introducció introduction reading hegel kojève bloom

7/29/2019 Introducci Introduction reading Hegel Kojve Bloom

1/6

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION \(i i, i

Queneau'scollection of Kojdve's thoughts about Hegel constirutesone of the few important philosophical books of the twentiethcenrury-e book, knowledge of which is requisite to the fullawerenessof our situation and to the grasp of the most modernperspective on the eternal questions of philosophy. A hostile critichas given an accurete assessmeintf Koidve's influence:

Kojive is the unknown Superior whose dogma is revered, oftenunawares,by that important subdivisionof the "animal kingdom ofthe spirit" in the contemporary world-the progressivist ntellec-tuals. In the years preceding the second world war in France, thetransmissionwas effected by meansof oral initiation to a group ofpersonswho in turn took the responsibiliry of insuucting others,and so on. It was only in 1947that by the effors of RaymondQueneau, the classeson the Phenomenology of Spirit taught byAlexandre Kojive * the Ecole des Hautes Etudes from 1933-1939were published under the title, Introduction to the Reading ofHegel. This teachingwas prior to the philosophico-politicalspecula-tions of J. P. Sartre and M. Merleau-Ponry, ro the publication ofles Ternps modernes and the new orientation of. Esprit, reviewswhich were the most important vehicles for the disseminationofprogressivistdeology in France after the liberation. From that timeon we have breathed Kojdve's teaching with the air of the times.It is known that intellectual progressivismtself admitsof a subdivi-sion,since one ought to consider ts two species,_ChristiagEsprit)and 4-ttreis!Qes Temps modernes); bur this distinction, for reasonsthat the initial doctrine enablesone to clarify, does not take on theimportance of a schism. . . . M. Kojive is, so far as we know, thefirst . . . to haveattempted ro constirure he intellectual and moralmdnaged trois oI Hegel, Marx and Heidegger which hassince thattime been such a great success.Aim6 Patri, "Dialecdque du Maitreet de l'Bclave," Le Contrat Social,V, No. a (July-August 196r),234.1

vll


2/6

Eiiltatl Inlr'od.tccbrtKojEve is the most thoughtful, the most learned, he most pro-

\found of those Marxists who, dissatisfiedwith the thinnes oflMarx's eccount of the human and metaphysicalgrounds of hisiteaching,mrned to Hegel as the truly philosophic-source f thetteaching.Although he madeno effort at publicizing his reflections,the superior force of his interpretations mposed hem willy-nillyon thosewho heard him. For this reason,anyone who wishes ounderstandhe sense f that mixture of Marxism andExistentialismwhich characterizesontemporery adicalismmust turn to Kofdve.From him one can learn both the implicationsand the necessarypresuppositions f historicist philosophy; he elaborateswhat theworld must be like if terms such asfreedom, work, and creetivityare to have a rational content and be parts of a coherentunder-sanding. It would, then, behooveany follower of the new versionof the left who wishesto think through the meaning of his ownaction to mrdy that thinker who is at its origin.However, Koidve is aboveall a philosopher-which, at the leest,meanshat he is primarily interestedn the truth, the comprehen-sive truth. His passionor clariry is more powerful than his passionfor changing he world. The charm of political solutionsdoesnotcause im to forget the need o presentan adequate ccountof therational basisof thosesolutions,and this removeshim from the al-ways distorted atmosphere f activecommitment.He despiseshoseintellectualswho respond to the demandsof the contemPoraryaudienceand give thC appearance f philosophicseriousnessith-out raising he kinds of questionswhich would bore that audienceor be repugnant to it. A cenain senseof the inevitability of thiskind of ebuse---of he conversionof philosophy nto ideology-is,perhaps,at the root of his distaste or publication.His work hasbeenprivateand has, n largemeesure' eencommunicated nly !ofriends. And the core of that work is the careful and scholarlysnrdy of Hegel.

Bicausene is a seriousman,Kojive hasneversought o be orig-inal, and his originaliry hasconsisteiln his seaich or the truth inthe thought of wise men of the past.His interpretadonhasmadeHegel an important alternativeagaiq and showedhow much wehai to learn from him at a timt when he seemedno longer ofliving significance.Kojdve accomplishedhis revival of interest nUeglt n-otby adaptinghim to makehim relevant,but by showingviii


3/6

Eilitalc lnbo&rcrbnthat contemporaryconcernsare bestunderstood n the permanentIight of Hegel's teaching.Kojdve's book is a model of textual in-tCrpretation; he book is suffusedwith the awerenesshat it is ofpressing oncern to 6nd out preciselywhat sucha thinker meent'for he may well know much more than we do about the thingsthat we need o know. Here scholarships in rhe serviceof philos-ophy, and Kojdve givesus a glimpseof the power of greatminds,and espect or the humbleand unfashionableusiness f spendingt' yeeg studyingan old book. His own teaching s but the distillationof more than six years devoted to nothing but reading a singlebook, line by line. INrnooucrtoN To rHE Rpeowc or Hocei- con-'stitutesthe most authoritative nterpretation of Hegel.Such a careful and comprehensive tudy which makessense fHegel'svery difficult textswill beof greatvalue n Americawhere,though his influence has beengreat and is ever greater,very fewpeopleread, et alone understand,him. He has regularly been g-nored by academic ositivistswho areput off by his languageandareunawereof the problems nvolved in their own understandingof scienceand the relationof science o the world of humancon-;ccrn.Hegel is now becomingpopular n literary andartistic circles,but in a superficial orm adapted o pleasedilettantesand otherseekers fter the senscof depth who wish to usehim rather thanunderstandhim. Koidve presentsHegel's teaching with a forceand rigor which should counterpoise oth tendencies.What distinguishes oidve's treatment of Hegel is the recogni-tion that for Hegel the primary concern s not the knowledge ofanything outside himself-be it of nature or history-but knowl-edgeof himself, hat is, knowledgeof what the philosophers andhow he can know what he knows. The philosophermust be ablett_glplg1 lir own doingp;an explanationof the heavens, f ani-mals, or of nonphilosophicmen which does not leaveroom for,or doesnot talk about,the philosopher s radically incompletebe-cause t cennot eccount for the posibility of its own existence sknowledge. The world known by philosophy must be such thatit supportsphilosophy and makes he philosopher he highest or {most complete khd of human being.Koilve learned rom Hegel that the philosopherseeks o knowhimself or to possessull self-consciousness,nd that, therefore,thc tnrc philosophicendeavor s a coherentexplanation f all things

lx


4/6

Eilltor\ Iafioilractutthat culminetesin the explenation of philosophy. The man whoseeksany other form of knowledge, who cannot explain his owndoings, cennot be called a philosopher.Discussionof the retionel$ate is only a corollary of the proof that the world can be knownor is rational. Koilve insistshat Hegel is the only man who suc-ceeded n making this proof, and his interpretation of the Phenom-enology expandsand clarifies Hegel's assertion hat realiry is ra-tional and henceiustifies ationeldiscourse bout it. According toKojive, Hegel is the fulfillment of what Plato and Aristotle could

i only pray for; he is the modern Aristotle who responded o-or,I better, ncorporated-the objectionsmade o Aristotelian philoso-I phy by modern natural rnd human science.Koilve intransigentlynuies to makeplausibleHegel'sclaim that he hed achievedabsolute

1 / wisdom.He argues hat without the possibilityof absolutewisdom,"'\. all knowledge,science,or philosophy s impossible.It may indeedbe doubtedwhetherKoidve is fully persuasiveothe modern consciousnes,particularly sincehe fnds himself com-

pelled to abandonHegel's philosophy of nature as indefensibleand sugEesahat Heidegger'smeditationon beingmay provide asubstimrc for it. The ablndoned philosophy of nature may wellbe e necesaiji Cosmic uPPoft or Hegel'shuman,historical each-ing. One might ask whether Koidve is not really-somewherebe-ttJ"en Hegel and Heidegger,but it shouldbe added hat Kofdvehimself eads he reader o this question'which is a proper themeof philosophical reflection. Koilve describeshe charecterof wis-dom evenlf he doesnot Prove t hasbeenactualized.Now, the most striking feature of Koive's thought is his in-sistence-fully lustifed-that for Hegel, and for all followers offfegel, history is complet-ed,hat -nothing really new can againIffi i. the world. To mostof us,sucha positionseems tterlyp"t"do*i""I and wildly implausible.But Koidve easily shows heineluctablenecessityof this consequenceor anyonewho under-standshuman life to be historically determined, or anyonewhobelieveshat thought is relative to time-that is, for most modern'\-' men. For if thought is historical, t is only at the end of history, \that this fact can-beknown; there can only be knowledge f his-tory et somepoint stops.Koidve elaborateshe meaningof thislogical necessityhroughout the courseof the book and attemPtsto indicate how a sensiblemrn could eccePt t and interpret theI


5/6

Edlar's Introd.uctbnworld in accordencewith it. It is preciselyMam's failure to thinkithrough the meaningof his own historical thought that_proveshis philosophicalnadequacyand cornpelsus to turn to the Pro-Ifounder Hegel. iIf concreie historical reality is all that the human mind canknow, if there s no-tg1lgl![lgnt intelligibleworld, then, for thereto be philosophy or-science, ealiry must have becomerational.The Hegeliarsolution, accepted y Koiive, is that this has ndeedhappened nd that the enunciationof the universal, ational princi-lplesof the rights of man in the FrenchRevolutionmarked he be-lg"nni"gof thi endof history.Thereafter, heseare he only accept-lable,viable principlesof the state.The dtgnity of man hasbeenrecognized, nd all menare understood o participate n it; all thatremains o do is, et most, to realize he state grounded on theseprinciplesall over the world; no antithesis an undermine his syn-thesis,which containswithin itself all the valid possibilities.n thisperspectiveKojve interpretsour situation;he paints a powerfulpicture of our problemses hoseof post-historicalman with noneof the classic asks of history to perform, living in a universal,homogeneous tate where there is vimral egreementon all the

o(

fundamenta!principles of science,politics, and religion. He char- \acterizeshe life of the man who is free.who hasno work, who hasno worlds to conquer,states o found, gods o revere,or truths to \# h , ''discover. n so doing, Koidve gives an exampleof what it meansto follow out the necesiry of one'spositionmanfully and philo-sophically. f Koldve is wrong, if his world doesnot correspondothe real one,vr'e earn at least hat either one must abandon eason-and this includesall science-or one must abandonhistoricism.More common-sensical ut less intrensigent writers would notteachus nearly so much. Koidve presentshe essential utlines ofhistorical hought;and, o repeet,historical hought, in one foim oranother, s at the root of almostall modern human science.

It is concerning he characterization f man at the end of historythat one of the most inuigui"g C$ggl$s in Kojdve's teachingarises. s is only to be expected,his honesty and clarity lead himto pose he difficulty himself. f Hegel is right that history fulfillsthe demands f reason, he citizen of the finel state shouldenloythe satisfactionof all reasonable umanaspirations; e should ber free, rational being, content with his situation and exercising allxi


6/6

Eilltor't llndrudgcttonof his powerq emencipated rom thc bonds of prciudicc md op-prcssion.But looking around us, Koidvc, like every other pcne-trating observer,sees har thc completion of the human task mayvery wcll coincidewith the decayof humaniry, he rebarbarizrtionor even reanimalizationof man. He addresseshis problcm pefticu-

,l*ly in the note on Japanadded o the secondedition (pp. rrg-I 16z). After reading it, one wonders whether the citizcn of the\univenal homogeneousstate is not identicel to Nietzsche's LastlMan, and whether Hegel's historicismdoesnot by an inevitable''dialectic

force us to a-*orc

somber and more radical historicismwhich reiectsrcason.We are ed to a confrontation berween Hegelend Nieusche and perhaps,even funher, toward a reconsiderationof the classicdphilosophy of Plato and Arl*otle, who rciectcd his-toricism before the fact and whom Hegel believed he had zur-pased. It is the speciel merit of Koilve to bc one of the very fewsrre guides to the contempladon of the fundamental alternatives.ALLIIN BLOOM

Itbaca, Ne,utYotk

[Shonly after the completion of this $atement I learncd thatAlcxandrc Koilve had died in Bmsels in May, 1968.1

introducció introduction reading hegel kojève bloom

Documents