Your cart is empty.
The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought

The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought

Edited by Toivo Koivukoski & David Edward Tabachnick
Subjects Political Science, Philosophy
Series Laurier Studies in Political Philosophy Hide Details
Paperback : 9781771121217, 326 pages, January 2015
Ebook (EPUB) : 9781771120784, 326 pages, April 2015

Excerpt

Excerpt from The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought edited by Toivo Koivukoski and David Edward Tabachnick

From the Foreword by John Gittings

The voice of philosophy has a lot to say about peace, and in the present age we need to hear it more than ever. In a world that is globalized in its economy but still far from cosmopolitan in its outlook, the forces of prejudice, intolerance, and misunderstanding increase tension and generate conflict, both between and within nations. War, or the danger of war, exists at many levels—quite literally: on the ground, where ethnic and religious enmities spill over into violence, and in the upper atmosphere, where the cloud of nuclear war still hangs over us. Philosophers may not be the legislators of the world, but they can help us to clarify moral principles, understand reality, and distinguish true from false knowledge. That is what they are good at. The advice that past philosophers have offered on war and peace is still relevant today.

A group of these were the itinerant Chinese philosophers of the Hundred Schools of Thought, who would sit at the city gate of some small principality during the Era of Warring States (475—221 BC). Their role was to advise the ruler on strategy, such as whether or not to take advantage of a neighbouring state's weakness and invade. Most of the main Schools— the Confucians, the Mohists, and the Daoists (Taoists)—counselled against war, on both moral and practical grounds. Confucius's disciple Mengzi (Mencius) warned that wars to capture cities or territory always lead to disaster: they are a way of “teaching the earth how to eat human flesh. ” Mohists would cite Mozi (Mo Tzu) himself, who held that states should cooperate for their universal advantage: “If rulers love the states of others as their own, no one will commit aggression. ” A Daoist might quote his Master Laozi (Lao Tzu): “The ideal relationship between states is one in which they are so close that they can hear their neighbour's chickens squawk and dogs bark, and yet they leave each other alone. ” All these philosophers would urge rulers not be seduced by the rival school of Strategists, who claimed to know the secret of victory.

From Chapter 1: By the Grace of God: Peace and Martin Luther's Two Kingdoms by Jarrett A. Carty

The Reformation began in Germany with Martin Luther's protest against the sale of indulgences in 1517, and shortly expanded into a general schism within the Western church. Reform, Luther soon discovered, needed the cooperation of government, in which the civil authorities had a crucial role. Luther also needed theoretical justification for his Reformation, and guidance on its proper jurisdiction and limits. He looked for this guidance to the Bible and to the time of the apostles, believing that temporal government had once been independent of spiritual authority—and that the political tumult of his age was the result of spiritual authority having usurped government. True and lasting peace, he felt, could only come about through a proper respect for both of the distinct yet complementary “two kingdoms. “ The spiritual realm was ruled by Jesus Christ, through his Word; the secular realm was ruled by kings and civil authorities, through law and coercion. Its responsibilities were maintaining law and order, ensuring the protection of life and property, and promoting peace.

Luther held that wherever peace did not reign, and rebellion, war, or chaos, prevailed, the fault lay with the confusion of the two kingdoms— and the corruption of the spiritual by the temporal. The peace he sought, though, would prove to be tragically elusive. During his career, two major political controversies erupted: the Peasants' War of 1525, and the Protestant resistance against the Holy Roman Empire that began in 1530. And after his death in 1546, his views were challenged by the hardening of confessional church doctrines, and by the civil control of the churches in the wake of the Peace of Augsburg (1555).

Table of contents

Table of Contents
The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought, edited by Toivo Koivukoski and David Edward Tabachnick

Foreword | John Gittings

Introduction | Toivo Koivukoski and David Edward Tabachnick

Transition to Modernity: The Place of God and Myth

1 By the Grace of God: Martin Luther's Two Kingdoms | Jarrett A. Carty

2 A Secure and Healthy Life: Spinoza on the Prospects for Peace | Paul Bagley

Modern Definitions of Peace: State and Law as Means to Peace

3 Thomas Hobbes on the Path to Peace: Love of Glory versus Realist Foreign Policy | Laurie M. Johnson

4 John Locke's Liberal Path to Peace | Jeffery Sikkenga

5 Vattel on Morally Non-Discriminatory Peace | Benjamin Holland

6 In Search for Laws above Nations: Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Perpetual Peace | René Paddags

7 Kant, Cosmopolitan Right, and the Prospects for Global Peace | Leah Bradshaw

8 Hegel on Peace | Mark Blitz

Late-Modern Critiques of the Security of States as Approximations of Peace

9 Seeking Peace in Nature: A Reading of Thoreau on Ecology and Economy | Toivo Koivukoski

10 Heidegger's Polemical Peace: Outer Violence for Inner Harmony | David Edward Tabachnick

11 The State of Exception, Divine Violence, and Peace: Walter Benjamin's Lesson | Hermínio Meireles Teixeira

12 Hannah Arendt on Peace as a Means to Politics | Diane Enns

13 Defining Peace: Jacques Derrida's “Impossible Friendship” and “Democracy to Come” | Pamela Huber

14 Habermas on Peace and Democratic Legitimacy | David A. Borman

About the Contributors

Index

Description

The essays in The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought address the contribution that political theories of modern political philosophers have made to our understandings of peace. The discipline of peace research has reached a critical impasse, where the ideas of both “realist peace” and “democratic peace” are challenged by contemporary world events. Can we stand by while dictators violate the human rights of citizens? Can we impose a democratic peace through the projection of war? By looking back at the great works of political philosophy, this collection hopes to revive peace as an active question for political philosophy while making an original contribution to contemporary peace research and international relations.

Reviews

“This is a strong and integrated collection of insightful, informative essays, offering a critical account of philosophical reflections on the nature and conditions of peace from early modernity to the present. The authors skilfully trace the principal themes, theoretical divergences, and abiding problems in modern notions of peace, in relation to justice, rights, and freedom. ”

- Douglas Moggach, University of Ottawa / University of Sydney

“Can the study of peace be separated from the study of war? In The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought, editors Toivo Koivukoski and David Edward Tabachnick attempt to present an interrogation of peace as an independent strand of philosophical inquiry. . ..[T]his volume contains some fine essays, notably by Benjamin Holland on Emer de Vattel and morally non-discriminatory peace, Toivu Koivukoski on Henry David Thoreau and seeking peace in nature and Herminio Meireles Teixeira on Walter Benjamin and divine violence, an essay that explores with great clarity and dexterity some extremely complex and difficult ideas. But, as one reads over this set of essays, and as one sees the so-called refugee crisis unfold across Europe, it is Leah Bradshaw’s essay on "Kant, Cosmopolitan Right, and the Prospects for Global Peac" that appears most compelling and timely. . .. The Question of Peace in Modern Political Thought is to be highly recommended. . .. [P]rovide[s] a good introduction to those thinkers whom we do not normally associate with the idea of peace. ” 

- Alexander Blanchard, LSE Review of Books