The introduction of the reading of the Hegel

Alexandre Kojeve wrote the book ’The Introduction to Reading Hegel’ in 1947 about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Alexandre Kojeve narrates the book using both Karl Marx’s ’labor philosophy’ and Martin Heidegger’s ’Being toward Death’. He employs Marx’s labor philosophy, which places the transformational action of a desiring being at the center of the historical process, alongside material pursuit and ideological battle. Applying Heidegger’s theory, he characterizes the being as free, negative, and radically temporal, recognizing and reclaiming its mortality. Kojeve creates many themes that would be significant to existentialism and French theory like the Master Slave Dialectic and the end of history. Hegel views human history as the view of thought as it makes efforts of understanding itself and the relationship it has to the universe.

In chapter one, Kojeve claims that humans are different from other animals because they have the potential self-conscious. Desire brings them back through the object contradiction or others. Kojeve explains that “The human I” stands for desire or need. The action is as a result of desire, all deed that has repudiation, and it is always a constructive act, and destructive act in as much as an abstract’s truth is gotten or made out of intervention. Desire should be done for a non-natural object or for self-consciousness one that exceeds the given reality for Desire itself. Kojeve goes ahead to argue that self-consciousness is a desiring want, the appeal of another person, negating negativity thus the human history is the history of wanted Desires. The human desire in this case that is recognized by another or other desires, then people fight to the death so as to get it. A fight for recognition usually begins when people experience a conflict because of an encounter with another being that is conscious or because we are self-certain that the universe is ours and we are the universe. The two opponents in the conflict fight to the death so they can achieve mutual recognition yet it is a must that, both of them must remain alive so that the truth can persist at the end. But for both of them to survive, one must throw in the towel, distinguish the other and reject being noticed. Therefore, it’s the master who is given by the slave. Kojeve argues that if humans are either slaves of masters, then the ancient dialect that is interacted between both of them must end in the dialectical overcoming both the Master and Slave.

There are two stages of meditation that befall in the Master/Slave scenario; the first is that the Slave is the mediator of the object and the Master of desire because the Slave is the one that handgrips and transmutes the object for him. The next scenario is that the Master is the only one because Slaves recognizes him as a Master meaning that the only him a Being through the slave or another individual. Kojeve writes that what is catastrophic about this situation is the fact that gratitude here is adjacent because the Master does not identify the human dignity and reality. Thus he is known by a person that he does and not distinguish. Using insight from Marxist, the author proposes that a whole, completely free man who is entirely and definitively fulfilled by what he is, the individual is viewed as being finalized and completed in and by the gratification and may become the Slave who has overawed his bondage.

If the Master has an idle backbreaking and a predicament in distinction, then he has a slavery that is caused to all human, historical and social progress as history is the antiquity of the laboring person. There is an advantage if the Slave is over the Master even if they are dishonesties in the aspect that he sees the reality and value of independence of the human freedom. Even though he is unable to get involved in this value, he views it by only noticing the other, the inclination to thrive and repudiate the slave bonding that was there. Kojeve claims that because of the experience of the contest which ended him a Slave has inclined him to the act of self-governing, of cooperation of himself that the intercession of his given I of which it is slavish. An alternative benefit for the Slave is the capability to revamp the given World by his effort for that reason he goes over himself and also over the Master that is bound to the specifics which he leaves intact.

In chapter two Kojeve starts a debate of the differentiation of complete Knowledge from the theology of Christians and education by Hegel. In trying to explain the focus of Christianity, He also attempts to elaborate a series of principles which the Slave sees as a way of coping with his state of enslavement or as a way of appeasing the ideal of Freedom with the aspect of Slavery. Kojeve goes ahead to state that in Stoicism the Slave attempt to convince himself that he is substantially free of mere significance that he is free and this is through the intellectual idea of freedom. Apparently the truth about the situation does not matter that much, but in the end, the Slave becomes jaded with Stoicism as it retains him action less and inert. Because of the dissatisfaction of Stoicism, the Slave puts efforts near an action, at the negation of the given.

The Slave’s way of acting successfully is through the negating of Slavery which means to contradict the Master and thus taking the risk of losing his life in a match against the Master. But the Slave does not taunt to take up this action and being driven by monotony to take action he is satisfied with just activating his beliefs in some sense. This makes him refute the given resulting in the Stoic Slave transforming into the skeptic-nihilist Slave. The pursuit of resolution is unsuccessful as a consequence of the inconsistent nature of the renouncing of oneself. Kojeve argues that to be skeptic-nihilist is effectively committing suicide, although being aware of the contradiction, in this case, is what pushes the Slave to get to another level because when one is aware of opposition, they necessarily want to remove it. The Slave has the realization that he is unable to change his existence that is conflicting and chooses that life on Earth is bondage and they choose not to fight the Master again. In the effort to uphold the ideal of liberty he adjures an afterlife, or beyond that, he can rely on, and this results in an in action yet again.

In his most atheistic moment in this book, Kojeve argues that to realize absolute Freedom will only be possible by overcoming Christian theology which can be through the accepting of the idea of death and finally atheism. He also claims that the whole Christian World evolution is only but advancement near the atheistic awareness of the fundamental finiteness of the existence of humans. Kojeve states that in order for Christianity to be overcome the first step is to realize it in the form of a World. But for this to take place, he argues that the Universal and Particular must as well be overcome. He states that man can indeed be satisfied, the past can end, but only through the establishment of a community of a State is whereby the rigidly can be accurate. Also, the personal value of all the realize in their very particularity, by all, by Universality embodied in the State whereby the universal value of the State is acknowledged and appreciated by the specific as well as all the Particulars.

In chapter three Kojeve goes on with his discourse of the views of Hegel in regards to religion in this brief section. He says that for Hegel every theology is necessarily anthropology because religious thought is always of humans and human existence philosophy as well. However, these two forms differ when theology focuses its concern into the beyond of Heaven. He also adds that these two types of thought coexist while they oppose each other; they stimulate and mutually complete one another. Philosophy makes an analysis of the particular which is the here, and now theology, on the other hand, looks to the universal. When they both realize their union with each other, the synthesis will take place. It is acceptable to say that of Man everything that the Christian says of his God so as to shift from the complete or Christian Theology to the simple philosophy or science of Hegel.

In chapter 4 Kojeve says a couple of words of wisdom in regards to Philosophy before achieving extensive Knowledge of Phenomenology. He claims that the prudent human is one that is entirely and utterly insecure with oneself and who has the capability to give answers to every question in relation to their conduct in an entirely lucid tone. The Stoics define the astute person as one who wants nothing, does not have the desire for anything, wants to adjust nothing, and naturally is and does not become. Kojeve says that Hegel approves both interpretations and regards them to be working together but still affirms that the rational individual is also a morally excellent one.

Hegel view’s the three interpretations of Wisdom as discreetly tantamount to each other. The Astute Man is the man that is exquisitely self-conscious which means one that is fully satisfied by what he is whereby he becomes aware of ethical perfection by his survival or one who acts as the miniature for himself and all others. The author believes that it is not every human being who has the destiny of achieving this wise state. He explains that the individual that the Phenomenology has in perspective is not just a man but the Philosopher himself who precisely is the wisdom lover. Plato, on the other hand, disagrees with such wisdom claiming that it is not possible and argues that it is just but an ideal after which Kojeve starts a discourse in regards to this disagreement amidst the views of Plato and Hegel on this issue.

He says that the aversion between Hegel and Plato is beyond Philosophy, but it is one that is among Theology and Philosophy which is in the concluding study that is in the middle of Wisdom and Religion (89). Because Plato refers to Wisdom as the perfect world, an extrinsic domain, he is therefore appropriately put in the theological and religious group. Kojeve feels that for as long as the Phenomenology of Hegel seems circular it must be studied while keeping in mind its circularity. It is however important that before taking up this action, one must first identify the meaning of requirement of circularity and secondly have the understanding of why the genuinely actual outright truth can only be circular.

According to Kojeve, he views the phenomenology requirements in relation to the book concerning Hegel’s ideas into time, eternity and concept. Here he starts by discussing how the terms are found useful in the theological frameworks, or they are meant to be held eternally by external essence throughout Plato’s account. In other words, he views that every system has an absolute theological knowledge that relates the concept of eternal unity to that of eternity. Eventually, the idea leads to a developed theological understanding at the end. Therefore, if Plato views Eternity as situated outside, then the system is acknowledged as a monotheistic and radical transcendentalism.

Kojeve then turns Aristotle’s idea to the notes and matter believed about eternal being within the time. He claims that time is Eternal and that it’s circular because it goes round and round eternally. Kojeve also feels that the logic from Aristotle falls when it comes to the description of humans particularly when it comes to their freedom at times where they have to go outside. Here he states that history is wasted. On the other hand, Kant equates that the concept of eternal shows that man places something outside of time and then relates to it as freedom. That he says, is called the transcendental theory because every practical reason a man does is out of his pure will. The challenge as Kojev argues is that the free act notion serves as a vague concept that occurs as a priori because it is believed to be part of the human history.

As a result, Hegel concept shows that concept is time, but Kojeve states that for the equation to balance, then philosophy has to attain the knowledge that relates to man. Moreover, the comparison starts a premise that considers man’s history in relation to Hegel’s attempts. However, Kojeve notes that Hegel’s Time idea has an anthropological favor which has a circular motion. He also argues that Kegel’s concept shows that man’s only time is to the extent of his existence. Furthermore, his account also indicates that the forces of history motivate the future of an individual.

As time goes by, the pre-Hegelian philosophy is considered as a movement that comes from the past towards the future by a method known as the present. But with time, Kegel’s idea notwithstanding shows that the evolution endangers the future as the present gives way to the past. He also demonstrates through signs showing; (Future>Past>Present>Future). If history is a desire, then the recognition of one’s will is through negotiation and work that humans have transformed. This reveals that the notion empirically prevails in the world without being physically there. In other words, work is the concept itself, and the essence of man is vital for its existence. Hegel’s concept also shows that time could be the Begriff as well as the Geist. He elaborates it by showing that for work to be temporalized, it requires space and the existence of time. Therefore if a man is an idea, and the idea is work, then man and idea are time.

In chapter 8, Hegel talks about the so-called ‘realists’ which is broken up into phenomenology and logic parts. At first, for someone to go through Hegel’s metaphysical base they must be familiar with the spirit of the revealed being to the objection of being given the full freedom. Therefore realism surfaces its bifurcation of spirits to time and static being as well as realism. However, Kojel reminds us that the put look may lead to the emphasis on history because work, man, and the idea are also a time in the sense that the history of philosophy exists through the wisdom. For one to understand knowledge, then the past has to be integrated with the present by transforming the progress together with its relation.

The last chapter shows how Kojev discusses the role of dialectic in Hegel’s approach through his opposition method. The Dialectic method indicates that there are three integral and complementary aspects; the abstract, the negative and the positive aspects. He argues that when the Dialectic logic is purely descriptive and contemplative, then there is a phenomenological Husserl’s sense. Kovel also reminds us that the dialectical logic itself is a thought and speech because of the extent they have or the description of the reality of the being.

As much as Hegel’s resistance method explains Kojeve’s theory, then no method is specular to his science. Since Hegel is a scientist as well as a philosopher, his ways oppose the reality and deform of the Kojeve’s theories through the methods and actions he conducts. Contrary to that, the wise man is definitively and fully reconciled with what he entrusts without even opening himself entirely with resistance. Hegel might also be the only philosopher to get rid of the Dialectic theory because it was always considered to be a philosophical discussion. He also makes it clear that Kojeve only describes history as a dialectical nature.

Conclusion

Alexandre Kojeve in this book Introduction to the reading of Hegel synthesize the theories of Hegel, Marxist and Heidegger to present a vision of human history whereby man grasps their freedom in order to produce himself and his world as he pursues his desires and doing so results in the driving of history towards its end. Kojeve outlines visions of the culmination of history and the influence of Marx and Heidegger. In the Introduction to the reading of Hegel Kojeve also tries to collapse all the difference that is between subject and object. He also refers to the death of man as the end of history which means that the core of the existence of man has been robbed from him.

Bibliography

Kojève, Alexandre, Raymond Queneau, Allan Bloom, and Jr Jame H. Nichols. Introduction to the reading of Hegel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012