Hugh Gillis, in the thread, was uncomfortable with being called a Kojevian, because that would imply he agrees with everything Alexandre said (and that, of course, would be impossible). He makes the important point that Kojeve mainly enjoyed people who disagreed with him—Aron, Strauss, and Fessard, for examples. But it’s still the case that those Canadians such as George Grant, Barry Cooper, Tom Darby, and Hugh take Kojeve more seriously and so understand him better than we Americans do. That’s no doubt in part because they (like Tocqueville!) view our country (to some extent) as spectators. Here’s a particularly challenging paragraph from Hugh’s post below (you, of course, have to read what Mr. Ceaser said there too):
I would like to, if I may, address some of the points Mr. Ceasar raises. Re, the dissatisfaction of Bloom and his philosophically minded students: In his correspondence with Strauss Kojeve makes it clear that there will be philosophers who will be dissatisfied with the purposelessness of post-historical life, a life for the most part dedicated to entertainment, sport, and eroticism. The question is whether their dissatisfaction will lead to revolution, i.e., taking up arms. There are many aspects about the modern world that I may find unsatisfactory, e.g.,, the lack of tenured positions in political theory, but will that lead me to make a serious effort to overthrow the state? Is there anyone besides the Jihadists who questions the fundamental legitimacy of the US political system? The argument between libertarians and progressivists is an argument within the confines of liberalism; it is an argument about how best to be liberal. On this Fukuyama has a point.