Being, Time, and Politics: The Strauss–Kojève Debate
History and Theory, 32 (2):
138+ (May 1993)DOI: 10.2307/2505349
Abstract
The 1963 publication
in English
of Leo Strauss's
study of Xenophon's
dialogue, Hiero,
or Tyrannicus,
also contained
a critical review
of Strauss's
interpretation by the French philosopher and civil servant, Alexandre Kojeve, and
a "Restatement"
of his position
by Strauss.
This odd
triptych, with
a complex
statement
of the classical position on
tyranny
in the middle, Strauss's
defense of
classical philosophy
on one
side, and
Kojeve's defense
of a radically
historicist, revolutionary
Hegel on
the other,
has now
been re-edited
and re-published.
Victor Gourevitch
and Michael
Roth have
added all
the extant
letters between
Strauss and
Kojeve written
between 1932
and 1965,
many of
which
continue
and
deepen
the
exchanges
on
Xenophon
first
published
in
French
in
1954.
The
editors
have
also
reviewed
and
corrected
the
translation
of Xenophon,
and
re-translated
Kojeve's
review.
The
Strauss-Kojeve
exchange
raises
several
fundamental
questions:
the
relationship
between
political
philosophy
and
underlying
assumptions
about
time
and
history
(espe-
cially
the
extent
to
which
collective
human
time-history-is
subject
to
human
will
and
thought);
the
nature
of
our
independence
from,
and
dependence
on,
others
in
any
satisfaction
of
desire;
and
the
right
way
to
understand
the
distinctive
character
of
modern,
as
opposed
to
classical,
political
life
and
thought.
I
attempt
to
assess
their
respective
positions
on
these
and
other
issues,
and
argue
that
the
nature
of
the
debate
between
them
is
seriously
and
problematically
constrained
by
the
way
Kojeve's
reading
of
Hegel
frames
much
of
the
discussion.