Marchal, Kai, and Carl K. Y. Shaw, eds., Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-Speaking World: Reorienting the Political

Dao ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-163
Author(s):  
Po-hei Lau
Il Politico ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
Marco Menon

This paper offers a short overview of Heinrich Meier’s books on Carl Schmitt’s political theology, namely Carl Schmitt und Leo Strauss, and Die Lehre Carl Schmitts. These writings, published respectively in 1988 and 1994, and recently translated into Italian by Cantagalli (Siena), have raised both enthusiastical appraisal and fierce criticism. The gist of Meier’s interpretation is the following: the core of Schmitt’s thought is his Christian faith. Schmitt’s political doctrine must be unterstood as political theology, that is, as a political doctrine which claims to be grounded on divine revelation. The fundamental attitude of the political theologian, therefore, is pious obedience to God’s unfathomable will. The hypothesis of the paper is that Meier’s reading, which from a historical point of view might appear as highly controversial, is essentially the attempt to articulate the fundamental alternative between political theology and political philosophy. Meier’s alleged stylization of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss is a form of “platonism”, i.e., a theoretical purification aimed at a clear formulation of what he means by “the theologico-political problem”.


1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-223
Author(s):  
Susan Shell

Heinrich Meier 's careful and illuminating study of the relation between Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss should come as something of a revelation to many* Through a painstaking analysis of the three editions of Schmitt's influential Concept of the Political, Meier uncovers a heretofore largely overlooked “dialogue,” albeit one partly conducted “in absentia.”As Meier observes Schmitt is one of a relatively small number of contemporaries whose work Strauss publicly reviewed. The first edition of Schmitt's essay appeared in 1927; a second was published in 1932, and it is to this that Strauss's 1932 “Comments” is (openly) addressed. A second was published in 1932. A third edition, published in 1933, presents, on Meier's reading, Schmitt's implicit response. For a variety of reasons, not the least being Schmitt's increasing involvement with the National Socialists, Strauss's role as interlocutor went largely unacknowledged, it being “impossible,” as Strauss would later write, for Schmitt to admit his “dependence on a Jew” (p. 138).


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boyd Jonathan

Three influential interpreters – Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, and Carl Schmitt – note that Hobbes’s sovereign is tasked with containing the natural wills of subjects for the sake of civil peace. Yet Hobbes’s sovereign also has a mandate to govern or use his subjects for collective defence, and each suggest that the political-psychological means to ensure submission preclude and prevent the contribution of subjects towards collective ends, which would render Hobbes’s commonwealth near indefensible. This paper will argue instead that Hobbes does envision a way his sovereign could harness potentia publica: the sovereign must also instil an artificial will through civil honour, an artificial will that is necessary for the defence of the commonwealth.


Author(s):  
Bruno Irion Coletto

RESUMO: O artigo busca explorar as críticas e os comentários lançados por Leo Strauss acerca de um dos principais livros de Carl Schmitt, intitulado O Conceito do Político. Sob o pressuposto da existência de um “diálogo escondido” entre os dois filósofos, e sob o pano de fundo da disputa entre a Teologia Política e a Filosofia Política, primeiramente explorar-se-ão os aspectos fundamentais da obra schmittiana, enquadrando-a como a afirmação do âmbito político perante o projeto de um liberalismo individualista despolitizador moderno. Compreendidos os aspectos fundamentais do pensamento de Schmitt, analisar-se-ão as concordâncias e as críticas de Strauss, especialmente acerca do critério de existência da política, ou seja, do critério que separa os homens entre amigos e inimigos, fundando a política. Strauss, fazendo uma releitura daquilo que Schmitt chamou de “pergunta de vida e morte”, demonstra como a pluralidade interna à comunidade, diferentemente daquilo que pensava Schmitt, é proveniente da natureza humana. Strauss, portanto, faz uma releitura da pergunta de vida e morte, estabelecendo a diferença fundamental entre aquilo que chama de Filosofia Política e a Teologia Política de Schmitt. Palavras-Chave: Filosofia política; Teologia Política; Leo Strauss; Carl Schmitt; O Conceito do Político. Abstract: The article explores the critics and comments of Leo Strauss on one of Carl Schmitt’s main books, titled The Concept of the Political. Under the assumption of a "hidden dialogue" between these two philosophers, and with the background of the dispute between Political Theology and Political Philosophy, fundamental aspects of Schmitt’s work are explored initially, framing it as an assertion of the political framework before the project of a modern depoliticizing individualistic liberalism. Once the fundamental aspects of Schmitt’s thoughts are understood, Strauss’ concordances and critiques are analyzed, especially regarding the politics existence criterion, i.e. the criterion that separates men between friends and foes, founding the politics. Strauss, reinterpreting what Schmitt called "question of life and death," demonstrates how community’s internal plurality, unlike what Schmitt thought, comes from human nature. Strauss therefore makes a rereading of the question of life and death, establishing the fundamental difference between what he calls Political Philosophy and Schmitt’s Political Theology Keywords: Political Philosophy; Political Theology; Leo Strauss; Carl Schmitt; The Concept of the Political.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Ito Prajna-Nugroho

Sejak 2001 Collége de France, lembaga pendidikan tinggi Prancis paling bergengsi yang berisi para filsuf dan pemikir terkenal dari berbagai bidang, menginisiasi munculnya sebuah fakultas baru. Modern and Contemporary History of the Political adalah nama fakultas baru tersebut. Pierre Rossanvallon, seorang ahli filsafat politik dan penulis buku yang produktif, didaulat sebagai Guru Besar untuk yang pertama kali dan masih menjabat hingga saat ini. Nama fakultas tersebut rupanya sejalan dengan perkembangan termutakhir dalam kajian filsafat politik, yaitu penelaahan kembali asas-asas politik demokratis dalam masyarakat yang heterogen dan plural, bangsa-bangsa yang semakin melintas batas, negara yang tidak lagi digerakkan oleh ideologi-ideologi besar, dunia yang semakin terhubung, serta kecenderungan konflik yang semakin acak menyebar. Perkembangan dalam kajian filsafat politik ini sebenarnya bukan sesuatu yang baru sebab telah dimulai sejak periode 1980-an oleh beberapa tokoh kunci dalam filsafat politik, seperti Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Claude Lefort, dan Leo Strauss. Pada umumnya, para ahli filsafat politik tersebut menghidupkan kembali pemikiran Carl Schmitt, seorang pakar hukum dan ahli politik di Republik Weimar, Jerman mengenai Das Politische (Yang Politis/The Political) sebagai dasar penggerak politik yang selalu konfrontatif, konfliktual, agonistik, dan senantiasa mengelak dari prosedur-prosedur rasional demokratis. Pierre Rosanvallon berada di dalam satu barisan para pemikir kontemporer tersebut, barisan yang kini dikenal dengan nama para pemikir post-foundational. Sebelum menerbitkan buku Democratic Legitimacy, Rosanvallon telah menerbitkan beberapa karya monumental dan telah diterjemahkan ke dalam berbagai bahasa, seperti L’âge de l’autogestion (1976), Le capitalisme utopique (1979), Le nouvel âge des inégalités (1996), dan La contre-democratie (2006). Buku Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity, merupakan kelanjutan dari karya-karya awalnya sekaligus pendalaman dari buku terakhirnya Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust (2008). ..... Sebagai sebuah karya filsafat politik, Democratic Legitimacy memiliki tujuan praktis yang dirumuskan secara jelas. Maka buku ini juga memuat beberapa kemungkinan solusi dan resolusi atas kontradiksi-kontradiksi internal demokrasi seperti misalnya re-institusionalisasi lembaga-lembaga demokrasi. Untuk Indonesia yang sedang bergumul dengan demokrasi, sistem kepartaian, otonomi daerah, serta munculnya persoalan-persoalan seperti fundamentalisme agama, korupsi, inefisiensi birokrasi, dan sebagainya, buku Democratic Legitimacy merupakan buku yang wajib dibaca oleh para ahli filsafat, para politisi, para penasihat penguasa, dan penyelenggara negara serta pengambil kebijakan. Democratic Legitimacy mampu menjelaskan dengan kalem berbagai persoalan yang acapkali dipeributkan dalam politik nasional/lokal kita, sekaligus memberikan kerangka pemahaman yang solid dan jelas mengenai arah demokrasi untuk 50 tahun ke depan. (Ito Prajna-Nugroho, Alumnus Program Sarjana dan Pascasarjana STF Driyarkara, Jakarta)


2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

Carl Schmitt's Der Nomos der Erde allows us to rethink his interlinked proposals for the organization of the Weimar Republic, namely his theory of ‘democratic dictatorship’ and the ‘concept of the political’. Connecting the domestic homogeneity of an empowered people with the pluralism of the Westphalian state system, Schmitt seeks to humanize war; he objects to the renaissance of the ‘just war’ tradition, which is premised on a discriminating concept of war. Schmitt's objections are valid today, yet their Eurocentric foundations are also partially outdated. We are thus to argue with Schmitt against Schmitt to reflect on possibilities for the humanization of war.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document