eros versus desire

eros versus desireNatural eros ------ theistic belief Classical philosophers’ concernsRational desire------- rationality Modern philosophers’s concerns


Classical philosophers , especially Socrates, based on human’s natural eros, establish his own political philosophy, in order to assist political men to better understand political phenomena. And also he clearly, not any blind, appreciate that such natural eros forces or urges politics or governments to come out. That is, governments’ role is to regulate natural eros, but not contral or eradicate it, for that we as human beings can live well in a common community. Therefore, if such natural eros would not disappear, governments following it would never go away. However, when it comes to modern age, such insight has been changed by modern philosophers, who believe that rationaly or our ability of reason can deal with any problems we will encounter in daily life, especially in political life, in a word, our rationality has such power to bring out happiness with beating away conflicts in communal life. That is, through emencipating slaves, we liberty ourselves, because we at last get another subject’s recognition, not a slave’s submission, in Hegelian sense. Just as from Hegelian perspective, Kojeve criticizes Leo Strauss’s political thought, especially his view of philosopher’s self-sufficiency. Such criticism is a modern style, or just modern eyes. Because in Kojeve’s views, evern philosophers need others’ recognition, such rational desire----need recognition. However, such view almost completely trasnforms original insight which Leo Strauss holds. That is, Kojeve thinks that philosophers have his so-called rational desire, put such desire on philosophers’ minds, to the contrary, Leo Strauss rejects his precondition or such presumption, for in Leo Strauss’s view, philosopher has done well the ralationship among rationality, passion and eros, he has regulated passion and eros, forwards them to truth, knowledge of oneself, or the whole being. In this point, we find out Kojeve’s second mistake, that is, in his eyes, politics faces or tackles with human desires, those so-called rational desires, then, if we built up a universal or homogenous community, in which all of our desires can be satisfacted fully or all of us can get other’s recognitions, in that time, we can eradicate conflicts, tensions between human’s desires. However, in Leo Strauss’s standing, such ideal is not different from ignoring politics. So, sometimes, in Leo Strauss’s eyes, modernity just abandons politics, or forgets politics, because modern philosophers, like Kojeve, completely transfer fields which classical philosophers concern with, or pay whole life’s attentions on. The reason is that, modern philosophers simply thinks that if certain institions can satisfy people’s desire( rational desire, not eros), politics should be threw away. Politics was used to satisfy people’s desire, such idea completely reverts political affairs which in classical sens should regulate human natural uneradicated eros. And at the last analysis, natural eros , on one hand, can be regulated by governemts( executors of laws), the other hand, can be pressed by individual inner belief in God. Unfortunately, such two perspectives have been lost by modern philosophers, especially from Elightenmen, which lifted up human right, at the same time, demanded to throw over God. Therefore, Leo Strauss crawls through such gangles back into classical philosopers, especially Socrates, hoping to revive politics, its original insight, like Heidegger, who walks back to pre-socrates, in order to survive true philosophy --- thinking being. Maybe this is why Leo Strauss in his letter to Clain said Heidegger is greatest thinker in our time.