Philosophy, History, and Tyranny by Timothy W. Burns Bryan-Paul Frost

Author:Timothy W. Burns,Bryan-Paul Frost
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: State University of New York Press
Published: 2016-03-14T16:00:00+00:00

Conclusion

At the end of the day, who won the Strauss-Kojève debate? The above discussion should hopefully suggest that Strauss did not at all win that debate and that Kojève did not at all lose it. As for whether one might argue that Kojève himself won the debate outright, would it be too brash to say that only Time (= History = Being = Truth) will tell?24

1.Arthur M. Melzer, The Natural Goodness of Man: On the System of Rousseau’s Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), ix.

2.The following system of abbreviations will be used: EPD = Alexandre Kojève, Esquisse d’une phénoménologie du droit (Paris: Gallimard, 1981); HMC = Alexandre Kojève, “Hegel, Marx et le christianisme,” Critique 3–4 (1946): 339–366; ILH = Alexandre Kojève, Introduction à la lecture de Hegel, 2nd ed., ed. Raymond Queneau (Paris: Gallimard, 1968); and OT = Leo Strauss, On Tyranny, corrected and expanded edition, including the Strauss-Kojève correspondence, eds. and trans. Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Unless otherwise noted, all emphasized words are contained in the original.

3.On this point, see most famously (or notoriously) Shadia B. Drury, Alexandre Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 37, 78. Drury claims that Kojève believes “terror is not just a means to an end, it is constitutive of the end itself—which is transcending the fear of death, accepting one’s mortality by choosing death ‘voluntarily’ and without any ‘biological necessity.’ In short, terror is not necessary in the sense of being a necessary means to the end, it is rather a necessary component of the end itself.” This is tendentious at best. No one familiar with Kojève will deny that he zeroed in on the centrality of violence in human history—but it must always be kept in mind why he did so and the ultimate end that he thinks history’s violence has achieved. According to Kojève, wars and revolutions are instrumental in tearing down old and unjust political orders and in erecting new and better ones. As he sees it, the effect of violence has been the progressive improvement and enlightenment of the human race: more individuals are enfranchised, more persons are considered worthy of rights, and more people are given the means to lead productive, dignified lives. As those in positions of power are not likely to relinquish their authority voluntarily, violence is sometimes necessary in order to create egalitarian social orders. Contrary to what Drury implies, Kojève never advocates violence for its own sake. The struggle for recognition and the subsequent domination by Masters is justified, in the final analysis, because Slaves are created who conquer and harness the power of nature, eliminate war and revolution, and make possible the emergence of absolute wisdom. One can certainly disagree with Kojève’s historicism, but it seems highly inaccurate to characterize him as a “terrorist” or “fascist” because of his understanding of history and the human condition (ILH 28, 30–31, 54–56, 175, 179, 502, 507–508; EPD 242, 586).

4.Steven B. Smith, “Introduction: Leo Strauss Today,” in The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss, ed.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.