Kant's philosophy - Why there is no right to revolution and Kant still welcomed it

Improvements of the state towards more freedom and justice Kant wants to accomplish through step by step reform, which in turn is brought about through public criticism and suggestion of improvements. Where not even this is possible and censorship is in place, the only remaining option is to hope for better times and to act as a good and law-abiding citizen who at most engages in passive resistence when he is expected to do things that are in violation of the moral law. Active resistence and revolutions however are necessarily an injustice for they destroy the right itself before establishing a new one. If they nevertheless happen however, they should be taken as a cry of nature for freedom and we should make the best out of them. In this way Kant's relationship to revolutions was very nuanced. According to principles he rejected them and would never have become a revolutionary, wherever they took place however he welcomed them enthusiastically.Quote: 0:08What should a person do in a despotic state?: 0:48Quietly wait for better times: 10:40People are in favour of revolutions not because they are legitimate but because they are eudaimonists who don't care about right: 13:50Revolutions are always unjust: 24:05Revolutions destroy the civil state and throw people back into the state of nature: 59:16Revolutions hardly ever lead to the state becoming a republic: 1:18:54Why revolutions should not be opposed, despite being unjust: 1:35:06Defiance is legitimate, resistence is not: 1:46:40Kant's critique of revolutions is to be read as subtile endorsement of the French Revolution: 2:04:59Kant's own relationship with revolutions: 2:13:20When revolutions and resistence aren't unjust, without however being just: 2:24:04Thanks: 3:02:38The topic of revolution Kant discusses again and again in his works on the philosophy of right. For example in On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html (I am not aware of any English translations) and also in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations). It is recommended to also check out the respective passages in his lectures on moral philosophy on the question of how a person ought to behave under despotism: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).Hannah Arendt too remarked on the relationship between revolution and despotism insofar as both are based on the same eudaimonism: https://youtu.be/l1fyT8nAJOY?si=HfgeWHwoWX-y8pMt.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai