Kojève and Koyré.
Our take
In the intricate tapestry of 20th-century philosophy, Alexandre Kojève stands as a singular figure whose influence extends beyond academic discourse into the realms of politics and culture. Known primarily for his interpretations of Hegel, Kojève's philosophical lens refracted through the prism of his significant role in French governance adds a layer of complexity to his legacy. Jonathan Rée's insightful review in the London Review of Books delves into two recent works that explore Kojève's duality, highlighting how his philosophical insights intersected with his political engagements. Rée's commentary not only illuminates Kojève's contributions to Hegelian thought but also prompts a reevaluation of how philosophy and politics can converge in the shaping of modern thought—an intersection that remains as relevant today as it was during Kojève's time.
In the swirling tapestry of philosophical discourse, few threads are as vibrant and complex as that of Alexandre Kojève, a figure who straddled the worlds of Hegelian philosophy and French governmental affairs. Jonathan Rée’s review in the *London Review of Books* highlights this duality, presenting Kojève not just as a thinker but as a civil servant whose insights shaped a nation. It's a captivating juxtaposition that invites us to consider why we often compartmentalize intellectual and practical pursuits. Could it be that the most profound philosophies arise from the very soil of governance? As we grapple with the implications of ideas in our own lives, this intersection of thought and action becomes increasingly relevant. Perhaps it’s akin to the challenges faced in immersion learning, where the theoretical often meets the practical in ways that can feel disorienting yet enriching, much like the revelations found in our article on Just curious, what tools do you actually use to read/listen to content in your target language before you're fluent?.
Kojève’s legacy is particularly compelling because it underscores the potency of philosophical ideas when they infiltrate the realms of governance and policy-making. His influence can be felt in the fabric of contemporary political thought, where Hegel’s dialectics have been reinterpreted to address modern complexities. Rée’s observation that “the death of Alexandre Kojève on 4 June 1968 had deprived France of one of its greatest civil servants” serves as a poignant reminder of how deeply intertwined these spheres can be. The philosophical underpinnings of governance are often obscured, yet they are ever-present, shaping policies that affect our daily lives. Just as the disciples of Jesus faced their own trials and tribulations after the Biblical narrative, the philosophers who engage with the world must navigate the consequences of their ideas in real-time, a theme explored in our piece on What Happened to Jesus’ Twelve Disciples After the Bible—It Wasn’t Pretty.
Moreover, Rée’s review prompts us to reflect on the nature of intellectual identity itself. Kojève was born Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov—his name alone hints at a rich, multi-layered identity that transcends borders and ideologies. This notion of duality is not just a biographical footnote; it resonates with our contemporary struggles to define ourselves in an increasingly globalized world. Identity, like philosophy, is fluid, caught in the currents of culture, language, and power. The etymologies we unearth—like the Proto-Germanic roots of "shell," which suggest concealment—serve as reminders that what we see on the surface often belies a deeper, more intricate reality. As we engage with texts and ideas, we inch closer to those slippery, narrow truths that refuse to be contained.
As we look ahead, it’s worth pondering how the legacies of figures like Kojève will continue to shape our understanding of philosophy and governance. What new dimensions will emerge as we untangle the complexities of identity, thought, and action in our digital age? As we navigate these waters, we must ask ourselves: are we ready to embrace the philosophical implications of our actions, or will we remain content with the superficial narratives that often dominate the discourse? The future beckons with questions that are as intriguing as they are necessary—stay tuned, stay curious, and perhaps, stay spooty.
I find Jonathan Rée’s LRB review (5 February 2026; archived) of two books on Alexandre Kojève interesting on a number of counts. For one thing, he had the unusual duality of being both a well-known philosopher (Hegelian variety) and an important figure in French governments (Rée’s piece begins “The obituary in Le Monde was unequivocal: the death of Alexandre Kojève on 4 June 1968 had deprived France of one of its greatest civil servants”). Of more Hattic relevance is his name; he was born Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov (in Moscow), but at some point (neither English nor French Wikipedia is clear about this) he adopted the snappier Gallicized version Kojève. Here is a piquant account of his adventures after leaving Russia:
After a hard journey, including a spell in a Polish prison, Kojève reached Berlin in July 1920 and a few months later came into possession of a large stash of diamonds, sent illicitly from Russia by his mother. He was just eighteen and found himself, as he recalled, ‘at the mercy of money and the pleasures of life’. His extravagances and indiscretions may have been extreme, but they did not stop him taking courses in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese, and devouring, as he put it, ‘everything worth reading in philosophy’. He also registered at Heidelberg to pursue research on Vladimir Soloviev, whom he regarded as ‘the first Russian thinker to devise a universal philosophical system’. He commended Soloviev’s vision of an ‘end of history’ in which humanity would rally to the feminine figure of Sophia, or absolute wisdom, but criticised the irrational attachment to Christianity which, he said, prevented Soloviev from winning through to ‘a new stage in the evolution of thought’.
Kojève finished his dissertation in 1924 but didn’t stay in Heidelberg long enough to qualify for a degree. Berlin was far more exciting and before long he was involved with a glamorous Russian woman, Cécile Shoutak. She was already married, and her aggrieved husband persuaded his older brother, Aleksander Koyra, to remonstrate with Kojève. The scheme misfired, however: Koyra came away convinced that his sister-in-law was ‘absolutely right’ and that Kojève was ‘much, much better than my brother’. He then returned to his home in Paris and persuaded the scandalous couple to join him there in 1926. They married and lived in conspicuous luxury in the Latin Quarter, while Kojève took up an inquiry into determinism and modern physics. But the Crash of 1929 wiped out his investments, which put an end to his high living, his marriage and his work in natural science, though not to his friendship with Koyra.
Koyra was one of the most celebrated intellectuals of the Russian diaspora. He had studied philosophy in Germany and France before joining the Foreign Legion, fighting on the Eastern Front and taking French citizenship under the name Alexandre Koyré. He completed a state doctorate in 1922, at the age of thirty, and was appointed to the École Pratique des Hautes Études, where he started trying to rehabilitate Hegel in France. The ‘traditional interpretation’, he said, was completely wrong: Hegel was not the ‘absurd dialectician and outrageous reactionary’ portrayed in patriotic French textbooks but a ‘singularly attractive’ thinker, more interested in ‘experience’ than ‘method’. Early in 1933, Koyré gave lectures on ‘Hegel in Jena’ in which he evoked ‘a human Hegel, vibrant and vulnerable’. He admitted that Hegel’s notion of an ‘end of history’ looked preposterous, even self-contradictory: how could abstract philosophical reasoning adjudicate on questions of historical fact and how could there be a ‘future’ in which there is ‘no longer any future’? But the difficulties disappear, according to Koyré, once you realise that Hegel was talking not about history as such, but about the way philosophy reflects on it. ‘Philosophy always arrives too late,’ as Hegel once put it. ‘When philosophy paints its grey on grey, a form of life has grown old,’ or in other words, the ‘owl of Minerva’ – symbol of philosophical insight – ‘takes flight only at dusk’. The notion of an end of history is therefore hypothetical rather than categorical: it means that philosophy will not be complete until history is finished, or conversely, that if philosophy is complete, then history must be over. Koyré seems to have thought that no one in their right mind could imagine that these conditions would ever be fulfilled; but he conceded rather sorrowfully that, in Jena in 1806, ‘Hegel himself may well have believed it.’
So there’s another odd onomastic change: why did Koyra (Койра) choose to become Koyré ([kwaʁe])? Is this what studying Hegel does to people? (Kojève’s innamorata Cécile Shoutak also has an odd name — Russian sources call her Цецилия Леонидовна Шутак, and what kind of Russian name is Цецилия?) Anyway, the whole review is worth reading if you care about this stuff, and I’ll quote another Hattic bit: Kojève “took some pride in having defied taboo by encouraging smoking and using colloquial French.”
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience