Chronology of his Life and Works

KOJEVE, Alexandre (1902-1968). Born in Russiaand educated in Berlin Kojeve gave his influentiallectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes from 1933-1939in Paris, which were collected and editedby the poet Raymond Quesneau as Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (1947). After the Second World War Kojeveworked in the French ministry of EconomicAffairs as one of the chief planners of theCommon Market.

Chronology of life and works

KOJČVE’S INFLUENCE
French philosopher (1902-1968), born Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov in Russia. Kojčve studied in Germany (Heidelberg) where, under the supervision of Karl Jaspers, he completed a thesis (Die religöse Philosophie Wladimir Solowjews, 1931) Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian religious philosopher deeply influenced by Hegel. He later settled in Paris, where he taught at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes tudes. Taking over from Alexandre Koyré, he taught a seminar on Hegel from 1933 till 1939. Along with Jean Hyppolite, he was responsible for the serious introduction of Hegel into French thought.

His lectures exerted a profound influence (both direct and indirect) over many leading French philosophers and intellectuals- amongst them Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan, Bataille, Althusser, Queneau, Aron, and Breton. Via his friend Leo Strauss, Kojčve’s thought also exerted influence in America, most especially over Allan Bloom and, later, Francis Fukuyama. His lectures on Hegel were published in 1947 under the title Introduction ŕ la lecture de Hegel, appearing in English as Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (1969). After the Second World War Kojčve worked in the French Ministry of Economic Affairs, until his death in 1968. Here he exercised a profound, mandarin influence over French policy, including a role as one of the leading architects of the EEC and GATT. He continued to write philosophy over these years, including works on the pre-Socratics, Kant, the concept of right, the temporal dimensions of philosophical wisdom, the relationship between Christianity and both Western science and communism, and the development of capitalism. Many of these works were only published posthumously.

THE HEGELIAN CONTEXT

Hegel’s philosophy of history, most especially the historicist philosophy of consciousness developed in the Phenomenology of Spirit, provides the core of Kojčve’s own work. However, Kojčve’s Hegel lectures are not so much anexegesis of Hegel’s thought, as a profoundly original reinterpretation. By reading Hegel’s philosophy of consciousness through the twin lenses of Marx’s materialism and Heidegger’s temporalised ontology of human being (Dasein), Kojčve can rightly be said to have initiated‘ existential Marxism’. Here I will briefly sketch the most salient dimensions of Hegel’s philosophy of history, before proceeding to outline Kojčve’s own interpretation of it.

Perhaps the core of Hegel’s philosophy is the idea that human history is the history of thought as it attempts to understand itself and its relation to its world. History is the history of reason, as it grapples with its own nature and its relation to that with which it is confronted (other beings, nature, the eternal). The historical movement of this reason is one of a sequence of alienations (Entfremdungen) or splits, and the subsequent attempt to reconcile these divisions through a restoration of unity. Thus, for example, Hegel sees the world of the Athenian Greeks as one in which people lived in a harmonious relation to their community and the world about, the basis of this harmony being provided by a pre-reflective commitment to shared customs, conventions and habits of thought and action. With the beginnings of Socratic philosophy, however, division and separation is introduced into thought - customary answers to questions of truth, morality, and reality are brought under suspicion. A questioning ‘I’ emerges, one that experiences itself as distinct and apart from other beings, from customary rules, and from a natural world that becomes an ‘object’ for it. This introduces into experience a set of ‘dualisms’- between subject and object, man and nature, desire and duty, the human and the divine, the individual and the collectivity.

For Hegel, the historical movement of thought is a ‘dialectical’ process wherein these divisions are put through processes of reconciliation, producing in turn new divisions, which thought in turn attempts to reconcile. Historically, this task of reconciliation has been embodied in many forms - in art, in religion, and in philosophy. Enlightenment philosophy, the philosophy of Hegel’s own time, is the latest and most sophisticated attempt to reconcile these divisions through reason alone, to freely find man’s place amongst others and the universe as a whole. This, for Hegel, is only to be achieved through the overcoming (Aufhebung) of false divisions, by grasping that underlying apparent schisms (such as that between subject and object) there is a unity, with all elements being manifestations of an Absolute Spirit (Geist). Thus Hegel sees the key to historical reconciliation lying in the rational realisation of underlying unity, a unity that can, in time, come to connect individuals with each other and with the world in which they live. Universal history is the product of reason, leading (potentially) to a reconciled humanity, at one with itself, living according to a shared morality that is the outcome of rational reflection.

THE INFLUENCE OF MARX

Hegel’s philosophy of universal history furnishes that basic framework of Kojčve’s philosophical stance. History is a processual movement in which division is subjected to reconciliation, culminating in ‘the end of history’, its completion in a universal society of mutual recognition and affirmation.

However, Kojčve reworks Hegel in number of crucial (and, amongst Hegel scholars, controversial) ways. The first of these may be identified with the influence of Marx, especially the writings of the so-called ‘1848 manuscripts’. Kojčve follows Marx’s ‘inverted Hegelianism’ by understanding the labour of historical development in broadly ‘materialist’ terms. The making of history is no longer simply a case of reason at work in the world, but of man’s activity as a being who collectively produces his own being. This occurs through the labour of appropriating and transforming his material world in order to satisfy his own needs. Whereas Hegel’s idealism gives priority to the forms of consciousness that produce the world as experienced, Kojčve follows Marx in tying consciousness to the labour of material production and the satisfaction of human desires thereby. While Hegel recuperates human consciousness into a theological totality (Geist or ‘Absolute Spirit’), Kojčve secularises human history, seeing it as solely the product of man’s self-production. Whereas Hegelian reconciliation is ultimately the reconciliation of man with God (totality or the Absolute), for Kojčve the division of man from himself is transcended in humanist terms. If Hegel sees the end of history as the final moment of reconciliation with God or Spirit, Kojčve (Like Feurbach and Marx) sees it as the transcendence of an illusion, in which God (man’s alienated essence, Wesen) is reclaimed by man. Whereas the Hegelian totality provides a prior set of ontological relations between man and world waiting to be apprehended by a maturing consciousness, Kojčve sees human action as the transformative process that produces those ontological relations. While Hegel arguably presents a ‘panlogistic’ relation between man and nature, unifying the two in the Absolute, Kojčve sees a fundamental disjunction between the two domains, providing the conditions for human self-production through man’s negating and transforming activities.

Perhaps the conceptual key to Kojčve’s understanding of universal history is desire. Desire functions as the engine of history - it is man’s pursuit in realisation of his desires that drives the struggles between men. Desire is the permanent and universal feature of human existence, and when transformed into action it is the basis of all historical agency. The desire for ‘recognition’ (Anerkennung), the validation of human worth and the satisfaction of needs, propels the struggles and processes that make for historical progression. History moves through a series of determinate configurations, culminating in the end of history, a state in which a common and universal humanity is finally realised. This would entail ‘the formation of a society... in which the strictly particular, personal, individual value of each is recognised as such’. Hence individual values and needs would converge upon a common settlement in which a shared human nature (comprising the desires and inclinations that define humanity as such) would find its satisfaction.

How and why is this realisation of mutuality and equality to come about? Kojčve follows Hegel’s famous presentation of the ‘master-slave’ dialectic in order to deduce the necessary overcoming of inequality, division and subordination. The relation of ‘master’ and ‘slave’ is one in which the satisfaction of a dominant group’s or class’ needs (the ‘masters’) is met through the subordination of others (the ‘slaves’ or ‘bondsmen’). The ‘slave’ exists only to affirm the superiority and humanity of the‘ master’, and to furnish the ‘master’s’ needs by surrendering up his labour. However, this relation is doomed to failure, for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the ‘master’ desires the recognition and affirmation of his full humanity and value, and uses the subordinated ‘slave’ for that end. This means that the ‘master’, perversely, is dependent upon the ‘slave’, thus inverting the relation of domination. Moreover, this forced relation of recognition remains thoroughly incomplete, since the ‘slave’ is not in a position to grant affirmation freely, but is compelled to do so due to his subordination. Affirmation or recognition that is not freely given counts for nothing. As Kojčve puts it:

The relation between Master and Slave...is not recognition properly so-called...The Master is not the only one to consider himself Master. The Slave, also, considers him as such. Hence, he is recognized in his human reality and dignity. But this recognition is one-sided, for he does not recognize inturn the Slave's human reality and dignity. Hence, he is recognized by someone whom he does not recognize. And this is what is insufficient- what is tragic - in his situation... For he can be satisfied only by recognition from one whom he recognizes as worthy of recognizing him.

This establishes the constitutive need for mutual recognition and formal equality, if recognition of value is to be established. It is only when there is mutuality and recognition of all, that the recognition of any one becomes fully possible.

Secondly, for Kojčve (as for Marx) it is the labouring ‘slave’ who is the key to historical progress. It is the ‘slave’ who works, and consequently it is he and not the ‘master’ who exercises his ‘negativity’ in transforming the world in line with human wants and desires. So, on the material level, the slave possesses the key to his own liberation, namely his active mastery of nature. Moreover, the ‘master’ has no desire to transform the world, whereas the ‘slave’, unsatisfied with his condition, imagines and attempts to realise a world of freedom in which his value will finally be recognised and his own desires satisfied. The slave’s ideological struggle is to overcome his own fear of death and take-up struggle against the ‘master’, demanding the recognition of his value and freedom. The coincidence of material and ideological conditions of liberation were already made manifest, for Kojčve, by the revolutions of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries; these struggles set the conditions for the completion of history in the form of universal society.

THE INFLUENCE OF HEIDEGGER

If Marx furnishes one central resource for Kojčve’s rereading of Hegel, Heidegger provides the other. From Heidegger, Kojčve takes the insight that humankind is distinguished from nature through its distinctive ontological self-relation. Man’s being is conditioned by its radically temporal character, its understanding of its being in time, with finitude or death as its ultimate horizon. Kojčve’s ontology is, pace Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein in Being & Time, first and foremost experiential and existential. By bringing together Hegel with Heidegger, Kojčve attempts to radically historicise existentialism, while simultaneously giving Hegelian historicity a radically existential twist, wherein man’s existential freedom defines his being. Freedom is understood as the ontological relation of ‘negativity’, the incompleteness of human being, its constitutive ‘lack’. It is precisely because of this lack of a fully constituted being that man experiences (or, more properly is nothing other than) desire. The negativity of being, manifest as desire, makes possible man’s self-making, the process of ‘becoming’. This position can be see to draw inspiration from Heidegger’s critique of the transcendental preoccupations of Western thought, which he claims set reified, physically assured figurations of Being over and above the processes of Becoming (wherein the ‘Being of Beings’, das Sein des Seieinden, is variously revealed within the horizon of temporality). The disavowal of such physically anchored and ultimately timeless configurations of human being frees man from determinism and ‘throws’ him into his existential freedom. In Kojčve’s thinking, man’s struggle is to exercise this freedom in order to produce a world in which his desires are satisfied, in the course of which he comes to accept his own freedom, ridding himself of the illusions of religion and superstition, ‘heroically’ claiming his own finitude or mortality.

We can see, then, how Kojčve attempts to synthesise Hegel, Marx and Heidegger. From Hegel he takes the notion of a universal historical process within which reconciliation unfolds through an intersubjective dialectic, resulting in unity. From Marx he takes a secularised, de-theologised, and productivist philosophical anthropology, one that places the transformative activity of a desiring being centre stage in the historical process.

From Heidegger, he takes the existentialist interpretation of human being as free, negative, and radically temporal. Pulling three together, he presents a vision of human history in which man grasps his freedom to produce himself and his world in pursuit of his desires, and in doing so drives history toward its end (understood both as culmination or exhaustion, and its goal or completion).

THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN

Kojčve’s vision of the culmination of history has, in recent years, exercised a renewed influence, not least in light of the collapse of Soviet communism and its satellite states. If we examine the vision of completion that Kojčve held-out, we can see precisely why the advocates (or apologists) of a post Cold-War global capitalist order have drawn such inspiration from Kojčve’s thesis.

For Kojčve, historical reconciliation will culminate in the equal recognition of all individuals. This recognition will remove the rationale for war and struggle, and so will usher-in peace. In this way, history, politically speaking, culminates in a universal (global) order which is without classes or distinctions - in Hegelian terms, there are no longer any ‘masters’ and ‘slaves’, only free human beings who mutually recognise and affirm each others’ freedom. This political moment takes the form of law, which confers universal recognition upon all individuals, thereby satisfying the particular individual’s desire to be affirmed as an equal amongst others.

Simultaneously, the progression of man’s productive capacities, his ability to take nature and transform it in order to satisfy his own needs and desires, will result in prosperity and freedom from such want. For Kojčve, the economic culmination of human productive capacities finds its apotheosis not in communism, but in capitalism. Like Marx, Kojčve believed that capitalism had unleashed productive forces, generating heretofore unimagined wealth. Moreover, like Marx he believed that the expansion of capitalism was an homogenising force, producing a globalising cultural standard that laid waste to local attachments, traditions and boundaries, replacing them with bourgeoisie values.
Kojčve departs from Marxism (and its variants such as Leninism) by rejecting the notion that capitalism contained inherent contradictions that would inevitably bring about its demise and supercession by communism. Marx thought that the immiseration of workers under 19th century capitalism would worsen as the pressure of market competition would lead to ever-more brutal extraction of surplus from workers’ labour, in attempt to offset the falling rate of profit. This would result in the pauperisation of the proletariat, and capitalism’s inability to avoid such crisis would necessitate the overthrow of its relations by a proletariat raised up to class consciousness under the conditions of its immiseration. Kojčve, in contrast, believed that 20th century capitalism had found a way out of these contradictions, finding ways to yoke the market system to a redistributive arrangement that managed to spread the wealth it produced. Far from becoming increasingly impoverished, the working class was coming to enjoy unprecedented prosperity. This is why Kojčve, as early as 1948, was proclaiming the United States as the economic model for the ‘post-historical’ world, the most efficient and successful in conquering nature in order to provide for human material needs. Hence he asserted, long before the final collapse of the Soviet empire, that the Cold War would end in the triumph of the capitalist West, achieved through economic rather than military means.

The end of history would also usher-in other distinctive forms. Philosophically, it would end in absolute knowledge displacing ideology. Artistically, the reconciled consciousness would express itself through abstract art- while pictorial and representational art captured cultural specifics, these specifics would have been effaced, leaving abstract aesthetic forms as the embodiment of universal and homogeneous consciousness.

However, Kojčve’s disposition to the culmination of universal history is radically ambivalent. On the one hand, he follows Marx by seeing in idyllic terms the post-historical world, one of universal freedom, emancipation from war and want, leaving space for “art, love, play, etc., etc., etc.,; in short, everything that makes Man happy”. However, Kojčve is simultaneously beset by pessimism. In his philosophical anthropology, man is defined by his negating activity, by his struggle to overcome himself and nature through struggle and contestation. This is the ontological definition of man, his raison d’etre. Yet the end of history marks the end of this struggle, thereby exhausting man of the activity which has defined his essence. The end of history ushers-in the ‘death of man’; paradoxically, man is robbed of the definitional core of his existence precisely at the moment of his triumph. Post-historical man will no longer be ‘man’ as we understand him, but will be ‘re-animalized’, such that the end of history marks the ‘definitive annihilation of Man properly so-called’.

KOJČVE’S INFLUENCE

The influence of Kojčve’s thought has been profound, both within France and beyond. It is possible to trace many connections within French philosophy that owe varying degrees of debt to Kojčve, given that his distinctive reinterpretation of Hegel was key for the French reception of Hegel’s thought. However, there are also a number of important philosophers for whom Kojčve’s Hegelianism provided direct insights that were taken-up and in-turn used to found distinctive philosophical positions.

Firstly, we must note the importance of Kojčve’s Hegelianism for Sartre’s philosophical development. It is a matter of on-going contention whether or not Sartre personally attended the Hegel seminars of the 1930s. However, it can reasonably be claimed that Kojčve’s existential and Marxian reading of the Phenomenology was equally important as Heidegger’s Being & Time for the position presented in Sartre’s Being & Nothingness. Central to Sartre’s account is a thoroughly Kojčveian philosophical anthropology, one which finds man’s essence in his freedom as pure negative activity, existentially separating the human for-itself (pour-soi) from the natural world of reified Being (en-soi). Sartre’s account of the ‘master-slave’ dialectic follows Kojčve’s in its existential reworking, albeit without the optimism that finds a possibility of reconciliation in this intersubjective struggle (for Sartre, the dialectic is doomed to repeat a struggle for domination in which each party attempts to claim its own freedom via the mortification of the other’s Being). Moreover, Sartre’s subsequent attempts to reconcile historical materialism with existentialism owe more than a passing debt to Kojčve’s original formulation of an ‘existential Marxist’ position.

Another eminent thinker for whom Kojčve proved decisive was Jacques Lacan. Lacan’s account of psycho-social formation was developed through a synthesis of Freud and structuralism, read through Kojčve’s ontologised version of the ‘master-slave’ dialectic. For Lacan, following Kojčve, human subjectivity is defined first and foremost by desire. It is the experience of lack, the twin of the experience of desire, that provides the ontological condition of subject formation; it is only through the lack-desire dyad that a being comes into the awareness of its own separation from the world in which it is, at first, thoroughly immersed. Moreover, Lacan’s account of the childhood development of self-consciousness, captured through his analysis of the ‘mirror-stage’, replays the intersubjective mediation of consciousness that Kojčve presented to his French students (Lacan amongst them) in the Hegel lectures.

Kojčve also profoundly influenced the likes of Georges Bataille and Raymond Queneau, both through the lectures they attended, and through the friendships he maintained with them for many years after. Queneau is often associated with Andre Breton and the surrealists (with whom he broke in 1929),but his novels present a vision of the world that is profoundly indebted to Kojčve. Many of his most famous books depict life at the end of history; there is no more historical movement, progress or transformation to come, and his characters live in a kind of ‘eternal present’ attending to the activities of everyday enjoyment. History recurs as something that can only be enjoyed as a tourist attraction, or as a reverie of the past, viewed from the vantage point of its demise. Bataille (anthropologist, philosopher and pornographer, a doyen of recent postmodern aestheticism and anti-rationalism) was perhaps the most powerful articulator of Kojčve’s pessimism in the face of the ‘death of man’. The victory of reason was, for Bataille, a curse; its inevitable triumph in the unstoppable march of modernity brought with it homogeneity, order, and disenchantment. The triumph of reason as history meant the twilight and death of man, as the excessive and destructive power of negativity was displaced by harmonious, reciprocal equilibrium. Bataille’s response, a liberatory struggle against these forces through the evocation of perverse desires, madness, and anguish, takes Kojčve’s prognosis at its word, and stages a heroic resistance against the tide of historical forces.

The influence of Kojčve outside France has probably been most pronounced in the United States. His ideas achieved a new salience and exposure with the publication of Francis Fukayama’s The End of History and the Last Man (1992), in the wake of the Cold War. Fukayama was a student of Allan Bloom's, who in turn was a ‘ disciple’ of the ‘esoteric’ émigré political philosopher Leo Strauss. It was Strauss who introduced a generation of his students to Kojčve’s thought, and in Bloom’s case, arranged for him to study with Kojčve in Paris in the 1960s. The book, an international bestseller, presents nothing less than a triumphal vindication of Kojčve’s supposedly prescient thesis that history has found its end in the global triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy. With the final demise of Soviet Marxism, and the global hegemony of capitalism, we have finally reached the end of history. There are no more battles to be fought, no more experiments in social engineering to be attempted; the world has arrived at a homogenised state in which the combination of capitalism and liberal democracy will reign supreme, and all other cultural and ideological systems will be consigned irretrievably to the past. Fukayama follows Kojčve in tying the triumph of capitalism to the satisfaction of material human needs. Moreover, he sees it as the primary mechanism for the provision of recognition and value. Consumerism and the commodity form, for Fukayama, present the means by which recognition is mediated. Humans desire to be valued by others, and the means of appropriating that valuation is the appropriation of the things that others themselves value; hence lifestyle and fashion become the mechanisms of mutual esteem in a post-historical world governed by the logic of capitalist individualism.

THE DIALECTIC OF THE REAL AND
THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD IN HEGEL

What is Dialectic, according to Hegel?

We can give a first answer to this question by recalling a passage from the Encyclopaedia — more exactly, the Introduction to the First Part of the Encyclopaedia, entitled Logic.

In § 79 (third edition) Hegel says this:

With regard to its form, logic has three aspects (Seiten):
(a) the abstract or understandable (versändige) aspect;
(b) the dialectical or Negatively rational (vernüntige) aspect,
(c) the speculative or positively rational aspect.

This well-known text lends itself to two misunderstandings. On the one hand, one might believe that Dialectic reduces to the second aspect of “Logic,” isolated from the other two. But in the explanatory Note, Hegel underlines that the three aspects are in reality inseparable. And we know from elsewhere that the simultaneous presence of the three aspects in question is what gives “Logic” its dialectical character in the broad sense. But it must be noted right away that “Logic” is dialectical (in the broad sense) only because it implies a "negative” or negating aspect, which is called “dialectical” in the narrow sense. Nevertheless, dialectical “logic” necessarily implies three complementary and inseparable aspects: the “abstract” aspect (revealed by Understanding, Verstand); the “negative,” properly “dialectical,” aspect — and the positive” aspect (the last two aspects are revealed by Reason, Vernunft).

On the other hand, one might suppose that Dialectic is the preserve of logical thought; or in other words, that this passage is concerned with a philosophical method, a way of investigation or exposition. Now, in fact, this is not at all the case. For Hegel’s Logic is not a logic in the common sense of the word, nor a gnoseology, but an ontology or Science of Being, taken as Being. And “the Logic” (das Logische) of the passage we have cited does not mean logical thought considered in itself, but Being (Sein) revealed (correctly) in and by thought or speech (Logos). Therefore, the three “aspects” in questionare above all aspects of Being itself: they are ontological, and not logical or gnoseological, categories; and they are certainly not simple artifices of method of investigation or exposition. Hegel takes care, moreover, to underline this in the Note that follows the passage cited.

In this Note, he says the following: (Volume V, page 104, lines 31-33):

These three aspects do not constitute three parts of Logic, but are constituent-elements (Momente) of every logical-real-entity (Logisch-Reellen), that is, of every concept or of everything that is true (jedes Wahren) in general.

Everything that is true, the true entity, the True, das Wahre, is a real entity, or Being itself, as revealed correctly and completely by coherent discourse having a meaning (Logos). And this is what Hegel also calls Begriff, concept; a term that means for him (except when, as in the writings of his youth and still occasionally in the Phenomenology, he says: nur Begriff) not an “abstract notion” detached from the real entity to which it is related, but “conceptually understood reality.” The True and the Concept are, as Hegel himself says, a Logisch-Reelles, something logical and real at the same time, a realised concept or a conceived reality. Now, "logical” thought that is supposed to be true, the concept that is supposed to be adequate, merely reveal or describe Being as it is or as it exists, without adding anything to it, without taking anything away from it, without modifying it in any way whatsoever. The structure of thought, therefore, is determined by the structure of the Being that it reveals. If, then, “logical” thought has three aspects, if in other words it is dialectical (in the broad sense), this is only because Being itself is dialectical (in the broad sense), because of the fact that it implies a “constituent-element” or an “aspect” that is negative or negating (“dialectical” in the narrow and strong sense of the term). Thought is dialectical only to the extent that it correctly reveals the dialectic of Being that is and of the Real that exists.

To be sure, pure and simple Being (Sein) does not have a threefold or dialectical structure; but the Logical — real, the Conceptor the True — i. e., Being revealed by Speech or Thought — does. Hence one might be inclined to say that Being is dialectical only to the extent that it is revealed by Thought, that thought is what gives Being its dialectical character. But this formulation would be incorrect, or at least misleading. For in some sense the reverse is true for Hegel: Being can be revealed by Thought; there is a Thought in Being and of Being, only because Being is dialectical; i. e., because Being implies a negative or negating constituent element. The real dialectic of existing Being is, among other things, the revelation of the Real and of Being by Speech or Thought. And Speech and Thought themselves are dialectical only because, and to the extent that, they reveal or describe the dialectic of Being and of the Real.

However that may be, philosophic thought or “scientific” thought in the Hegelian sense of the word — i. e., rigorously true thought— has the goal of revealing, through the meaning of a coherent discourse (Logos), Being (Sein) as it is and exists in the totality of its objective-Reality (Wirklichkeit). The philosophic or “scientific” Method, therefore, must assure the adequation of thought to Being, since Thought must adapt itself to Being and to the Real without modifying them in any way whatsoever. This is to say that the attitude of the philosopher or the "scientist”(= the Wise Man) with respect to Being and to the Real is one of purely passive contemplation, and that philosophic or “scientific” activity reduces to a pure and simple description of the Real and of Being. The Hegelian method, therefore, is not at all “dialectical": it is purely contemplative and descriptive, or better, phenomenological in Husserl’s sense of the term. In the Preface and the Introduction to the Phenomenology, Hegel insists at length on the passive, contemplative, and descriptive character of the “scientific” method. He underlines that there is a dialectic of “scientific” thought only because there is a dialectic of the Being which that thought reveals. As soon as the revealing description is correct, it can be said that ordo et connexioidearum idem est ac ordo et connexio rerum; for the order and the connection of the real are, according to Hegel, dialectical.

Here is what Hegel says, for example, in the Preface to the Phenomenology:

But scientific knowledge (Erkennen) demands, on the contrary, that one give himself (übergeben) to the life of the object (Gegenstandes) or, to say the same thing in different words, that one have before oneself and express in speech (auszusprechen) the inner necessity of this object. By thus plunging (sich vertiefend) into its object, this knowledge forgets that overview (Übersicht) [thought to be possible from the outside] which is [in reality] only knowledge’s (Wissens) own face reflected back into itself from the content. But having plunged into the matter and progressing (fortgehend) in the [dialectical] movement of this matter, scientific knowledge comes back into itself; but not before the filling (Erfüllung) or the content [of the thought] gathers itself back into itself, simplifies itself to specific determination (Bestimmtheit), lowers itself to [being] an aspect (Seite) [merely] of an empirical-existence (Daseins) [the other aspect being thought], and transforms itself (übergeht) into its superior (höhere) truth [or revealed reality]. By that very process, the simple-or-undivided Whole (Ganze) which has an overview of itself (sich übersehende) itself emerges from the richness [of the diversity] in which its reflection [into itself] seemed lost.

"Scientific knowledge” gives itself or abandons itself without reserve, without preconceived ideas or afterthoughts, to the “life” and the “dialectical movement” of the Real. Thus, this truly true knowledge has nothing to do with the “Reflection” of pseudo-philosophy (i. e., pre-Hegelian philosophy) and of pseudo-science (Newtonian science), which reflects on the Real while placing itself outside of the Real, without one’s being able to say precisely where; Reflection which pretends to give an “overview” of the Real on the basis of a knowing Subject that calls itself autonomous or independent of the Object of knowledge; a Subject that, according to Hegel, is but an artificially isolated aspect of the known or revealed Real.

To be sure, in the end, “scientific knowledge” comes back toward itself and reveals itself to itself: its final goal is to describe itself in its nature, in its genesis, and in its development. Just like ordinary philosophic knowledge, it is a self-knowledge. But it is a complete and adequate self-knowledge— that is, it is true in the strong sense of the word. And it is true because, even in its return toward itself, it simply follows passively the dialectical movement of its“ content” which is the “object” — that is, the Real and Being. The Real itself is what organises itself and makes itself concrete so as to become a determinate “species,” capable of being revealed by a general notion"; the Real itself reveals itself through articulate knowledge and thereby becomes a known object that has the knowing subject as its necessary complement, so that "empirical existence” is divided into beings that speak and beings that are spoken of. For real Being existing as Nature is what produces Man who reveals that Nature (and himself) by speaking of it. Real Being thus transforms itself into “truth” or into reality revealed by speech, and becomes a “higher” and “higher” truth as its discursive revelation becomes evermore adequate and complete.

It is by following this “dialectical movement” of the Real that Knowledge is present at its own birth and contemplates its own evolution. And thus it finally attains its end, which is the adequate and complete understanding of itself — i. e., of the progressive revelation of the Real and of Being by Speech — of the Real and Being which engender, in and by their “dialectical movement,” the Speech that reveals them. And it is thus that a total revelation of real Being or an entirely revealed Totality (an “undivided Whole”) is finally constituted: the coherent whole of Being realised in the real Universe, completely and perfectly described in the “overview” given by the one and unique "Science” or the “System” of the Wise Man, finally emerges from Being which at first was only a natural World formed of separate and disparate entities, an incoherent “richness' , in which there was no “reflection,)) no discursive knowledge, no articulate self-consciousness.

Taken separately, the Subject and the Object are abstractions that have neither “objective reality” (Wirklichkeit) nor “empirical existence” (Dasein). What exists in reality, as soon as there is a Reality of which one speaks— and since we in fact speak of reality, there can be for us only Reality of which one speaks what exists in reality, I say, is the Subject that knows the Object, or, what is the same thing, the Object known by the Subject. This double Reality which is nonetheless one because it is equally real in each aspect, taken in its whole or as Totality, is called in Hegel “Spirit” (Geist) or (in the Logic) “absolute Idea.” Hegel also says: "absoluter Begriff” (“absolute Concept”). But the term Begriff can also be applied to a fragment of total revealed Being, to a “constituent-element” (Moment) of the Spirit or Idea (in which case the Idea can be defined as the integration of all the Concepts — that is, of all the particular “ideas”). Taken in this sense, Begriff signifies a particular real entity or a real aspect of being, revealed by the meaning of a word — i. e., by a “general notion"; or else, what is the same thing, Begriff is a “meaning” (“idea”) that exists empirically not only in the form of an actually thought, spoken, or written word, but also as a “thing.” If the (universal or “absolute”)“ Idea” is the “Truth” or the Reality revealed by speech of the one and unique totality of what exists, a (particular) "Concept” is the “Truth” of a particular real entity taken separately, but understood as an integral element of the Totality. Or else, again, the “Concept” is a “true entity” (das Wahre)— that is, a real entity named or revealed by the meaning of a word, which meaning relates it to all other real entities and thus inserts it in the "System” of the whole Real revealed by the entirety of “scientific ”Discourse. Or else, finally, the “Concept” is the “essential reality” or the essence (Wesen) of a concrete entity — that is, precisely the reality which corresponds, in that concrete entity, to the meaning of the word that designates or reveals it.

Like the Spirit or the Idea, each Concept is hence double and single at the same time; it is both “subjective” and “objective,” both real thought of a real entity and areal entity really thought. The real aspect of the Concept is called “object” (Gegenstand),“ given-Being” (Sein), “entity that exists as a given-Being” (Seiendes), “In-itself” (Ansich), and so on. The aspect thought is called “knowledge” (Wissen), “act of knowing” (Erkennen), “knowledge” (Erkenntniss), “act of thinking” (Denken), and so on; and occasionally “concept” (Begriff) in the common sense (when Hegel says: nur Begriff). But these two aspects are inseparable and complementary, and it is of little importance to know which of the two must be called Wissen or Begriff (in the common sense), and which Gegenstand. What is of importance is that in the Truth-there is perfect coincidence of the Begriff and the Gegenstand, and that — in the Truth —Knowledge is purely passive adequation to essential-Reality. And that is why the true Scientist or the 'Wise Man must reduce his existence to simple contemplation (reines Zusehen) of the Real and of Being and of their “dialectical movement.” He looks at everything that is and verbally describes everything that he sees: therefore, he has nothing to do, for he modifies nothing, —adds nothing, and takes nothing away.

This, at least, is what Hegel says in the Introduction to the Phenomenology:

If by concept we mean knowledge (Wissen), and by the essential reality (Wesen) or the true-entity (Wahre) we mean entity existing as a given-being (Seiende) or object
(Gegenstand), it follows that verification (Prüfung) consists in seeing (zuzusehen) if the concept corresponds to the object. But if by concept we mean the essential reality of the In-itself (An-sich) of the object, and by object, on the other hand, we understand the object [taken] as object, namely, as it is for another [i. e., for the knowing Subject], it follows that verification consists in our seeing if the object corresponds to its concept. It is easily seen that both[expressions signify] the same thing. But what is essential is to keep [in mind] for the whole study (Untersuchung) that these two constituent-elements (Momente), [namely] concept and object, Being for another and Being in itself, are situated within the very knowledge that we are studying, and that consequently we do not need to bring in standards (Masssäbe) or to apply our [own]intuitions (Einfälle) and ideas (Gedanken) during the study. By omitting these latter, we attain [the possibility] of viewing the thing as it is in and for itself.

Now, any addition (Zutat) [coming] from us becomes superfluous not only in the sense (nach dieser Seite) that [the] concept and (the] object, the standard and what is to be verified, are present (vorhanden) in the Consciousness (Bewusstsein) itself [which we, as philosophers, study in the Phenomenology]; but we are also spared the effort of comparing the two and of verifying in the strict sense, so that — since [studied] Consciousness verifies itself — in this respect too, only pure contemplation (Zusehen) is left for us to do.

When all is said and done, the “method” of the Hegelian Scientist consists in having no method or way of thinking peculiar to his Science. The naive man, the vulgar scientist, even the pre-Hegelian philosopher — each in his way opposes himself to the Real and deforms it by opposing, his own means of action and methods of thought to it. The Wise Man, on the contrary, is fully and definitively reconciled with everything that is: he entrusts himself without reserve to Being and opens himself entirely to the Real without resisting it. His role is that of a perfectly flat and indefinitely extended mirror: he does not reflect on the Real; it is the Real that reflects itself on him, is reflected in his consciousness, and is revealed in its own dialectical structure by the discourse of the Wise who describes it without deforming it.

If you please, the Hegelian “method” is purely “empirical” or “positivist": Hegel looks at the Real and describes what he sees, everything that he sees, and nothing but what he sees. In other words, he has the “experience” (Erfahrung) of dialectical Being), and the Real, and thus he makes their "movement” pass into his discourse which describes them.

And that is what Hegel says in the Introduction to the Phenomenology:

This dialectical movement which Consciousness carries out (altsübt) in (an) itself, both in terms of its knowledge and its object, to the extent that the new [and] true object arises (entspringt) out of this movement [and appears] before Consciousness, is strictly speaking what is called experience (Erfahrung).

To be sure, this experience “strictly speaking” is something quite different from the experience of vulgar science. The latter is carried out by a Subject who pretends to be independent of the Object, and it is supposed to reveal the Object which exists independently of the Subject. Now in actual fact the experience is had by a man who lives within Nature and is indissolubly bound to it, but is also opposed to it and wants to transform it: science is born from the desire to transform the World in relation to Man; its final end is technical application. That is why scientific knowledge is never absolutely passive, nor purely contemplative and descriptive. Scientific experience perturbs the Object because of the active intervention of the Subject, who applies to the Object a method of investigation that is his own and to which nothing in the Object itself corresponds. What it reveals, therefore, is neither the Object taken independently of the Subject, nor the Subject taken independently of the Object, but only the result of the interaction of the two or, if you that interaction itself. However, scientific experience and knowledge are concerned with the Object as independent of and isolated from the Subject. Hence they do not find are looking for; they do not give promise, for they do not correctly reveal or describe what the Real is for them. Generally speaking Truth ( = revealed Reality) is the coincidence of thought or descriptive knowledge with the concrete real. Now, for vulgar science, this real is supposed to be independent of the thought which describes it. But in fact this science never attains this autonomous real, this “thing in itself” of Kant-Newton, because it incessantly perturbs it. Hence scientific thought does not attain its truth; there is no scientific truth in the strong and proper sense of the term. Scientific experience is thus only a pseudo-experience. And it cannot be otherwise, for vulgar science is in fact concerned not with the concrete real, but with an abstraction.
To the extent that the scientist thinks or knows his object, what really and concretely exists is the entirety of the Object known by the Subjector of the Subject knowing the Object. The isolated Object is but an abstraction, and that is why it has no fixed and stable continuity (Bestehen) and is perpetually deformed or perturbed. Therefore it cannot serve as a basis for a Truth, which by definition is universally and eternally valid. And the same goes for the “object” of vulgar psychology, gnoseology, and philosophy, which is the Subject artificially isolated from the Object— i. e., yet another abstraction.

Hegelian experience is a different story: it reveals concrete Reality, and reveals it without modifying or “perturbing” it. That is why, when this experience is described verbally, it represents a Truth in the strong sense of the term. And that is why it has no specific method of its own, as experience, thought, or verbal description, that is not at the same time an "objective” structure of the concrete Real itself which it reveals by describing it.

The concrete Real (of which we speak) is both Real revealed by a discourse, and Discourse revealing a real. And the Hegelian experience is related neither to the Real nor to Discourse taken separately, but to their indissoluble unity. And since it is itself a revealing Discourse, it is itself an aspect of the concrete Real which it describes. Therefore brings in nothing from outside, and the thought or the discourse which is born from it is not a reflection on the Real: the Real itself is what reflects itself or is reflected in the discourse or as thought. In particular, if the thought and the discourse of the Hegelian Scientist or the Wise Man are dialectical, it is only because they faithfully reflect the “dialectical movement” of the Real of which they are a part and which they experience adequately by giving themselves to it without any preconceived method.

Hegel's method, then, is not at all dialectical, and Dialectic for him is quite different from a method of thought or exposition. And we can even say that, in a certain way, Hegel was the first to abandon Dialectic as a philosophic method. He was, at least, the first to do so voluntarily and with full knowledge of what he was doing.

The dialectical method was consciously and systematically used for the first time by Socrates-Plato. But in fact it is as old as philosophy itself. For the dialectical method is nothing but the method of dialogue— that is, of discussion.

Everything seems to indicate that Science was born in the form of Myth. A Myth is a theory — that is, a discursive revelation of the real. Of course, it is supposed to be in agreement with the given real. But in fact, it always goes beyond its givens, and once beyond them, it only has to be coherent— i. e., free of internal contradictions— in order to make a show of truth. The period of Myth is a period of monologue, and in this period one demonstrates nothing because one “discusses” nothing, since one is not yet faced with a contrary or simply different opinion. And that is precisely why there is true or false “myth” or “opinion” (doxa), but no “science” or “truth” properly so-called.

Then, by chance, the man who has an opinion, or who has created or adopted a myth, comes up against a different myth or a contrary opinion. This man will first try to get rid of it: either by plugging up his ears in some way, by an internal or external 94 censoring"; or by overcoming (in the non-dialectical sense of the term) the adverse myth or opinion, by putting to death or banishing its propagators, for example, or by acts of violence that will force the others to say the same thing as he (even if they do not think the same thing).

But it can happen (and we know that this actually did happen one day, somewhere) that the man begins to discuss with his adversary. By an act of freedom he can decide to want to “convince” him, by “refuting” him and by "demonstrating” his own Point of view. To this end he speaks with his adversary, he engages in a dialogue with him: he uses a dialectical method. And it is by becoming a dialectician that the man of myth or opinion becomes a scientist or a philosopher.

In Plato (and probably already in Socrates) all this became conscious. If Plato has Socrates say that not the trees, but only the men in the city can teach him something, it is because he understood that, starting from (false or true) myth and opinion, one can attain science and truth only by way of discussion— that is, by way of dialogue or dialectic. In fine, according to Socrates-Plato, it is from the collision of diverse and adverse opinions that the spark of the one and the only truth is finally struck. A “thesis” is opposed to an “anti-thesis,” which, by the way, the thesis generally provokes. They confront each other, correct one another mutually — that is, destroy each other —but also combine and finally engender a “synthetic” truth. But this latter is still just one opinion among many others. It is a new thesis that will find or arouse a new anti-thesis, in order to associate itself with it by negating i.e., by modifying it — in a new synthesis, in which it will be different from what it was at the start. And so on, until one achieves a “synthesis” that will no longer be the thesis of a discussion or a “thesis” that can be discussed; an indisputable “truth” that will no longer be a simple “opinion” or one of the possible opinions; or, speaking objectively, the single One which is not in opposition to an Other because it is the Whole — the Idea of the ideas, or the Good.

In philosophy or science born from discussion— that is, in dialectical (or synthetic) truth which realises the Good in man by verbally revealing the One — Whole — the intermediate theses, antitheses, and syntheses are aufgehoben, as Hegel will later say. They are “overcome,” in the threefold sense of the German word Aufheben — that is, “overcome dialectically. ”In the first place, they are overcome or annulled with respect to whatever is fragmentary relative, partial, or one-sided in them —that is, with respect to what makes them false when one of them is taken not for an opinion, but as the truth. Secondly, they are also preserved or safeguarded with respect to whatever is essential or universal in them — that is, with respect to what in each of them reveals one of the manifold aspects of the total and single reality. Finally, they are sublimated — that is, raised to a superior level of knowledge and of reality, and therefore of truth, for by completing one another, the thesis and the antithesis get rid of their one-sided and limited or, better, “subjective” character, and as synthesis they reveal a more comprehensive and hence a more comprehensible aspect of the “objective” real.

But if dialectic finally attains the adequation of discursive thought to Reality and Being, nothing in Reality and Being corresponds to dialectic. The dialectical movement is a movement of human thought and discourse, but the reality itself which one thinks and of which one talks is in no way dialectical. Dialectic is but a method of philosophic research and exposition. And we see, by the way, that the method is dialectical only because it implies a negative or negating element: namely, the antithesis which opposes the thesis in a verbal fight and calls for an effort of demonstration, an effort, moreover, indistinguishable from a refutation. There is truth properly so-called — that is, scientific or philosophic truth, or better, dialectical or synthetical truth — only where there has been discussion or dialogue — that is, antithesis negating a thesis.

In Plato, the dialectical method is still quite close to its historical origins (the sophistic discussions). In his writings we are dealing with genuine dialogues, in which the thesis and the antithesis are presented by different persons (Socrates generally incarnates the antithesis of all theses asserted by his interlocutors or expressed successively by one of them). And as for the synthesis, it is generally the auditor who must make it — the auditor who is the philosopher properly so-called: Plato himself or that disciple who is capable of understanding him. This auditor finally attains the absolute truth which results from the entirety of the dialectic or from the coordinated movement of all the dialogues, a truth that reveals the “total” or “synthetical” Good which is capable of fully and definitively “satisfying” the one who knows it and who is consequently beyond discussion or dialectic.

In Aristotle the dialectical method is less apparent than in Plato. But it continues to be applied. It becomes the aporetic method: the solution of the problem results from a discussion (and sometimes from a simple juxtaposition) of all possible opinions —that is, of all opinions that are coherent and do not contradict themselves. And the dialectical method was preserved in this “scholastic” form until our time in both the sciences and philosophy.

But along a parallel line there was something else.

Like all opinion, the Myth arises spontaneously and is accepted (or rejected) in the same way. Man creates it in and by his (“poetical”) imagination, content if he avoids contradictions when he develops his initial idea or “intuition.” But when the confrontation with a different opinion or myth engenders the desire for a proof, which cannot as yet be satisfied by a demonstration through discussion, one feels the need to found one's opinion or the myth that one is proposing (both being supposed to be unverifiable empirically —i. e., by an appeal to common sense experience) on something more than simple personal conviction or “subjective certainty” (Gewissheit) —which is visibly of the same type and weight as the adversary’s. A foundation of superior or “divine” value is sought and found: the myth is presented as having been “revealed ”by a god, who is supposed to be the guarantee for its truth — that is, for its universal and eternal validity.

just like dialectical truth, this “revealed” mythical truth could not have been found by an isolated man confronted with Nature. Here too “trees teach man nothing.” But “the men in the city” do not teach him anything either. It is a God who reveals the truth to him in a “myth.” But in contrast to dialectical truth, this mythical truth is not the result of a discussion or a dialogue: God alone spoke, while man was content to listen, to understand, and to transcribe (and to do this far from the city, on the top of a mountain, and so on).

Even after having been a Platonic philosopher, man can still sometimes return to the “mythological” period. Such was the case of Saint Augustine. But this "return” is in reality a “synthesis": the myth-revealing God becomes a quasi-Socratic interlocutor; man engages in dialogue with his God, even if he does not go so far as to have a discussion with him (Abraham, however, discusses with Jehovah!). But this divine-human“ dialogue” is but a hybrid and transitory form of the dialectical method. Accordingly, it assumed an infinite variety of forms among the diverse “Mystics,” ranging from true dialogue in which “God” is but a title for the human interlocutor with whom one discusses, to diverse “revelations” on the tops of mountains in which the human partner is only a mute auditor, “convinced” beforehand.

In any case, the divine interlocutor is, in fact, fictitious. It all happens in the soul itself of the “scientist.” And that is why Saint Augustine had "dialogues” with his “soul.” And a distant disciple of that Platonic (or Plotinian) Christian, Descartes, deliberately dropped God and was content to have dialogue and discussion with himself. Thus Dialectic became “Meditation.” It was in the form of Cartesian meditation that the dialectical method was used by the authors of the great philosophical “systems” of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: from Descartes to Kant-Fichte-Schelling.
At first sight, this is a step backwards in relation to Socrates-Plato-Aristotle. The great modern“ Systems” are like so many “Myths” which are juxtaposed without being discussed, which are created out of nothing by their authors without coming from an earlier dialogue. But in fact, this is not at all the case. On the one hand the author himself discusses his “theses” and demonstrates their veracity by refuting possible objections or “antitheses": thus he applies a dialectical method.
On the other hand, in fact, the Platonic Dialogues preceded these Systems, which come from them“ dialectically” through the intermediary of the aporetic discussions of Aristotle and the scholastic Aristotelians. And just as in a Platonic Dialogue, the auditor (who in this case is a historian-philosopher of philosophy) discovers the absolute truth as the result of the implicit or tacit “discussion” between the great Systems of history, hence, as the result of their “dialectic."

Hegel was the first of these auditor-historian-philosophers.
In any case, he was the first to be so consciously. And that is why he was the first who could knowingly abandon Dialectic conceived as a philosophical method. He is content to observe and describe the dialectic which was effected throughout history, and he no longer needs to make a dialectic himself. This dialectic, or the “dialogue” of the Philosophies, took place before him. He only has to have the “experience” of it and to describe its synthetical final result in a coherent discourse: the expression of the absolute truth is nothing but the adequate verbal description of the dialectic which engendered it. Thus, Hegel's Science is “dialectical” only to the extent that the Philosophy which prepared it throughout History has been (implicitly or explicitly) dialectical.

At first sight, this attitude of Hegel is a simple return to Plato. If Plato lets Parmenides, Protagoras, Socrates, and still others have dialogues, while being content to record the result of their discussions, Hegel records the result of the discussion which he organises between Plato and Descartes, Spinoza and Kant, Fichte and Schelling, and so on. Hence, here again we would seem to be dealing with a dialectical method in the search for truth or in its exposition, which in no way affects the Real which that truth reveals. And Hegel does actually say somewhere that he is only rediscovering the ancient or, rather, Platonic, dialectic. But a closer examination shows that this is not at all the case, and that when Hegel speaks of Dialectic, he is talking about something quite different from what is found in his predecessors.'

One can say, if one pleases, that the eternal light of absolute Hegelian truth, too, comes from the collision of all the philosophic opinions which preceded it. However, this ideal dialectic, the dialogue of the Philosophies, took place, according to Hegel, only because it is a reflection of the real dialectic of Being. And only because it reflects this real dialectic does it finally achieve, in the person of Hegel, the truth or the complete and adequate revelation of the Real. Each philosophy correctly reveals or describes a turning point or a stopping place — thetical, antithetical, or synthetical — of the real dialectic, of the Bewegung of existing Being. And that is why each philosophy is “true” in a certain sense. But it is true only relatively or temporarily: it remains “true” as long as a new philosophy, also “true,” does not come along to demonstrate its “error.” However, a philosophy does not by itself transform itself into another philosophy or engender that other philosophy in and by an autonomous dialectical movement. The Real corresponding to a given philosophy itself becomes really other (thetical, antithetical, or synthetical), and this other Real is what engenders another adequate philosophy, which, as “true,” replaces the first philosophy which has become “false.” Thus, the dialectical movement of the history of philosophy, which ends in the absolute or definitive truth, is but a reflection, a “superstructure,” of the dialectical movement of the real history of the Real. And that is why all philosophy that is “true” is also essentially “false": it is false in so far as it presents itself not as the reflection or description of a constituent element or a dialectical “moment” of the real, but as the revelation of the Real in its totality. Nonetheless, even while being or becoming “false,” all philosophy (worthy of the name )remains “true,” for the total Real implies and will always imply the aspect (or the“ moment”) which that philosophy revealed. The absolute truth or the Science of the Wise Man, of Hegel that is, the adequate and complete revelation of the Real in its Totality — is indeed, therefore, an integral synthesis of all the philosophies presented throughout history. However, neither these philosophies through their discussions, nor the historian-philosopher who observes them, effects the synthesis in question: real History is what does it, at the end of its own dialectical movement; and Hegel is content to record it without having to do anything whatsoever, and consequently, without resorting to a specific mode of operation or a method of his own.

“Weltgeschichte ist Weltgericht” (“World History is a tribunal that judges the World”). History is what judges men, their actions and their opinions, and lastly their philosophical opinions as well. To be sure, History is, if you please, a long “discussion” between men. But this real historical “discussion” is something quite different from a philosophic dialogue or discussion. The “discussion” is carried out not with verbal arguments, but with clubs and swords or cannon on the one hand, and with sickles and hammers or machines on the other. If one wants to speak of a "dialectical method” used by History, one must make clear that one is talking about methods of war and of work. This real, or better, active, historical dialectic is what is reflected in the history of philosophy. And if Hegelian Science is dialectical or synthetical, it is only because it describes that real dialectic in its totality, as well as the series of consecutive philosophies which corresponds to that dialectical reality. Now, by the way, reality is dialectical only because it implies a negative or negating element: namely, the active negation of the given, the negation which is at the foundation of every bloody fight and of all so-called“ physical” work.

Hegel does not need a God who would reveal the truth to him. And to find the truth, he does not need to hold dialogues with “the men in the city,” or even to have a “discussion” with himself or to “meditate” a' la Descartes. (Besides, no purely verbal discussion, no solitary meditation, can lead to the truth, of which Fighting and Work are the only “criteria.”) He can find it all alone, while sitting tranquilly in the shade of those “trees” which taught Socrates nothing, but which teach Hegel many things about themselves and about men. But all this is possible only because there have been cities in which men had discussions against a background of fighting and work, while they worked and fought for and because of their opinions (cities, moreover, which were surrounded by these same trees whose wood was used in their construction). Hegel no longer discusses because he benefits from the discussion of those who preceded him. And if, having nothing more to do, he has no method of his own, it is because he profits from all the actions effected throughout history. His thought simply reflects the Real. But he can do so only because the Real is dialectical — that is, imbued with the negating action of fighting and work, which engenders thought and discourse, causes them to move, and finally realises their perfect coincidence with the Real which they are supposed to reveal or to describe. In short, Hegel does not need a dialectical method because the truth which he incarnates is the final result of the real or active dialectic of universal History, which his thought is content to reproduce through his discourse.

From Socrates-Plato until Hegel, Dialectic was only a philosophical method without a counterpart in the real. In Hegel there is a real Dialectic, but the philosophical method is that of a pure and simple description, which is dialectical only in the sense that it describes a dialectic of reality.

Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Basic Books, 1969, Chapter One only reproduced here