Alexandre Kojève – Descartes and Buddha

That day, I worked very late: it was almost five when I decided finally to stop and have a rest. I worked in the library. In the room it was quite dark, the lamp on my table giving light only to a small section of the wall, on which hung the portrait of Descartes, and to the table itself, covered by books and papers, on the corner of which stood, strikingly apparent against this dark background, a small statuette of Buddha. All else was weighed with darkness; it would be easier to imagine the long rows of shelving set with books than to set them into view. I was very tired, and gradually was overcome by that strange, mysterious mood that always reigns in places where many books are gathered. Having thrown myself against the backrest of my chair, I sat and pondered the written works of the two cultures, East and West, my gaze returning all the time to the only two illuminated objects of the room – the portrait and the statuette. I cannot say how long I sat there like that; I may have even nodded off. Suddenly something caused me to start. I was not, at first, able to determine what it was, but then I saw that with the portrait and the Buddha something unusual and extraordinary was happening. Indeed, this compelled me to pay them closer attention. The face of Descartes in the portrait seemed to come to life, take bulging forms, and, I thought, move his lips. A similar change came over the statuette. The bronze lost its lustre and acquired, like old ivory, the colour of tanned flesh, and the once-empty expression of the eyes took on a human cast. Buddha brightened and looked at Descartes with an elusive expression of amusement on his face. I began to listen closely and quickly caught onto their dialogue. Evidently, they had been speaking for quite some time already, for in the first words I heard – the words of Descartes – there sounded irritation.

“I beg your pardon,” he said, “this way, we will never agree. We must find some sort of axiom like the geometric, one equally acceptable to both of us, and use it to build a philosophical system whose ultimate conclusions would be obligatory for everyone because they derive logically from this axiom. Such an axiom would, in my opinion, present the following assertion, that, because I think, it follows that I am – Cogito, ergo sum. I had already expressed this claim some time ago, while I was still alive and did not hang in other’s libraries like a decoration, and to this very day there has been no one with sufficient cause to go against it. I hope that you, too, finally, will agree with me here.”

“Although it is only after I travelled the world in the form of bronze statuettes that I had the pleasure of hearing this position, I am still able to offer something of an objection to it. You say: ‘I think, therefore, I am.” Therefore, in your view, thinking and being should be considered one and the same, or, to put it differently, thought at least appears to be synonymous to being, as I cannot believe that you imagine that all existence entails thinking on its part. Correct?

“Quite. The possibility of the thinking process itself proves that real being is present. I think that this is sufficiently clear.”

“Possibly, but I wish to continue nonetheless. The process of thinking is the condition for being, and it therefore follows that thought, as it is, is being, is reality. Likewise, anything existing also is reality, is being. Thus your assertion expresses only this, that the existence of certain reality determines being. With that, of course, one cannot disagree, but the bigger question is whether one is allowed to make the same conclusions you have made. You attempt to prove the reality of your ‘I’, a thinking entity, out of the position: there is reality, being. Therefore, the assertion ‘Cogito ergo sum” is no axiom, but is itself in need of such a premise as the one above.”

“Granted, that may be so, but in that case you still cannot assert that thinking is nonbeing. Being, as the counterpoint to nonbeing, is reality, and all nonbeing is nonreality, i.e., it does not exist. But if we can speak of thought at all, then with it we must also recognize existence, and therefore, both being and reality.”

“That still remains a question. Your worldview rests on the assumption that all being is reality, and that all nonbeing is not real, nonexistent, and therefore cannot be accounted for. But on the other hand, can such a concept of being be understood otherwise than as the concept which stands in opposition to the concept of nonbeing?”

“Of course not. Existence can be understood only insofar as it is held in antithesis to nonexistence, reality to unreality, being to nonbeing. But I do not understand what you mean by that.”

“Now, you will understand. In your view, thinking is the precondition for being, and, consequently, the product of thinking is being, reality is the product of thought. If we accept the homogeneity of the thinking process, then we are able to say that any thought whatsoever is, as it is, adequate to the concept of being. Only reasoned being becomes reality; in other words, any thought potentially holds within itself the realization of the thinkable. Consequently, if thought, thinking being, concretizes and realizes it, and with that reveals itself to be, then that same thought, thinking nonbeing, as the non-real antithesis to being, itself becomes nonexistent. For if thought is real, then real too are the products of thought. In other words, the understanding of nonbeing – as a product of thought – is also real as such. But the concepts of being and nonbeing may be thought only as contrary or opposed concepts. Ergo – either thought thinks the concept of nonbeing as nonexistence and thereby becomes nonexistent itself the moment that the concept of nonexistence is introduced, or else thought thinks all as real, and thereby creates itself as an existent. But in this case, from the premise that being is realized by thought, that real being can be none other than a product of real thought, that nonexistence is product of thought, that real thought cannot think nonbeing, that real being can only be thought in antithesis to nonexistent nonbeing, it follows that real thought cannot think being. Unthought being, again, does not exist. Consequently, if thought is real, then its product cannot be real. And so the self-conception of thought, the very possibility of thinking thought, in this case shows the necessity of understanding thought as nonbeing.”

“I beg your pardon. I am totally unable to follow you. All of your reasoning is complete sophism. Do you really wish to say that when I think, I do not exist, or that when I exist, then I do not think?”

“No, not at all. I only wish to say that if all possible thought and existence is made possible only due to the understanding of thought, or the reality of being, then I must say, in my opinion, that … ”

But here, a large stack of books set leaning against the table suddenly collapsed and noisily spilled across the room. Surprised, I jumped instinctively up from my chair, and when I realized what had happened and had calmed, and turned again to the portrait and the statuette, I no longer noticed anything unusual or amiss about them. Gleaming in the light of the lamp, the statuette stared at me with empty eyes, and in the place of the just-talking Descartes there hung the portrait, the painting’s brushstrokes clearly visible.

Warsaw, 12 June 1920