Caitlin! I talked about this in one of my "insight posts" in my class. I am an undergraduate students and we were talking about liberalism and Immanuel Kant's ideology. Here is what I wrote -- would love to hear your feedback!
I found Kant’s argument about universal laws bringing more peace to be paradoxical. I believe that we are not our thoughts, but rather the space of awareness that comes before our thoughts, emotions, senses, etc. When we recognize that, we realize that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are very subjective. When consciousness arises, the ego is at low, and thus humanity rises. On the contrary, however, low consciousness equates to a higher ego, and therefore, a decrease in humanity. That being said, though Kant advocates for peace through a republic government, the fact that he is looking at the world through black and white inherently yields a “zero-sum” and “us vs. them” mentality, inevitably producing conflicts and justifying murder. So, although liberalism is different than realism in that it builds on the idea of progress rather than accepts the idea of human nature being flawed, it is still narrow-visioned and limited in its perception.
From here, one could argue that more cooperation between states, especially asymmetrical in power, through different institutions (largely international and regional) is flawed because it is based on what right and wrong means for the powerful state. Therefore, because powerful states have the say in most manners, globalization, rather than bringing societies together, deteriorates non-western nations' cultures, annihilates indigenous communities, and erases the middle class abroad and at home since it is intertwined with capitalism.
I think one of the problems at hand with both liberalism and neoliberalism (especially regarding institutions and the idea of functionalism) is that it becomes difficult to stop states/institutions at the forefront of manufacturing and selling weapons (because they ‘excel at it’) from waging (new) wars for profit. So really, it seems as though institutions were built to carry the same prejudices realism was ok with, but in a ‘nicer and more progressive’ manner. Liberalism did not shift from militarism and materialism. Rather, it created sophisticated 'economic' channels to carry them out.
In the end, bad seeds don’t bear fruit no matter how much you water them. And the Kantianism ideology is in itself flawed, so building on it is just as ridiculous. Circling back to the begging of my insight, because institutions carry violence in a “moderate and right” way (low consciousness, high ego), inhumane practices are justified and thus slowly accepted by societies at large (low humanity levels).
Caitlin! I talked about this in one of my "insight posts" in my class. I am an undergraduate students and we were talking about liberalism and Immanuel Kant's ideology. Here is what I wrote -- would love to hear your feedback!
I found Kant’s argument about universal laws bringing more peace to be paradoxical. I believe that we are not our thoughts, but rather the space of awareness that comes before our thoughts, emotions, senses, etc. When we recognize that, we realize that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are very subjective. When consciousness arises, the ego is at low, and thus humanity rises. On the contrary, however, low consciousness equates to a higher ego, and therefore, a decrease in humanity. That being said, though Kant advocates for peace through a republic government, the fact that he is looking at the world through black and white inherently yields a “zero-sum” and “us vs. them” mentality, inevitably producing conflicts and justifying murder. So, although liberalism is different than realism in that it builds on the idea of progress rather than accepts the idea of human nature being flawed, it is still narrow-visioned and limited in its perception.
From here, one could argue that more cooperation between states, especially asymmetrical in power, through different institutions (largely international and regional) is flawed because it is based on what right and wrong means for the powerful state. Therefore, because powerful states have the say in most manners, globalization, rather than bringing societies together, deteriorates non-western nations' cultures, annihilates indigenous communities, and erases the middle class abroad and at home since it is intertwined with capitalism.
I think one of the problems at hand with both liberalism and neoliberalism (especially regarding institutions and the idea of functionalism) is that it becomes difficult to stop states/institutions at the forefront of manufacturing and selling weapons (because they ‘excel at it’) from waging (new) wars for profit. So really, it seems as though institutions were built to carry the same prejudices realism was ok with, but in a ‘nicer and more progressive’ manner. Liberalism did not shift from militarism and materialism. Rather, it created sophisticated 'economic' channels to carry them out.
In the end, bad seeds don’t bear fruit no matter how much you water them. And the Kantianism ideology is in itself flawed, so building on it is just as ridiculous. Circling back to the begging of my insight, because institutions carry violence in a “moderate and right” way (low consciousness, high ego), inhumane practices are justified and thus slowly accepted by societies at large (low humanity levels).