Matilde Maroni AX6404585
History of Political Thought 2 mid-term
1)Compare Kant's and Hegel's conception of the State. (0-9) [max 400 words]
Kant and Hegel have different philosophical approaches, since Kant is a Rationalist and Hegel’s approach is
dialectic.
As regards the State, Kant thinks in idealistic terms, drawing from the distinction between Reality, Politics
(the realm of Strength and interest, of Phenomenon) and Morality (the realm of Noumenon).
Reality can reach Morality and unify internal and external freedom with duty, through a State of Rights,
that is the final and necessary end of History. An innovative and questioning point is that Citizenship is
based on ownership.
The only acceptable form of government is a Republic, in contrast to Despotism, while there are three main
forms of State (Autocracy, Aristocracy, Democracy). What characterizes a Republic is its being based on
division of powers and representation, and having the goal of protecting the natural rights of individuals
(Freedom as a man, Equality as a subject, Independence as a citizen), thus making Kant a Liberal.
This is the first point of contrast with Hegel. The latter tries to solve the problem posed by the contradiction
of rationalism between individual liberty and the authority of political power, in dialectical terms.
His State is not the sum of individual wills, but auto-founded and auto-legitimated, it’s a supra-individual
whole (holism). The State is a step further the Civil Society, in which the individual has a first, negative
contact with Universality, that is ‘sublimed’ (concept of Aufhebung) in the synthesis, the State itself.
Thus the State combines particular and universal freedom, using the concept of duty. This is the big
difference with Kant: the focus is not on individuality but on Universality, the ‘Spirit’ of the State as a
concrete whole. This has led many critics to question Hegel’s thought as a ‘Cult of the State’.
Hegel distinguish between Constitutional Law (the division of power is present but still they work together
as a whole), International Law and World History.
Another point of confrontation is Kant’s sketch of Perpetual Peace, practically based on a Foedus Pacificum
(federation of States), and Hegel’s defense of war in international relations (Realism) as a way to prevent
decay and corruption.
2)Describe the threats to liberty and the remedies against them identified by
Constant and Tocqueville. (0-9) [max 400 words]
A common point in Constant’s and Tocqueville’s though is their concern with the problems posed by
Popular sovereignty and its possible threat to individual liberty.
Constant warns against the omnipotence of laws, in the sense that they could become instruments of
despotism, what Tocqueville calls “Tyranny of Majority”, “Quiet despotism”. The limit to laws and
sovereignty (that thus shall not be absolute) should be individual rights: liberty means individuality,
independence and is a sacrosanct right.
History of Political Thought 2 mid-term
1)Compare Kant's and Hegel's conception of the State. (0-9) [max 400 words]
Kant and Hegel have different philosophical approaches, since Kant is a Rationalist and Hegel’s approach is
dialectic.
As regards the State, Kant thinks in idealistic terms, drawing from the distinction between Reality, Politics
(the realm of Strength and interest, of Phenomenon) and Morality (the realm of Noumenon).
Reality can reach Morality and unify internal and external freedom with duty, through a State of Rights,
that is the final and necessary end of History. An innovative and questioning point is that Citizenship is
based on ownership.
The only acceptable form of government is a Republic, in contrast to Despotism, while there are three main
forms of State (Autocracy, Aristocracy, Democracy). What characterizes a Republic is its being based on
division of powers and representation, and having the goal of protecting the natural rights of individuals
(Freedom as a man, Equality as a subject, Independence as a citizen), thus making Kant a Liberal.
This is the first point of contrast with Hegel. The latter tries to solve the problem posed by the contradiction
of rationalism between individual liberty and the authority of political power, in dialectical terms.
His State is not the sum of individual wills, but auto-founded and auto-legitimated, it’s a supra-individual
whole (holism). The State is a step further the Civil Society, in which the individual has a first, negative
contact with Universality, that is ‘sublimed’ (concept of Aufhebung) in the synthesis, the State itself.
Thus the State combines particular and universal freedom, using the concept of duty. This is the big
difference with Kant: the focus is not on individuality but on Universality, the ‘Spirit’ of the State as a
concrete whole. This has led many critics to question Hegel’s thought as a ‘Cult of the State’.
Hegel distinguish between Constitutional Law (the division of power is present but still they work together
as a whole), International Law and World History.
Another point of confrontation is Kant’s sketch of Perpetual Peace, practically based on a Foedus Pacificum
(federation of States), and Hegel’s defense of war in international relations (Realism) as a way to prevent
decay and corruption.
2)Describe the threats to liberty and the remedies against them identified by
Constant and Tocqueville. (0-9) [max 400 words]
A common point in Constant’s and Tocqueville’s though is their concern with the problems posed by
Popular sovereignty and its possible threat to individual liberty.
Constant warns against the omnipotence of laws, in the sense that they could become instruments of
despotism, what Tocqueville calls “Tyranny of Majority”, “Quiet despotism”. The limit to laws and
sovereignty (that thus shall not be absolute) should be individual rights: liberty means individuality,
independence and is a sacrosanct right.
