What is the contemporary relevance of their ideas.
nduct as purposeful and lasting rather than unintended and short-term, bringing to history, in Hegel’s personal design, “the belief and conviction that the realm of the will is not at the mercy of contingency” (Michaelis 1999, 537). The grand design of principle of history for Marx and Kant is of more direct importance. It becomes, undeniably, a requirement of action, devoid of which the concern in the future, so significant to their interpretation of modernity, cannot be persistent. Their works on the philosophy of liberty and democracy, occasioned by the disturbance of revolutionary anticipations, stand witness to an open effort either to control the experience of discontentment or to disallow it completely in the purposes of preserving the future configuration of modernity and the militant devotions that go behind (ibid).
Writing in the repercussions of the French Revolution, when the processes of philosophy of history were merely starting to overpower political theory, scholars have charted their own distinctive path between the linear certainties of Kant’s insight of development and the dialectical certainties that Marx borrowed from Hegel. Marx and Kant respond to the catastrophic course of revolution through establishing the political as a dimension in which the species in its entirety trundles in the footsteps of the gods even as people endure the destiny of simple mortals (Fine 2001).
Indeed, the more powerful the state, and hence the more political a nation is, the less probable it is predisposed to view in the state itself, that is in the contemporary structure of society whose dynamic, self-aware, and official articulation is the state, for the origin of social immoralities, and hence appreciate their common nature. Political intellect is political merely because it deliberates within the restrictions of politics. The sharper and more active it is the less competent it is of understanding social immoralities (Tate 2004).