Riassunto dell'intero esame di History of Political Thought (Storia delle dottrine politiche), prof.ssa Furia, libro consigliato: On politics, Ryan Alan.

The Role of Freedom of Speech in Society

The only thing individuals have is "the philosophers, scholars, people will contribute by making use of freedom of the pen/press/speech": their reason, through the public use of it by criticizing it and in the long run the sovereign would take account of this and would approve laws also according to this opinions, as if they were approved by the people. Kant in fact distinguishes between the private and the public use of freedom: sometimes people, because their position, they cannot criticize it because they have to fulfil their duty and do what it is required them to be done; different is the public use of reason, of philosophers or scholars, because it is in their condition and they can question and criticize the laws especially in a public debate, but they cannot disobey them.

The French RevolutionQuite a contradictory opinion, for one hand he criticizes it because the violence with which the king and queen were killed, the terror, etc., but on the historical perspective,

regarding the historical and jurisdictional achievements it has managed, he thinks it has to be considered as a progress, because it can be seen as the expression of the will of the people.

There are always two levels: reality, and an historical analysis of things.

Forms of State and Forms of Government

As a first step he considers where sovereignty lies, a way in which he looks at reality, then Kant makes a distinction between the Forms of State and the Forms of Government (which would be the most important and he makes us understand the way in which the forms of state move to progress):

• The forms of state, who holds sovereignty, he talks about three: autocracy (one person), aristocracy (a group of people), democracy (a lot of people). All three are despotic, they are not good enough, because the best rational form is the republican. When Kant looks at reality he distinguishes historically these three forms, but through progress we will get to a point in which we will understand that

the most important thing is the way in which these are governed, the modality. Among these the best one in his opinion is autocracy, even though all three are condemned because in these there is no separation of powers and representation. He thinks that autocracy is preferable (he refers to the rule of Fredrik II) because by being the servant of the State, it is more close to realize reforms which can bring Republic. Kant has also a contradictory opinion on democracy, which sometimes considers as positive and other times as a despotic form.

• He distinguishes two forms of government: the republican one and the despotic one. The republican one is the rational form, with the characteristics of separation of powers and representation, and would be the end point to which we should arrive through progress.

The ideal goal is to achieve a state based on law, where freedom can be achieved by putting some limits but all in the same way, and this is based on a republican form of government which.

The text aims at granting the rights of individuals. These rights are:

1. The freedom of every member of the State as a human being - considered as children and everybody is ruled in a pervasive way, not as subjects but the state wants to interfere with the personal sphere and freedom of the individual;
2. The equality of each member with every other as a subject - refers to the concept that in a state people should be considered equal according to the law, arguing against any form of privilege and formal inequality (formal equality vs. substantial equality - even though he is a liberal thinker he thinks that certain distinctions and differences among people are necessary, but he thinks that offices for example should be open to all people and everyone should have the same opportunities before the law);
3. The independence of every member of the common wealth as a citizen - linked to the idea that in the long run it would become possible for

almost everyone to become citizen, but you should not give the right to vote to persons which do not have properties, so not women, children (they are passive citizens), etc, but only who is economically independent, because property is considered by liberal thinkers as the criteria to distinguish rational human beings and who has interest in establishing a good government from passive citizens. A republican forms is one where sovereignty belongs to people, who elect representations, but only owners can do it (limited conception), and of course not women → An executive power is subjective and can be removed by the legislative one, and then there is an independent judiciary. This can be seen as in contrast with Rousseau, Kant is against any form of direct democracy. The despotic form of government has neither the separation of powers or forms of representation, the will of the ruler becomes the public's one. The republic form is the only one where nature is leaving us and it is.

Possible to combine morality and law. The International Doctrine

He thinks that civilians like individual state in the same logic, they are the ones against the other, but it is by using this antagonism that nature and history will lead them to establish a state of peace: at the level of the individual will lead to establishment of a republic, while at the international level it will bring a perpetual peace.

He thinks that peace is something it is needed to search for, but not something we have when there is no war, but something we need to construct.

Methodology: the one nature is using, due to the fact that wars create problems and rulers understand that they have to make sure peace, and to give more freedom to their citizens, a peaceful republic; by doing this they will join peaceful relationships with other states and form an international federation→enlightenment of rulers.

The final goal is to construct three different forms of international arraignments (not a single universal state).

because it will bring a cosmopolitan monarchy, which is not what he means): 1. Not a single universal state/world government, because in this case would be a single monarch governing all the other states; 2. Federation of free states, foedus pacificum a league of states that freely agrees to form this federation, but there is no binding agreement-it is quite achievable; 3. A federative model, similar to USA, with the idea of living together under coercive laws because only in this way we will have a civitas gentium, an agreement of people to be all subjected to the same law and limiting sovereignty (similar to what individuals do when they accept to form a State, to live all under the same law). The final goal is to get to a federation of people, but the most achievable is the federation of free states. In order to demonstrate this project, he writes "A perpetual peace, a philosopher sketch", a short writing composed of articles, which would allow perpetual peace to become reality.

The first six preliminary articles mostly deal with things which should be avoided, for what concerns the behaviour of states and the way they enter in relationship with each other.

The definitive articles concern the things which should be done in order to achieve perpetual peace:

1. The civil constitution of every state shall be republican (p.437 Browns book): a guarantee for a perpetual peace, because if it is → people who have to decide if going into a war they surely will be against state level;
2. The right of nations should be based on a federation of free states: even though it is not the ideal one, is the most predictable among the others because states were not ready for an international republic/a federative model → international level;
3. The cosmopolitan right shall be limited to conditions of universal equality: considers at this stage the ways in which individuals are treated at the international level.

Three different levels: the state, the international level, and individuals.

At the international level. The phenomena Kant talks also about the right to people to move around the world, to be treated in a fear way, the right to hospitality, but of course he is not talking about the right to become all citizens, but his idea is mostly about the idea of moving and migrating. He compares the ways in which people should be treated to the ways in which Western states have treated other people when going to new lands, in fact they conquered them. He criticizes the conduct of mostly western states, who by the right of discovering the new world justified their conquests and dominions. He thinks that since we are all part of the same world we all should accept people coming and entering the country, it is a matter of civilization to welcome people and treat them fairly, but of course he does not talk about giving citizenship to everyone.

Argument of reciprocity: if a state argues to be a civilized state (as western states did) they had to respect those principles.

featuringcivilization. How is nature make this possible, and how people can achieve this result? By using the inclination and ambition nature will lead people to reach the goal of establishing a perpetual peace, and by taking an historical approach he stresses the importance of philosophers. He gives role to "the freedom of the pen" - he hopes that the progress of the enlightenment will make us to create a republican state and constitution and achieve a perpetual peace -, and to philosophers who should talk and make sure that things are understood in their complexity. Thanks to the reading of history this process will end up in the end he hopes. Friedrich Hegel: He is the most important exponent of the Dialectical thinking: which did not believe in the assumption of rationalism and natural laws thinking-contractarian theories, in the ideas of individualism, of men being equal and the state created by individuals, was based by a inherent contradiction exploited in the terror during

The French Revolution→ there is an intrinsic contradiction in affirming individual freedom and the authority of the political power, in their view it is impossible to combine the individual absolute freedom and the authority of a political power (the French Revolution and terror is the expression of this contradiction), but either the one or the other principle should prevail. In their view it is only through philosophy, dialectical philosophy, and concrete ideas and categories we can focus in order to be able to understand history and its affirmation of freedom, so we cannot start by the principle of individuals, but on the State. Only by taking this point of view we would understand the contradiction of reality.

1. Follow the dialectical methodology
2. Understand we should start from focusing on the society.

He thought that society must be understood entirely and historically, and that theories without the cultural, moral, political and religious understanding of human understanding were

e the truth. This can be achieved through the methodology of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents a certain idea or belief, the antithesis challenges or contradicts the thesis, and the synthesis combines the best elements of both to form a new and improved understanding. In the realm of politics and philosophy, this methodology can be applied to various concepts and theories. For example, the archaic and unbelievable theories of natural rights and social contracts can be analyzed using this approach. The thesis could be the belief in natural rights, which asserts that individuals have inherent rights that cannot be taken away. The antithesis could be the skepticism towards this belief, questioning its validity and practicality. Finally, the synthesis could involve finding a balance between individual rights and societal needs, recognizing that rights are not absolute but should be protected within a social framework. By employing the methodology of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, contradictions can be acknowledged and resolved, leading to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of complex ideas. It allows for the exploration of different perspectives and the integration of diverse viewpoints, ultimately leading to a more balanced and informed conclusion.