Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.
A carregar... The Concept of the Political: Expanded Editionpor Carl Schmitt
A carregar...
Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro. Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro. sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
In this, his most influential work, legal theorist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that liberalism's basis in individual rights cannot provide a reasonable justification for sacrificing oneself for the state--a critique as cogent today as when it first appeared. George Schwab's introduction to his translation of the 1932 German edition highlights Schmitt's intellectual journey through the turbulent period of German history leading to the Hitlerian one-party state. In addition to analysis by Leo Strauss and a foreword by Tracy B. Strong placing Schmitt's work into contemporary context, this expanded edition also includes a translation of Schmitt's 1929 lecture "The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations," which the author himself added to the 1932 edition of the book. An essential update on a modern classic, The Concept of the Political, Expanded Edition belongs on the bookshelf of anyone interested in political theory or philosophy. Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas. |
Current DiscussionsNenhum(a)Capas populares
Google Books — A carregar... GénerosSistema Decimal de Melvil (DDC)320.011Social sciences Political Science Political Science Political Science Philosophy and Theory SystemsClassificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos EUA (LCC)AvaliaçãoMédia:
É você?Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing. |
It isn't a surprise why many avoid Carl Schmitt. He was, after all, a prominent jurist in the Third Reich. Many political theorists argue it was Schmitt's very ideas that paved the way for Hitler and the Nazi's so what value could one possibly find in his works?
Though the claim that Schmitt's views enabled Nazism is contestable (see Schwab's introduction), it does not appear as if Schmitt ever denounced his party allegiance. The waters are murky indeed.
What is not up for debate, however, is that Schmitt provides a salient right-wing critique of liberalism that now reads as prescient. If human life is essentially political, then modernity's proclivity to diminish the political is equally dehumanizing. Liberalism's feeble attempt to make politics safe sucks the vitality out of life, trapping man in "the dynamic of perpetual competition and perpetual discussion" where there are only new products to buy, new debates to be had, and no decisive actions to be made (72).
For Schmitt, liberalism is fake politics. True politics only occurs with the possibility of conflict between friends and enemies: the chief distinction in the realm politics as good and evil is the chief distinction in morality.
Dividing the world between friends and enemies may appear brutal and militaristic to our modern sensibilities. But we ought to be careful about importing ideas into that distinction that Schmitt does not and even rejects. For example, calling someone an enemy does not necessarily imply a moral category or private animus. One is an enemy solely on the grounds of difference. Their way of life is not our way of life and though they may be quite peaceful now, the possibility of conflict some day under the right circumstances creates the friend-enemy distinction.
For Schmitt, this is actually a more humane way of doing politics since he rejects any appeal to universal moral principles by either the friend or the enemy. As soon as one side appeals to "humanity"to use one value of modern liberalism, he has coincidentally placed his enemy on the side against humanity. There is now no limit to what one may do to him. Total annihilation is now on the table in a way it wasn't when the difference was merely cultural. Thus, Schmitt defends the old European nation-state as the primary political organization as well as diversity, as ironic as that may be for a right-wing post liberal critic.
But as noble as Schmitt's intentions are to rid the political of universal morality, it simply won't do because there's no escaping our moral universe. Even Schmitt is inconsistent on this point, an observation Leo Strauss makes noticing Schmitt's use of "meaning." There is life and there is a meaningful way to live. Some ways of life--as Schmitt's own Nazi regime proved--really are morally abhorrent. There is also a sense that no group holds to their way of life merely because its their's but also because they think it's good. This is likely true for every group thus requiring some moral standard by which to judge which align with truth, goodness, and beauty. Even such an evaluation will help us discern friends from enemies. ( )