廉二世最初于 1879 年在德国和奥匈帝国之间建立了 "双重同盟"，1882 年意大利加入后，三国联盟成为三国同盟。为了对抗三国同盟，法国、英国和俄国组成了三国协约。三国协约惊动了德国，加剧了大规模战争的酝酿。如果同盟中的一个国家开战，其他国家就必须跟随进入战争。因此，当奥地利在 1914 年首次向塞尔维亚宣战时，这一宣言立即促使这两国的盟国参战，最终爆发了世界级别的大战（来自亚洲、非洲、欧洲和美洲的国家和殖民地均参战）。

康德的冲突理论可以解释联盟成立促使战争发生的逻辑。康德认为，人类的 "非社会交际性 "是导致对立和冲突的根本原因。"非社会交际性 "指的是人性中好战与好客并存的一面。这一特征在第一次世界大战的同盟中得到了直接体现。在联盟内部，各国都是 "社会人"，彼此相当友好。例如，英国和法国在一战前和一战期间关系密切。然而，在联盟之间，各国却极不 "社会"，相互敌视。这一点很容易得到证实，否则战争就不会升级到如此规模。人类的社会性在盟国内部建立了牢固的纽带，使他们想要相互保护，而不社会性又在不同联盟的国家之间酿成了不可放松的张力。如果将这些因素结合起来，我们就会发现有巨大的力量在推动各国卷入这场战争。

第一次世界大战的产物之一是 1919 年成立的国际联盟，它旨在维护和平，遏制战争。虽然成立时间不长，但国联在鼎盛时期由全球 63 个国家组成。可以说，国联是历史中最接近康德提出的全球联邦的组织，其许多目标和职能都与康德的联邦相吻合。康德认为，联邦必须建立在确保成员待遇平等和拥有自由的原则之上，此外，还必须有一组能确保威胁集体安全的争端被解决的机制，在这一机制下，每个国家都依赖于一支统一的力量来提供保护。任何破坏这种集体安全的企图都将受到联邦其他成员的遏制。

国联坚持类似的原则。大多数成员国都有权在平等的平台上发表意见和投票决定。该组织通过推动裁军和通过仲裁解决争端来强调集体安全的重要性。捷克斯洛伐克等许多小国忠实地加入了联盟，并依靠联盟提供的保护。所有这些特点都与康德的联邦愿景相似。至此，康德的冲突理论有助于解释导致第一次世界大战的联盟这一因素以及国联的内在运作逻辑。

人们可以从康德理论的视角分析的另一场近期战争是越南战争。越南战争持续了约 20 年，但本文要探讨的是美国 1965 年参战之后的时期。这场战争的本质是苏联支持的北越共产主义政权与美国支持的南方民主政府之间的冲突，是一场代理人战争，北越共产主义政权希望在长期的国内分裂后统一越南。

1965 年美国的加入改变了战争的前景。美国不仅通过向战场提供资金和物资增加了战争的强度，还将战争提升为政治意识形态的冲突。美国担心旷日持久的内战会导致共产主义在越南蔓延，从而对国家的整体性造成更严重的后果。美国认为必须阻止内战，进而阻止共产主义的威胁，以此来为自己的努力辩解。这种试图为干涉别国内政辩护的做法类似于康德在《永久和平》一文中的第五条初步论述。康德指出，"任何国家都不得强行干涉另一个国家的宪法和政府"，除非 "一个国家因内部不和而分裂成两个部分"。康德的理由是，"如果一个外部国家向另一个国家的宪法提供支持，这不能算作干涉，因为他们的状况是无政府状态"。美国按照类似的思路进行推理，试图通过强调越南内战带来的危险来证明其在越南的努力是正当的。因此，美国的理由（尽管可以说在道德或政治上并不正确）可以通过康德的第五条初步论述来理解。

美国还为自己的参与辩解说，结束越南冲突有助于维护地区和平和恢复秩序。然而，美国的辩解最终还是失败了。战争不仅夺去了5万多名美国士兵的生命，还加剧了冲突的激烈程度，使更多平民因暴力而丧生。美国无法为其所作所为辩解，这可以用康德的战争拒绝理论来解释。康德驳斥了 "暴力有利于世界的最大利益，并给不团结的人民带来团结"一论点。康德在其《道德的形而上学》一书中提出了有力的反驳，他写道："但所有这些所谓的良好意图都无法洗去用来实施这些意图的手段上的不公正污点"。康德认为，在实现这些 "所谓的良好愿望 "的过程中，许多国家会使用暴力和蛮力来镇压反对力量。有时，暴力与维护人类生命的尊严和价值相矛盾，这对康德来说是不公正和不可接受的。

为了加强对 "暴力有利于世界的最大利益 "这一论点的反驳，康德在其著作《理性范围内的宗教》中明确地将任何战争行为钉在十字架上，因为 "战争制造的罪恶比它摧毁的罪恶更多"。在越南战争中，这句话不仅体现在暴力和流血事件中，也体现在随之而来的难民危机中。1975 年至 1976 年，2 万多人迁出越南，构成了严重的人道主义危机。

黑格尔的冲突概念与康德的冲突概念大相径庭。因此，黑格尔的冲突理论可以用来分析性质不同于康德理论可分析的冲突。第一次世界大战和越南战争（1965 年美国参战后）都是相对直接的冲突，最后一个例子是巴勒斯坦-以色列冲突，这是近代史上持续时间最长的冲突之一。一般来说，黑格尔的冲突理论具有更大的范围，使其更适合分析像巴以冲突这样具有大量不同影响因素的冲突。

以色列人和巴勒斯坦人之间的纷争可以追溯到 19 世纪末。然而，从 1947 年开始，他们的冲突变得严重与直接。从那时起，冲突变得愈发激烈，影响愈发广泛。冲突可分为四个阶段：第一阶段从1948 年到 1967 年，包括以色列国的建立和 1967 年的 "六日战争"；第二阶段从 1967 年到 1993 年，包括 "六日战争 "和 1993 年《奥斯陆协议》的签署；第三阶段从 1993 年到 2000 年，直到 2000 年第二次巴勒斯坦大起义的爆发；最后的第四阶段从 2000 年至今，在这一阶段，冲突扩大到了国际范围。

巴以冲突的起因可以用黑格尔冲突理论来理解。原因之一是，20 世纪 40 年代，移居巴勒斯坦的犹太人希望在该地区获得承认和权力，这使他们与该地区的穆斯林巴勒斯坦人对立起来。黑格尔认为，对认可和权力的渴望是 "人类行动的源泉"。人与人之间在精神和具体层面上的争斗最终导致少数人获得领导权，而被征服者受到奴役。这种划分进一步暗示了 "主人 "的概念，"主人 "拥有看得见的权力，并得到战败者的认可。换言之，掌握权力是争取民族被认可的关键要素。十九世纪末二十世纪初，犹太人在整个欧洲得不到承认，甚至受到歧视。他们在巴勒斯坦的目标是夺回自己的家园，掌握土地、人民和自己的命运。

巴以冲突的另一个原因是双方都表现出了建立主权政治国家并进而获得自由的意愿，这种意愿可以通过参考黑格尔关于实现精神的理论来理解。在黑格尔看来，国家是民族精神得以对象化和现实化的地方。黑格尔在介绍这一理论时，首先将国家定义为 "普遍本质意志与主观意志的结合"，这种结合意味着国家既包含历史的利益，也包含个体的情感。后来，黑格尔直接指出，"国家是自由的实现，即绝对终极目标的实现，它是为了自身的目的而存在的"。国家的形成通常包含冲突和多次循环的辩证过程。从黑格尔的这一视角来看，以色列人和巴勒斯坦人建立国家的愿望（这导致了他们的战争）可以被解释为他们在国家环境下实现自由的更大意愿。

宗教在这场冲突中也起到了推波助澜的关键作用。巴以冲突可以归类为宗教之争。犹太人认为以色列是他们圣经中的家园--他们必须夺回它。穆斯林重视巴勒斯坦，因为这里有阿克萨清真寺和圆顶寺。圣地的存在使该地区成为巴勒斯坦人身份认同的神圣来源。黑格尔认为，宗教是国家的原则之一。《历史哲学》的最后几节强调了宗教与政治生活的最终统一。在 1788 年的一篇早期文章中，他进一步论证了教会与国家之间的紧密联系。因此，宗教追求与国家或政治追求息息相关。这一说法解释了巴以冲突中政治和宗教方面的相互联系。

如上所述，巴以冲突可分为不同阶段，这种划分行为已经代入了黑格尔对冲突的辩证表述。为了证明黑格尔的辩证冲突观与这一冲突的实际发展之间的联系，我们可以研究一下连续阶段之间的变化。第一阶段从 1948 年到 1967 年。在这一阶段，对立的两方势力（正题与反题）是以色列和一些巴勒斯坦地方武装。以色列为夺取约旦河西岸和加沙地带周围的领土发动了几场战争。1967 年的"六日战争 "结束了这两个势力的对立，确立了以色列在该地区的主导地位，这一结果类似于正题与反题之间冲突而第一次产生合题。

在第二阶段开始时，这个第一合题开始在更高层次上面对自己的对立面。1968 年，巴勒斯坦解放组织（巴解组织）崛起，代表着巴勒斯坦官方组织的对以色列的抵抗。巴解组织对以色列发动了多次反击。1993 年，随着《奥斯陆协议》的签署，这一系列小冲突结束了。《奥斯陆协议》实质上建立了一个新的合题，各国将承认巴勒斯坦人的自决权，战争也将理想地结束。

然而，当冲突发展到第三阶段（1993 年至 2000 年）时，《奥斯陆协议》提出的合题立即面临了其反题。这个对立面由巴勒斯坦人自己和以色列人组成。一些巴勒斯坦人对仍未建立正式的巴勒斯坦国感到不满，并拒绝接受《奥斯陆协义》。此外，2000 年戴维营峰会的失败使以色列得以在更高层次上恢复对巴勒斯坦人的战斗。 2000 年至 2002 年的第二次巴勒斯坦大起义使以色列和巴勒斯坦平民卷入其中，加剧了冲突的影响。

综上所述，巴以冲突总体上遵循了黑格尔的辩证模式。他声称，当发生量的积累或质的转变时，正题与反题间的关系就会取得进展。在这场冲突中，量的积累确实发生在多个阶段，尤其是在第二阶段引入巴解组织，增加了参与势力的数量。第三阶段也发生了质的转变。在此之前，冲突主要是关于国家主权的政治冲突。从 2000 年开始的第二次起义将宗教作为一个日益重要的因素。随着冲突性质的改变，第三阶段标志着质的转变。

第一次世界大战、越南战争和巴以冲突表明，人类冲突只会变得更加复杂，需要制定越来越多方面的国际和平原则。例如，第一次世界大战的主要解决方案，即国际联盟，最终没有成功，因为它没有考虑到战争的复杂性和所有参战方的利益。要结束目前的巴以冲突，不仅需要解决政治争端，还需要解决文化和宗教争端。

总之，通过研究冲突的定义及其在康德和黑格尔的历史叙事中所扮演的角色，本文表明这两位哲学家的冲突理论可以用来分析现代战争，即第一次世界大战、越南战争和巴以冲突。本文不仅展示了两位哲学家理论的相关性，还展示了 "冲突 "概念本身的相关性，因为这三场战争都表明了现代世界依然存在冲突的本质。

本文承认康德和黑格尔仍然具有现实意义。这两位思想家都是他们那个时代最具开创性的思想家，他们的冲突理论给国际政治留下了深刻的印记。例如，康德对国际联邦制的希望在联合国得到了部分实现。黑格尔的辩证法不仅适用于巴以冲突，也适用于世界各地的其他战争，包括阿富汗战争和也门战争等。

本文将康德和黑格尔的冲突理论应用于现代冲突，为未来的研究留下了一些空间。未来的研究人员可以尝试将哲学家的理论应用于更多的冲突。本文只关注近期的国际战争。人们可以研究部落冲突、经济冲突、宗教冲突和其他类型的人类冲突，以考察康德和黑格尔理论的灵活性和普遍性。

从本质上讲，康德和黑格尔在其著作中提出了类似于乌托邦的构想。对康德来说，这个乌托邦的形式是各民族的联合和战火不再纷飞的地球；对黑格尔来说，这个乌托邦表现为精神和自由的最终实现。他们思想的乌托邦性质表明了研究他们思想的内在价值。与其他任何乌托邦概念一样，他们的思想会让人反思并发现现代国家现存的问题。在完美模式的基础上，现实生活中的国家可以解决内部问题，并实施越来越合适的模式来维持发展与和平。

康德和黑格尔为文明进步提供了方向性蓝图。不断尝试设想理想未来的过程可以成为人类社会进步的动力。各国已经试图证明康德和黑格尔的价值。看到国际联盟的失败，全球社会创建了联合国--一个远胜于其前身的机构。随着越来越先进的预防冲突机制的建立，世界有可能走向更加和平的未来。