 Yet the deprivations that had to be endured by a person of strong moral fibre exercising a good will were, Kant recognized, real deprivations. If the struggle for self-mastery and self-improvement that he urged on his readers was not to seem, and indeed to be a pointless exercise, then knowledge, as he expressed it in the Preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, had to be denied in order to make room for faith (B xxx). Alarmed by colonial depredations, Kant nevertheless saw social and geopolitical conflict as necessary, at least until his second thoughts in his 1795 essay on ‘Perpetual Peace’. Like Leibniz, he tried to find redeeming aspects to group aggression and interracial conflict as preconditions of pacification, civilization, and progress. His own concept of development, of the unfolding of latent potentials, is central to his anthropology and his philosophy of history. Development was, however, as much of a duty as an inevitability. He accepted Leibniz’s teleology of history: “We should be content with providence and with the course of human affairs as a whole, which does not begin with good and then proceed to evil, but develops gradually from worse to better…” (8:123). In his 1795 work, he arrived at the view that warfare was a scourge that would eliminate itself when exhausted and enlightened people would finally refuse to finance the rivalries and glory of princes. Leibniz, too, even more dependent than Kant on the favour of rulers, seems to have abandoned his earlier militarism in old age (see Wilson). 