On Tyranny by Leo Strauss (Paperback)

~ Gourevitch (Author) "(1) Simonides the poet came once upon a time to Hiero the tyrant..." (more)
Key Phrases: most blessed possession, tyrannical life, tyrannical art, Leo Strauss, Alexandre Kojčve, Xenophon's Simonides (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Current speculation about the end of the Cold War and its implications for the future of the West has revived an old debate about whether history has an "end" and what this "end of history" will look like. "On Tyranny", first published by The Free Press in 1956, considers the idea of "the end of history". This revised edition includes an extensive selection from the life-long correspondence between Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojeve, the French Hegelian philosopher.

About the Author

Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago. His many contributions to political philosophy include The Political Philosophy of Hobbes and Liberalism Ancient and Modern, both published by the University of Chicago Press.

--This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

---

Product Details Paperback: 336 pages Publisher: Free Press; Rev Exp Su edition (June 30, 1991) Language: English ISBN-10: 0029127351 ISBN-13: 978-0029127353 Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6 x 0.8 inches Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews) Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,610,292 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

---

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

› Visit Amazon's Leo Strauss Page

Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!

Search Inside This Book:

---

Inside This Book (learn more)
Browse and search another edition of this book.

First Sentence:
(1) Simonides the poet came once upon a time to Hiero the tyrant. Read the first page

Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
most blessed possession, tyrannical life, tyrannical art, beneficent tyranny, beneficent tyrant, philosophic politics, initial enumeration, concerning tyranny, actual tyrant, good tyranny, contriving something, pleasure deriving, potential philosophers, good tyrant, philosophic friends, classical political philosophy, potential tyrant, beneficent ruler, armed prophets, homogeneous state, private men, compare ibid, modern tyranny, being envied

Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
Leo Strauss, Alexandre Kojčve, Xenophon's Simonides, Republic of Letters, Miss Basjo, Xenophon's Socrates, Eleatic Stranger, Lycée Vanves, Xenophon's Hiero, Corpus Xenophonteum, Mother of the Gods, Stalingrad Vanves, Temps Modernes, Compare Hellenica, Diogenes Laertius, New York, Plato's Socrates, Seventh Letter, Compare Oeconomicus, Illinois Department of Political Science January, Phenomenology of Mind, Xenophon's Cyrus, Apologia Socratis, British Museum, Compare Isocrates

New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats

Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!

Search Inside This Book:

---

Citations (learn more)

This book cites 38 books:

• Political Philosophy (Dooyeweerd, H. Selections. Ser. D, V. 1.) by Herman Dooyeweerd on 5 pages
• The Education of Cyrus (Agora Editions) by Xenophon on 5 pages
• Political Philosophy: Six Essays. by Leo. Strauss on 5 pages
• The City and Man by Leo Strauss on page 306, page 307, and page 312
• What is Political Philosophy?: And Other Essays by Leo Strauss on page 177, Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)

See all 38 books this book cites

 

100 books cite this book:

• Discourses on Strauss: Revelation And Reason in Leo Strauss And His Critical Study of Machiavelli by Kim A. Sorensen on 9 pages
• Reconstructing America: The Symbol of America in Modern Thought by Professor James W. Ceaser on 6 pages
• Athens and Jerusalem: George Grant’s Theology, Philosophy, and Politics by Ian Angus on 6 pages
• Faith And Poltical Philosophy: The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964 by Peter Emberley on 5 pages
• The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama on 5 pages

See all 100 books citing this book

---

Books on Related Topics (learn more)

Plato's Symposium by Alan Bloom

Discusses:

• potential philosophers
• philosophic friends
• potential tyrant

Leo Strauss by Thomas L. Pangle

Discusses:

• philosophic friends
• classical political philosophy
• Republic of Letters

The City and Man by Leo Strauss

Discusses:

• tyrannical life
• pleasure deriving
• potential philosophers

Plato's Socrates by Nicholas D. Smith

Discusses:

• good tyrant
• Xenophon's Socrates
• Eleatic Stranger

What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies by Leo Strauss

Discusses:

• philosophic politics
• actual tyrant
• good tyranny

Thoughts on Machiavelli by Leo Strauss

Discusses:

• pleasure deriving
• classical political philosophy
• potential tyrant

Plato's Symposium by Alan Bloom Discusses: potential philosophers philosophic friends potential tyrant Leo Strauss by Thomas L. Pangle Discusses: philosophic friends classical political philosophy Republic of Letters The City and Man by Leo Strauss Discusses: tyrannical life pleasure deriving potential philosophers Plato's Socrates by Nicholas D. Smith Discusses: good tyrant Xenophon's Socrates Eleatic Stranger Loading...

---

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?

	70% buy the item featured on this page: On Tyranny by Leo Strauss 5.0 out of 5 stars (4)
	9% buy The City and Man 4.8 out of 5 stars (6) $9.27
	9% buy History of Political Philosophy 4.7 out of 5 stars (15) $16.91
	7% buy Natural Right and History (Walgreen Foundation Lectures) 4.0 out of 5 stars (16) $14.51

Explore similar items

---

Suggested Tags from Similar Products  (What's this?) Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product). Check a corresponding box or enter your own tags in the field below.  political philosophy(15) philosophy(6) leo strauss(6) conservatism(5) natural law(3) niccolo machiavelli(3) philosophy political(3) ancient philosophy(2) in the mediterranean(2) italian literature(2) italy(2) Your tags: Add your first tag

Search Products Tagged with   See most popular tags

---

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

---

 

Customer Reviews

4 Reviews 5 star:  (4) 4 star:    (0) 3 star:    (0) 2 star:    (0) 1 star:    (0)           Average Customer Review 5.0 out of 5 stars (4 customer reviews)		Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews 52 of 52 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy at its intoxicating best!, April 21, 1997 By A Customer This astounding book, On Tyranny, pits Leo Strauss against Alexander Kojeve in the never ending battle of the Ancients against the Moderns. The book begins with the text of Xenophon's Hiero, followed by Strauss's in depth discussion of the Hiero. Then the fireworks start! Kojeve, in his discussion of Strauss's comments, will elucidate his peculiar mixture of Hegelian, Marxist, and Heideggerian philosophies in order to defend the unity of `Tyranny and Wisdom' at the end of history, with some amusing asides on Strauss's tendency to build a philosophical cult. Modern tyranny (Stalinism) is rational, or wise, because it leads to the universal, homogenous state. The state in which everyone -- people, politicians, and philosophers -- will be fulfilled. This state, where the people will be safe, politicians renowned, and philosophers enthralled by the rationality of it all, will happen as a result of historical action, or work. We will be living in a world that we made with our own hands. And, as the conflicts of history weed out ever more irrationalities, we come to feel more and more at home in this fabricated, technological world. This leads to less conflict and more fulfillment. Which means, as Kojeve said elsewhere, "History is the history of the working slave." This leaves some of us, Strauss included, wondering if the only thing more wretched than being a slave would be living as a contented one. Strauss comments on all this in a reply that briefly starts out with a discussion of Eric Voegelin but then turns to the main event. Strauss wants to know how anyone will want to live in this world where everyone thinks the same, feels the same, wants the same. A world in which anyone who thinks/feels/wants differently, as Nietzsche said, goes voluntarily to the madhouse. A world that as Reason is woven into it, Humanity is pushed out of it. His prescription is a return to the ancients, who, as the Hiero shows us, knew that philosophy both could not and should not be realized in time. Otherwise, Humanity will end up engulfed by its own artifacts. Or, as Ernst Juenger remarked, "History is the replacement of men by things. 18 of 19 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars Additional Comments, January 26, 2001 By  Christian A. Johnson "Host Geekerati Podcast" (Los Angeles, Ca United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)    This review is from: On Tyranny (Paperback) The writer of the above review has done a great job of conveying the basic arguments and value of Strauss's translation of the Hiero and his discussion with Kojeve. I think that there is yet more to be said. Strauss as a political philosopher argued the case that with Machiavelli modern political thought begins. One cannot help when reading the Hiero to begin to see further, it was already convincingly argued in Thoughts on Machiavelli, how Machiavelli's famous treatise The Prince is in many ways a response to this dialogue from Xenophon. The discussion of tyranny and the "joys" and "protections" that stem from such a life are questioned in the Hiero because of the ramifications of tyrannic rule. Strauss, in typical fashion, articulates and expands on the argument presented in the Hiero. The responses from Kojeve bring the classical into conflict with the most progressive of modern thought, the concept of the universal state. Particularly valuable in this edition is the collection of the correspondence of the two respondents which clarify, and present a more honest argument, the public discourse extant in the formal essays. Read this book as a companion to "The Prince" or studies of Hegel to see the dialogue between "Classical" and "Modern" or even "Post-modern" thought. 15 of 16 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy and the World it Rules, November 30, 2006 By  Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003" (NJ, USA) - See all my reviews This review is from: On Tyranny (Paperback) This book is composed of a translation of Xenophon's Hiero, a commentary by Leo Strauss ('On Tyranny') on it, two essays (one by Kojčve, one by Strauss) outlining the controversy between them and finally, in the latest edition, the correspondence between them. After reading the essays Kojčve and Strauss aimed at each other one comes to suspect that the major difference between the two is how, precisely, philosophy is to rule the world. Strauss prefers the ancient way of moderately (and occasionally) influencing the Nomos while Kojčve insists that Nomos (i.e., Law) must be exactly equal to Philosophy - or, more precisely, equal to exactly what philosophy wants of it. Thus Strauss is for 'ruling' while Kojčve wants to Rule. Thus it really is very funny how Kojčve 'accuses' Strauss of insanity! By this, Kojčve only means that if a philosopher does not go forth and change the World he can never know that his understanding is not mere private fancy - that is, madness. Since Kojčve believes that in order to be rational philosophy must rule all he accuses the practical moderation defended by Strauss of madness. Of course, one could moderately accuse Kojčve's 'Enlightened' dream of One World of the same thing... Thus the argument between them is not whether philosophy should rule - but exactly how it should rule. Kojčve believes that without the arrival of the Final Philosophical Artifact -the Universal Homogenous State (UHS)- philosophy is only a private mania. But Strauss says that the UHS will make philosophy impossible. To Kojčve, the UHS is a monument to Philosophical Reason while for Strauss it is its tomb. Kojčve invites Strauss to join him in making the UHS -it is a great honor!- but Strauss declines because he cannot bring himself to preside over the End of Philosophy. Thus it is very amusing that over the years, thanks primarily to Allan Bloom (who studied with both Kojčve and Strauss) and students (of students) of Bloom there has arisen the 'Straussian' neoconservative position that it is the duty of US foreign policy to make the World into good democratic, liberal capitalists in the Euro-American vein. But this 'Straussian' neoconservative position really is at most a hybrid of Kojčve and Strauss which leans decidedly in the Kojčvean direction. No? Then have the courage to read the exchange between Kojčve and Strauss (Essays and Correspondence) and decide for yourself. For those that only have the old 1983 edition I want to point out, even insist, that the correspondence adds some nice touches to the argument between Kojčve and Strauss that should not be missed. For instance, we see here quite clearly how important the Criterion of Knowledge is to Kojčve's thought: "As regards myself, I came to Hegel by way of the question of criteria. I see only three possibilities: (a) Plato's-Husserl's "intuition of essences" (which I do not believe [for one has to believe it]); (b) relativism (in which one cannot live); (c) Hegel and "circularity." If, however, one assumes circularity as the only criterion of truth (including the moral), then everything else follows automatically." (Kojčve, Letter of Sept 19, 1950, p 256.) Thus when one sees that between the extremes of what Kojčve is pleased to call 'intuition' (Religion, Phenomenology, 'esoteric' silence) and its failure ('chatter', relativism, postmodernism) there is only the 'Circularity of the Concept' then one begins to see why Kojčve must proclaim the 'End of History' - it is to protect the 'Absolute Knowledge' such Circularity requires. (Absolute Knowledge, btw, means unchanging knowledge while circularity means that wherever we begin our research we end, if we proceed scientifically (i.e., in a Hegelian manner), always in the same place.) Kojčve, in the same letter, goes on to concede that there was for him once a fourth possibility: "For a time I believed in a fourth possibility: nature is "identical," hence the classical criterion can be retained for nature. But now I believe that one can only be silent about nature (mathematics). Hence: either one remains "classically" silent (cp. Plato's Parmenides and Seventh Epistle), or one chatters "in the modern manner" (Pierre Bayle), or one is an Hegelian." (p. 256) Thus we see that nature was at one time also a possible 'criterion' for Kojčve. But he abandons it and with it the Hegelian 'Philosophy of Nature'. Strauss, however, is insistent that there is a 'human nature' and he continually throws it in the face of Kojčve. Of this Kojčve writes: "Regarding the issue, I can only keep repeating the same thing. If there is something like "human nature," then you are surely right in everything. But to deduce from premises is not the same as to prove these premises. And to infer premises from (anyway questionable) consequences is always dangerous." (Kojčve, Letter of October 29, 1953, p 261.) Thus Kojčve says to Strauss that he can't prove what he says and, of course, Kojčve can. -But he can do so if, and only if, History Ends as Kojčve says it will. But the proof of success is no proof of Reason but only of power... In any case, we see Strauss still pressing the point on nature a few years later: "You have never given me an answer to my questions: a) was Nietzsche not right in describing the Hegelian-Marxian end as "the last man"? and b) what would you put into the place of Hegel's philosophy of nature?" (Strauss, Letter of Sept 11, 1957, p 291.) It is my belief that Strauss is convinced that this lack of what the ancients would have thought of as a cosmology (i.e., cosmogony) allows ordinary people in the secular, atheistic UHS to turn to religion. He argues that Wisdom in the UHS can only belong to a tiny few and that: "...if wisdom does not become common property, the mass remains in the thrall of religion, that is to say of an essentially particular and particularizing power (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...), which means that the decline and fall of the universal-homogenous state is unavoidable." (Strauss, Letter August, 22, 1948, p 238.) Without some sort of Cosmogony the atheistic UHS cannot hold onto its citizens. Of course, this is true only if the UHS must be entirely secular. However, if somehow a right-Hegelian (i.e., religious) interpretation were to prevail in the UHS this would no longer be necessary. And the UHS could survive indefinitely... But Kojčve, of course, discounts this possibility, for him there are only two Hegelian possibilities: "If the Westerners remain capitalist (that is to say, also nationalist), they will be defeated by Russia, and that is how the End-State will come about. If, however, they "integrate" their economies and policies (they are on their way to doing so), then they can defeat Russia. And that is how the End-State will be reached (the same universal and homogenous State). But in the first case it will be spoken about in "Russian" (with Lysenko, etc.), and in the second case - in "European"." (Kojčve, Letter of Sept. 19, 1950, p 256.) But historically this is false. The first interpretation of Hegel (during his lifetime) was religious. Thus one wonders if the UHS with a universal Hegelian religion could somehow be brought about... But that is another story. So, for those of you familiar with an earlier edition I hope I have given some hint of how the letters amplify and expand the argument between Kojčve and Strauss that we first saw in the essays included in earlier editions. This book is superb - I have only hinted at its intricate arguments - do not pass it up!		Ad feedback   Most Recent Customer Reviews 5.0 out of 5 stars 1 This is a good book insofar as it brings to light the relation of (philosophical) thought to society. Read more Published on January 18, 2006 by Mark Twain Search Customer Reviews Only search this product's reviews

---

Customer Discussions

This product's forum Discussion Replies Latest Post No discussions yet Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight Start a new discussion Topic: First post: Receive e-mail when new posts are made Prompts for sign-in   Guidelines Active discussions in related forums Discussion Replies Latest Post politics Islam in the West 82 3 seconds ago politics Michele Bachmann and the Tea Partiers, a match made in hell 1 23 seconds ago politics More veterans die from lack of health insurance in America than die in Afghan and Iraq wars 2 4 minutes ago politics Poll: "45% for Obama, 49% Against - If Election Were Held Right Now" (the end of Socialism?) 84 4 minutes ago history The USS Liberty 69 5 minutes ago politics CA Socialists withhold an additional 10% of your paycheck... 78 5 minutes ago history Holocaust Denial Dissected 3309 11 minutes ago Search Customer Discussions Search all Amazon discussions

Related forums history  (804 discussions) politics  (1023 discussions)

---

Listmania!

Books by and about Leo Strauss: A list by Seth J. Frantzman   Neoconservative Introduction: A list by Mugged By Reality "NJM" Create a Listmania! list

Search Listmania!

---

So You'd Like to...

read the best (conservative) books of the 20th century: A guide by Bram   Know about Medieval Islamic-Jewish Philosophy & Leo Strauss: A guide by Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003"   Become a True Individual: A guide by Jackson K. Eskew Create a guide

Search Guides

---

Product Information from the Amapedia Community

Beta (What's this?)

Be the first person to add an article about this item at Amapedia.com.

› See featured Amapedia.com articles

---

Look for Similar Items by Category

• Books > History > Historical Study > Reference
• Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Political
• Books > Nonfiction > Politics
• Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science

---

Look for Similar Items by Subject

Search Books by subject:
History: theory & methods
Social & political philosophy
Sociology, social studies
Political Philosophy
Philosophy
General
POLITICAL SCIENCE / General
Philosophy / General
Philosophy / Political
Political
1902-1968
Despotism
Hieron
Kojeve, Alexandre,
Political science
Tyranny and wisdom
Xenophon
Xenophon.
Political Science & Theory


i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ...

Ad feedback

 

Feedback If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us.  Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? Is there any other feedback you would like to provide? Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to all feedback submitted via this form, but we'll ask you to sign in so we can contact you if needed.

Your Recent History

 (What's this?)

After viewing product detail pages or search results, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.

› View and edit your browsing history

Get to Know Us Careers Investor Relations Press Releases Amazon and Our Planet Make Money with Us Sell on Amazon Join Associates Self-publish with Us › See all Let Us Help You Shipping Rates & Policies Amazon Prime Returns Help

Canada | China | France | Germany | Japan | United Kingdom  And don't forget: Amazon Windowshop | AmazonWireless | Askville | Audible | DPReview | Endless | IMDb | Shopbop | SoundUnwound | Warehouse Deals by Amazon | Zappos Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice  © 1996-2009, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates

Product Details

• Paperback: 336 pages
• Publisher: Free Press; Rev Exp Su edition (June 30, 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0029127351
• ISBN-13: 978-0029127353
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,610,292 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

52 of 52 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy at its intoxicating best!, April 21, 1997

By A Customer

This astounding book, On Tyranny, pits Leo Strauss against Alexander Kojeve in the never ending battle of the Ancients against the Moderns. The book begins with the text of Xenophon's Hiero, followed by Strauss's in depth discussion of the Hiero. Then the fireworks start!

Kojeve, in his discussion of Strauss's comments, will elucidate his peculiar mixture of Hegelian, Marxist, and Heideggerian philosophies in order to defend the unity of `Tyranny and Wisdom' at the end of history, with some amusing asides on Strauss's tendency to build a philosophical cult. Modern tyranny (Stalinism) is rational, or wise, because it leads to the universal, homogenous state. The state in which everyone -- people, politicians, and philosophers -- will be fulfilled. This state, where the people will be safe, politicians renowned, and philosophers enthralled by the rationality of it all, will happen as a result of historical action, or work. We will be living in a world that we made with our own hands. And, as the conflicts of history weed out ever more irrationalities, we come to feel more and more at home in this fabricated, technological world. This leads to less conflict and more fulfillment. Which means, as Kojeve said elsewhere, "History is the history of the working slave." This leaves some of us, Strauss included, wondering if the only thing more wretched than being a slave would be living as a contented one.

Strauss comments on all this in a reply that briefly starts out with a discussion of Eric Voegelin but then turns to the main event. Strauss wants to know how anyone will want to live in this world where everyone thinks the same, feels the same, wants the same. A world in which anyone who thinks/feels/wants differently, as Nietzsche said, goes voluntarily to the madhouse. A world that as Reason is woven into it, Humanity is pushed out of it. His prescription is a return to the ancients, who, as the Hiero shows us, knew that philosophy both could not and should not be realized in time. Otherwise, Humanity will end up engulfed by its own artifacts. Or, as Ernst Juenger remarked, "History is the replacement of men by things.

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Additional Comments, January 26, 2001

By	Christian A. Johnson "Host Geekerati Podcast" (Los Angeles, Ca United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: On Tyranny (Paperback)

The writer of the above review has done a great job of conveying the basic arguments and value of Strauss's translation of the Hiero and his discussion with Kojeve. I think that there is yet more to be said. Strauss as a political philosopher argued the case that with Machiavelli modern political thought begins. One cannot help when reading the Hiero to begin to see further, it was already convincingly argued in Thoughts on Machiavelli, how Machiavelli's famous treatise The Prince is in many ways a response to this dialogue from Xenophon. The discussion of tyranny and the "joys" and "protections" that stem from such a life are questioned in the Hiero because of the ramifications of tyrannic rule. Strauss, in typical fashion, articulates and expands on the argument presented in the Hiero. The responses from Kojeve bring the classical into conflict with the most progressive of modern thought, the concept of the universal state. Particularly valuable in this edition is the collection of the correspondence of the two respondents which clarify, and present a more honest argument, the public discourse extant in the formal essays. Read this book as a companion to "The Prince" or studies of Hegel to see the dialogue between "Classical" and "Modern" or even "Post-modern" thought.

15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy and the World it Rules, November 30, 2006

By	Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003" (NJ, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: On Tyranny (Paperback)

This book is composed of a translation of Xenophon's Hiero, a commentary by Leo Strauss ('On Tyranny') on it, two essays (one by Kojčve, one by Strauss) outlining the controversy between them and finally, in the latest edition, the correspondence between them. After reading the essays Kojčve and Strauss aimed at each other one comes to suspect that the major difference between the two is how, precisely, philosophy is to rule the world. Strauss prefers the ancient way of moderately (and occasionally) influencing the Nomos while Kojčve insists that Nomos (i.e., Law) must be exactly equal to Philosophy - or, more precisely, equal to exactly what philosophy wants of it. Thus Strauss is for 'ruling' while Kojčve wants to Rule.

Thus it really is very funny how Kojčve 'accuses' Strauss of insanity! By this, Kojčve only means that if a philosopher does not go forth and change the World he can never know that his understanding is not mere private fancy - that is, madness. Since Kojčve believes that in order to be rational philosophy must rule all he accuses the practical moderation defended by Strauss of madness. Of course, one could moderately accuse Kojčve's 'Enlightened' dream of One World of the same thing...

Thus the argument between them is not whether philosophy should rule - but exactly how it should rule. Kojčve believes that without the arrival of the Final Philosophical Artifact -the Universal Homogenous State (UHS)- philosophy is only a private mania. But Strauss says that the UHS will make philosophy impossible. To Kojčve, the UHS is a monument to Philosophical Reason while for Strauss it is its tomb. Kojčve invites Strauss to join him in making the UHS -it is a great honor!- but Strauss declines because he cannot bring himself to preside over the End of Philosophy.

Thus it is very amusing that over the years, thanks primarily to Allan Bloom (who studied with both Kojčve and Strauss) and students (of students) of Bloom there has arisen the 'Straussian' neoconservative position that it is the duty of US foreign policy to make the World into good democratic, liberal capitalists in the Euro-American vein. But this 'Straussian' neoconservative position really is at most a hybrid of Kojčve and Strauss which leans decidedly in the Kojčvean direction.

No? Then have the courage to read the exchange between Kojčve and Strauss (Essays and Correspondence) and decide for yourself.

For those that only have the old 1983 edition I want to point out, even insist, that the correspondence adds some nice touches to the argument between Kojčve and Strauss that should not be missed. For instance, we see here quite clearly how important the Criterion of Knowledge is to Kojčve's thought:

"As regards myself, I came to Hegel by way of the question of criteria. I see only three possibilities:

(a) Plato's-Husserl's "intuition of essences" (which I do not believe [for one has to believe it]); (b) relativism (in which one cannot live); (c) Hegel and "circularity." If, however, one assumes circularity as the only criterion of truth (including the moral), then everything else follows automatically." (Kojčve, Letter of Sept 19, 1950, p 256.)

Thus when one sees that between the extremes of what Kojčve is pleased to call 'intuition' (Religion, Phenomenology, 'esoteric' silence) and its failure ('chatter', relativism, postmodernism) there is only the 'Circularity of the Concept' then one begins to see why Kojčve must proclaim the 'End of History' - it is to protect the 'Absolute Knowledge' such Circularity requires. (Absolute Knowledge, btw, means unchanging knowledge while circularity means that wherever we begin our research we end, if we proceed scientifically (i.e., in a Hegelian manner), always in the same place.)

Kojčve, in the same letter, goes on to concede that there was for him once a fourth possibility:

"For a time I believed in a fourth possibility: nature is "identical," hence the classical criterion can be retained for nature. But now I believe that one can only be silent about nature (mathematics). Hence: either one remains "classically" silent (cp. Plato's Parmenides and Seventh Epistle), or one chatters "in the modern manner" (Pierre Bayle), or one is an Hegelian." (p. 256)

Thus we see that nature was at one time also a possible 'criterion' for Kojčve. But he abandons it and with it the Hegelian 'Philosophy of Nature'. Strauss, however, is insistent that there is a 'human nature' and he continually throws it in the face of Kojčve. Of this Kojčve writes:

"Regarding the issue, I can only keep repeating the same thing. If there is something like "human nature," then you are surely right in everything. But to deduce from premises is not the same as to prove these premises. And to infer premises from (anyway questionable) consequences is always dangerous." (Kojčve, Letter of October 29, 1953, p 261.)

Thus Kojčve says to Strauss that he can't prove what he says and, of course, Kojčve can. -But he can do so if, and only if, History Ends as Kojčve says it will. But the proof of success is no proof of Reason but only of power...

In any case, we see Strauss still pressing the point on nature a few years later:

"You have never given me an answer to my questions: a) was Nietzsche not right in describing the Hegelian-Marxian end as "the last man"? and b) what would you put into the place of Hegel's philosophy of nature?" (Strauss, Letter of Sept 11, 1957, p 291.)

It is my belief that Strauss is convinced that this lack of what the ancients would have thought of as a cosmology (i.e., cosmogony) allows ordinary people in the secular, atheistic UHS to turn to religion. He argues that Wisdom in the UHS can only belong to a tiny few and that:

"...if wisdom does not become common property, the mass remains in the thrall of religion, that is to say of an essentially particular and particularizing power (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...), which means that the decline and fall of the universal-homogenous state is unavoidable." (Strauss, Letter August, 22, 1948, p 238.)

Without some sort of Cosmogony the atheistic UHS cannot hold onto its citizens. Of course, this is true only if the UHS must be entirely secular. However, if somehow a right-Hegelian (i.e., religious) interpretation were to prevail in the UHS this would no longer be necessary. And the UHS could survive indefinitely... But Kojčve, of course, discounts this possibility, for him there are only two Hegelian possibilities:

"If the Westerners remain capitalist (that is to say, also nationalist), they will be defeated by Russia, and that is how the End-State will come about. If, however, they "integrate" their economies and policies (they are on their way to doing so), then they can defeat Russia. And that is how the End-State will be reached (the same universal and homogenous State). But in the first case it will be spoken about in "Russian" (with Lysenko, etc.), and in the second case - in "European"." (Kojčve, Letter of Sept. 19, 1950, p 256.)

But historically this is false. The first interpretation of Hegel (during his lifetime) was religious. Thus one wonders if the UHS with a universal Hegelian religion could somehow be brought about... But that is another story.

So, for those of you familiar with an earlier edition I hope I have given some hint of how the letters amplify and expand the argument between Kojčve and Strauss that we first saw in the essays included in earlier editions. This book is superb - I have only hinted at its intricate arguments - do not pass it up!