The paper deals with one of the most current issues as the subject matter of the author's philosophical-critical interest is a review of the problem of globalization. Following this historical turn in which the market took control not only over regions or cultural forms but also, directly or not, over all nations and cultures of the world, the author claims that it is necessary to go back to those theoreticians of modern times who did not want to leave the explanation of this process of expansion to technical and practical sciences only. In this context, she suggests that the philosopher who specified the difference between instrumental and practical reason in a precise, exact and resolute way was the founder of German transcendental philosophy, Immanuel Kant, who consistently relied on the idea of unity of reason. According to the author there are significant differences in opinions whether the growing network of regional markets and cultures is subordinate to moral law and there emerges a question about the extent to which the people who produce economic profit are included in its use or the profit is unfairly distributed only to those who give work. This is the cardinal question of present-day state of affairs. The author then points out that there is a difference between pragmatic and moral perspective and that neoliberalism only uses pragmatic argumentation which triumphantly claims capitalism to be the most successful economic form, but at the same time suppresses the disturbing fact that two thirds of inhabitants of the Earth are forced to live in poverty. Thus, she refers to Kant's teleological project of history of culture and history of humankind which cannot be understood as if humankind automatically developed its rational potential and the idea of cosmopolitanism was written into human nature. The idea of cosmopolitan community cannot be derived from empirical reality but it is a logical consequence of cultural-historical interpretation of human history which does not allow the development on the basis of coincidence but follows the plan of nature based on fundaments of purposively arranged nature. Of course, the purposively arranged nature is the same theoretical construct as morally developing humankind, but without this telos internally belonging to nature in general, humankind cannot be understood as development of education and formation of man and culture. An important moment in the course of history is creation of a legal civil state and progress towards a legal regulation of political relationships among particular nations and states. However, this is Kantian practical-theoretical approach. Historical catastrophes of the 20th century which present the fate of places - symbols, as Verdun, Auschwitz, Stalingrad, Hiroshima, have demonstrated the boundaries of narrow pragmatism which functions without any historical and cultural reflection. On the basis of a precise analysis of Kant's philosophy of history (including his concept of Enlightenment) there is a possibility of transcendental project of cosmopolitan society which can symbolize a mirror for the ruling elite. If they do not use it, in extremis, an obvious amorality and inhumanity of instrumental reason will happen. This is Kant's legacy for future generations but, in a broad sense, also Kant's esteem as a thinker of modern times because, at the same time, it is possible that this legacy means the last chance for this epoch.
