From War to Perpetual Peace: Plato and Kant

Plato thinks that either philosopher must be king or king must be a philosopher, because the philosopher sees the king as a leader who determines the direction of the state in which the power of the king and the power of power meet in himself. Justice will also rule in the state governed by a just philosopher king who provides his own spiritual unity and integrity, and the continuity of the state will be provided by providing its unity and integrity. By this way, conflicts, separations, wars will be prevented and it will be possible for each citizen to live a peaceful and happy life with confidence by establishing inner peace and serenity. Contrary to Plato, Kant thinks that it should not be expected or wished a philosopher to be a king, or a king to be a philosopher as according to him being in power totally ruins and prevents the ability of the mind to judge. Indeed, in this way, the ending of hostilities, conflicts and separations may be possible not only for domestic peace, but also for a perpetual peace between the states, which can take place in the long run. Plato argues that an ideal republic of peace and justice can be established while Kant argues that a perpetual peace among states can be possible. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate Plato’s views on war and peace based on the works called The Republic by Plato and Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Project by Kant