This article examines and compares Kant and Nietzsche as thinkers of the conflict. It is argued in paragraph one that conflict plays a fundamental and constructive role for both philosophers in several domains of their thought, and that both of them offer us a rich set of insights on the productive qualities of conflict. However, Kant is unable to formulate a genuinely affirmative concept of conflict that does justice to the prodigious productive powers described by him. Instead, he promotes a termination philosophical war (Vernichtungskrieg) against all war intended to negate it in favor of an absolute vindication for peace ('perennial peace'). As evidenced by "Zum ewigen Frieden" analysis in paragraph two, the possibility of a constructive action requires the elimination of war for the perennial peace through the Rule of Law, and conflict is, at its best, producer of its own negation. The closing part of the article turns to Nietzsche in search of a conceptual model to genuinely understand conflict and its productive potential. Nietzsche's life philosophy is an ontology of conflict that culminates in an ideal of maximizing tension based on a balance of more or less equitable powers. It is argued that Nietzsche's notion of affirmation of life commits us to a position that is between Kantian war and the cosmopolitan law, bringing to our attention the antagonistic relations within and among a plurality of legal systems.
Kant; Nietzsche; war; peace; law