history. Only this insight can reconcile the spirit with world history and the actual reality,that what has happened, and is happening every day, is not only not ’without God’, but isessentially the work of God."In his work
A History Of Western Philosophy
writes,"Throughout the whole period after the death of
, most academic philosophyremained traditional, and therefore not very important. British empiricist philosophy wasdominant in England until near the end of the century, and in France until a somewhatearlier time; then, gradually,
conquered the universities of France andEngland, so far as their teachers of technical philosophy were concerned."
1743-1794]...was also the inventor of
’s theory of population, which,however, had not for him the gloomy consequences that it had for
, because hecoupled it with the necessity of birth control.
’s father was a disciple of
,and it was in this way that
came to know of the theory."Of
writes in part,"
does not mean only that, in some situations, a nation cannot rightly avoid going towar. He means much more than this. He is opposed to the creation of institutions - such asa world government - which would prevent such situations from arising, because he thinksit is a good thing that there should be wars from time to time. War, he [
] says is thecondition in which we take seriously the vanity of temporal goods and things. (This view isto be contrasted with the opposite theory, that all wars have economic causes.) War has apositive moral value: ’War has the higher significance that through it the moral health of peoples is preserved in their indifference towards the stabilizing of finite determinations.’"Still quoting
The Philosophical Radicals"
were a transitional school. Their systemgave birth to two others, of more importance than itself, namely
. Darwinismwas an application to the whole of animal and vegetable life of
’s theory of population, whichwas an integral part of the politics and economics of the
- a global free competition, inwhich victory went to the animals that most resembled successful capitalists.
himself wasinfluenced by
, and was in general sympathy with the
. There was,however, a great difference between the competition admired by orthodox economists and the strugglefor existence which
proclaimed as the motive force of evolution. ’Free competition,’ in orthodoxeconomics, is a very artificial conception, hedged in by legal restrictions. You may undersell acompetitor, but you must not murder him. You must not use the armed forces of the State to help you toget the better of foreign manufacturers. Those who have not the good fortune to possess capital mustnot seek to improve their lot by revolution. ’Free competition,’ as understood by the
, wasby no means really free."
was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hittingbelow the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded asa competitive method. The use of the State to secure victory in competition was against therules as conceived by the Benthamites, but could not be excluded from the Darwinianstruggle. In fact, though Darwin himself was a liberal, and though Nietzsche never mentioned him except with contempt, Darwin’s Survival Of The Fittest led, when thoroughlyassimilated, to something much more like Nietzsche’s philosophy than like Bentham’s.These developments, however, belong to a later period, since Darwin’s Origin Of Specieswas published in 1859, and its political implications were not at first perceived."
In his 1843 writing from
The Kreuznach Manuscripts: Critique Of Hegel’s Philosophy Of Right
Discussion Of The Princely Power, Comments On Hegel’s
Democracy is the truth of monarchy
; monarchy is not the truth of democracy. Monarchyis forced to be democracy as a non sequitur within itself, whereas the monarchical momentis not a non sequitur within democracy. Democracy can be understood in its own terms;monarchy cannot. In democracy, none of its moments acquires a meaning other than thatwhich is appropriate to it. Each is actually only a moment within the whole demos. Inmonarchy, a part determines the character of the whole. The whole constitution has to take