Back to Contents

(source: see The End of History - Francis Fukuyama)

Hegel believed historical changes are a result of man's "asocial sociability." It is conflict, rather than cooperation, that first induced man to live in societies and then develop their potential more fully.

The most essential characteristics of man was undetermined, and therefore free to create his own nature (instead of human nature as a permanent set of traits), therefore this nature changes in time.

Hegel's "First Man" had the basic natural desires (food, sleep, shelter) and non-natural desires. The First Man desired, above all, the desire of other man, to be wanted and recognized by other men. He wanted recognition by others of his freedom and humanity.

His most fundamental trait was the ability to risk his own life. This led him to battles, purely for "prestige". Because man is undetermined by nature, he is capable of true moral choice, e.g. willingness to risk his own life in a battle for pure prestige. The very act against his own instinct of self-preservation meant that he was able to go against his animal instincts, therefore he is "free". The First Men fought with each other, the winner became the Master, and the loser Slave. This gave rise to lordship and bondage, the social class of primitive societies. The slave who was conquered, being more afraid of death, did not rise above his animal nature and succumbed to it instead, and was thus less free. The Master won because his desire for recognition was greater than self-preservation. However, the Master-Slave relationship proved unsatisfactory because the master's worth is now recognized by someone who is "not quite human" to him (the slave), who in his eyes is not worthy of recognizing him. He risked his life for the sake of recognition on the part of the slave who is not worthy of recognizing him, therefore the life of the master is unsatisfied and becomes static, one of unchanging leisure and consumption.

For the slave however, absence of recognition leads to a desire for change. He recovers his humanity through work. He discovers he can change nature (both the environment and his own nature) and conceives the idea of freedom. He considers freedom in abstract, and becomes philosophic and invents the principles of a free society. He has become more self-conscious and reflective than his master. From this, arose the most important ideology that leads most directly to the realization of societies based on liberty and equality- Christianity.

To Hegel, religions were not true in themselves, but were ideologies which arose out of the particular needs of the people who needed them, which changed with time. The idea of freedom received its penultimate form in Christianity. It was the first to establish the principle of equality of all men on the basis of being morally free to choose between right and wrong. The Kingdom of God is the prospect of a world in which the desire for recognition of every man is satisfied.

But, in Christianity, the realization of freedom is not here now on Earth. It had the right concept, but reconciled real-world slaves to the lack of freedom by telling them not to expect liberation in this life. Hegel said that the Christian did not realize that God did not create man, rather man created God, then enslaved himself to something he created and Christianity was thus a form of alienation.

To Hegel, the completion of the historical process needed only the secularization of Christianity. The French revolution was the event that took the vision of free and equal society and implemented it here on Earth.

That was how the slave and his work propelled history forward towards liberal democracy. Hegel's Last Man's struggle for recognition and satisfaction of desire is achieved when granted rights by a universal and homogenous state of liberal democracy.

However is liberal democracy satisfactory enough?

********************************

Is liberal democracy satisfying enough? Does it contain any contradictions that would cause men to seek a 'higher', more satisfying form of idealogy?

1. Leftist argument: unfulfilled, because economic inequality brought by capitalism. Causes of social inequality :
- due to human convention (legal barriers, culture)
- due to nature : natural abilities/attributes, due to capitalism and division of labor ( rich/poor, job prestige differences - becomes necessary and ineradicable). There is a tradeoff between liberty and equality.
Socialism doesn't work because it rewards needs rather than work/talent. Man lose interest in working, giving rise to a new class of party officials/bureaucrats.

2. Rightist argument: goal of equal recognition is problematic because humans are inherently unequal

Nietzsche argued against liberal democracy because - is universal recognition worth having? Is not the quality of recognition more important ? Does not the goal of universal recognition inevitably trivialize and devalue it? Nietzsche's Last Man is composed entirely of desire and reason, lacks megalothymia. True freedom or creativity can only arise out of megalothymia any real excellence must initially rise out of discontent. But he knows better than to risk life for a cause, because he recognizes history as full of pointless battles.

Hegel's Last Man: struggle for recognition and satisfaction of desire achieved when granted rights by universal and homogenous state.

Kojeve's Last Man: achieves both recognition and material abundance. He ceases to work and struggle, no large causes to fight, become animals again, end of art and philosophy.

Will humans be finally happy and satisfied as no longer humans but animals? Or become dissatisfied and drag the world back into history with all its war, injustice and revolutions? Thus, in a liberal democracy the contradiction to be solved is that man will find life, in the end, boring. He is an indifferentiated member, with no ideals, taking no risks.

Liberal democracy can in the long run be subverted internally by
1. excess isothymia (which run into limits set by mature itself)
2.excess megalothymia, a greater threat

Nietzsche: some megalothymia is necessary precondition for life

Decline of community life is caused by liberal principles (tolerance and rights). Liberal democracy is not self-sufficient- the community life which they depend must ultimately come from a source different from liberalism e.g. religion. Will the decline of community life leads to secure and self-absorbed last men devoid of thymotic strivings or return to being first men engaged in battles? Will men be not satisfied until they prove themselves by that very act that constituted their humanness at the beginning of history- risk life in battle to prove they are free?

Hegel: a society that need to fights wars is healthier and more satisfied Supposed the whole world has turned into liberal democracies- if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause, then they will struggle against the just cause. Struggle for the sake of struggle.

Will there be some who remain dissatisfied with liberty and equality?

.: 6/14/2002 :.

Back to Contents

© 2002, Leftnwrite. All rights reserved.