APA 6th Edition Lucas, H.C. (1996). "Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira. Politička misao, 33 (4), 74-83. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852
MLA 8th Edition Lucas, Hans Christian. ""Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira." Politička misao, vol. 33, br. 4, 1996, str. 74-83. https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852. Citirano 25.02.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Lucas, Hans Christian. ""Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira." Politička misao 33, br. 4 (1996): 74-83. https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852
Harvard Lucas, H.C. (1996). '"Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira', Politička misao, 33(4), str. 74-83. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852 (Datum pristupa: 25.02.2021.)
Vancouver Lucas HC. "Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira. Politička misao [Internet]. 1996 [pristupljeno 25.02.2021.];33(4):74-83. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852
IEEE H.C. Lucas, ""Nema pretora ... nad državama". Prilog Hegelovoj kritici Kantove koncepcije vječnog mira", Politička misao, vol.33, br. 4, str. 74-83, 1996. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/105852. [Citirano: 25.02.2021.]
Sažetak According to the author, the difference between Hegel and Kant regarding the definition of the idea of perpetual peace is indicative of their radically different concepts of philosophy. The first philosophy strives, through the sober acceptance of what really is, to point out where improvements are needed. The second talks about the reconciliation of reason and reality and is consequently frequently dubbed despondent. Nevertheless, and according to the author, this difference between Hegel and Kant (which in certain postulates looks incompatible) is less principle-based than is usually thought, since Kant's moral and philosophical requirements regarding politics are meaningful only if there is the underlying confidence as to the historical efficacy of the reason.