Jump to content

Talk:Carl Schmitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.211.90.151 (talk) at 10:28, 5 June 2023 (→significance: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.perales1121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was Carl Schmitt a conservative?

Carl Schmitt was not a conservative.

The article presents no evidence that Carl Schmitt was a conservative - yet assumes that he was a conservative philosopher. There is no evidence that Carl Schmitt was a supporter of natural law, or was a lover of traditional limits upon government, or that he believed any authority (whether religious or moral) was superior to the ruler or rulers. Yet the author of the article assumes (in Marxist or semi Marxist fashion - although baffling Marxism is sometimes called "liberalism" in the United States, which is absurd) that Schmitt (and all National Socialists) must be conservatives. It is as if such thinkers as Ludwig Von Mises ("Omnipotent Government") and F.A. Hayek ("The Road to Serfdom") had never written a word.5.66.155.30 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you are baffled by the alleged American corruption of the word liberalism, many people outside of the United States will be baffled by your corruption of the word conservatism. For a start, outside of the United States, a subscription to the doctrines of the natural law is not considered a necessary component of conservatism. Secondly, although he may not have been 'a lover of traditional limits upon government' (whatever they are), he did state a clear preference for the substantive legal guarantees present in the second part of the Weimar Constitution (over and above the then-radically value-neutral democratic element in the first part) in the final pages of the conclusion to Legality and Legitimacy in 1932. Thirdly, your comment about Schmitt's irreligious and amoral stance betrays a remarkable ignorance of some of the most recent scholarship on Schmitt's concern with revelation and the Catholic faith (namely the work of Heinrich Meier). To assert that Schmitt was a conservative is not to assert that all National Socialists were conservatives: Schmitt was not an orthodox Nazi (and work like The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes suggests that he was quietly critical of the movement after his fall from their grace), and most of the evidence for Schmitt's conservative impulses are to be found in his opposition to Hitler's rise prior to 1933. Finally, just so you can be corrected on this basic error, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek were free market libertarians, not conservatives - your assertion to the contrary makes it seem as if such thinkers as F. A. Hayek ('Why I am Not a Conservative', the post-script to The Constitution of Liberty) had never written a word. MichaelOakeshott (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those sources offer concrete proof that Schmitt influenced Bush administration actions. As near as I can figure they mostly say Bush's actions MAY have been influenced by a person who MAY have been influenced by Schmitt. Putting a link to Wikipedia's work on conservatism is Godwins law on its face. Normally connecting philosophies is not very controversial but once you use the word "Hitler" or "Nazi" all nuanced and civil discussion goes out the window. I propose this section be removed and its link to conservative philosophy be severed.Inspectorenjorlas (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Schmitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dugin

I am adding Alexander Dugin to the list of people Schmitt influenced.

Dugin himself states he " came to the Theory of a Multipolar World, which I eventually developed myself, precisely through superimposing geopolitical dualism, Carl Schmitt’s theory of the Grossraum, and John Hobson’s critique of Western racism and the euro-centrism of IR."

http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html

Of course, the list should not become overpopulated with everyone of note that happened to be influenced by him, but considering Mr. Dugin's relevance both in Russian internal politics and reaching out to his global audience/readership, I posit that he be included.

68.192.161.211 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Eliade and Schmitt

Hi, I have access to the sources on Eliade and Schmitt, I don't find what could justify the so-called influence. Please give here the sentences involved. Thank you. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

from the Portugal Journal: "We talked a long time. He has just come from Paris. ... He believes René Guénon is the most interesting person of our time. (I don’t believe this always, but often I do. Although I consider Aurobindo Ghose more “perfected.”)" --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I said previously. I know perfectly both references, I used them for my Master. There is absolutely nothing in these refs that states of an influence. Only that Schmitt was "interested", and the author acknowledges himself of a "personnal hypothesis". There is no possibility of an intellectual derivation of ideologies from these sources. This is WP:OR. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my short answer above, I have not much time this week. Both sources can be found online, and they show an influence on Schmitt. I don't think that you have fully read them. --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Schmitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitt and Eliade again

Hi,

Two sources are given by Dekacarandaebonelm (another sprout of indef banned user Hkelkar by the way): Grottanelli Cristiano and Mircea Eliade’s The Portugal Journal. They are easily accessible: the first one is on the internet: see here. The first develops on the relations between Schmitt, Jünger and Eliade: Guénon is presented as representative for Eliade, not for Schmitt (section 2.3). Nowhere throughout the text is written an "influence". Same for the second one, (also accessible through digital librairies). 82.98.7.229 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm afaid that I really don;t understand your comment. Can you explain it again with more detail? It would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken. These two references were introduced to show a so-called Guénon influence on Schmitt. But none of these refs say it. Even worse, the first of these references has been misinterpreted: page 330, the text reads: "Ernst Jünger écrivait le 15 novembre 1942 que Carl Schmitt lui avait donné des « informations détaillées » sur Eliade et « son maître René Guenon » which translates into "Ernst Jünger wrote on November 15 1942 that Carl Schmitt has given to him "detailed information" on Eliade and his "master René Guénon"". But in french this refers to Eliade's master, not Schmitt's !! Nowhere in the text it is mentioned of an "influence". This adds to what I have written before. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need more explanations. Best, 82.98.7.229 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you, that was very clear. My appreciation for taking the time to explain to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Political theologian"?

The category Category:Political theologians is being added to this article, and there is a dispute over it. I do not believe it is appropriate, since Schmitt was not a theologian, he was a jurist and a legal theorist. He may have written about political theology, but that doesn't make him a "political theologian". Look at everybody else in that category - they are all obviously theologians who have specialized in political theology. Schmitt's writing on that top to do not him a political theologian any more than if Kim Kardashian writing about politics would make her a political scientist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison. Being a jurist and a legal theorist does provide one with professional background to write about a subject called "political theology". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How so? So every jurist and legal theorist is automatically qualified to be a "political theologian"? Wouldn't is be necessary to -- you know -- study theology? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But writing a book titled "political theology" does not make one a theologian.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I initially added the category. Clearly, he literally wrote the book on the subject. Does this make him a theologian? Perhaps not if we were to think of him as articulating Christian theological formulae about the nature of God and His relationship with the world. But as is shown in the article on theology, this is not the explicit nature of the term as we know it. Schmitt's work interpreted his contemporary politics using theological framework. Though he may not have seen himself as a theologian, classically understood within the Christian tradition, he is perceived by others as the seminal figure in the discourse on political theology. That was my rationale and why I think it makes sense to include the category. --Caorongjin (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, this edit violates WP:3RR. I suggest that you self-revert. I am happy to stop reverting given the lack of consensus for or against including the category, but you need to stop reverting as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Since FKC was edit warring to keep the category in on the false grounds that there was a consensus to do so (i.e. 1 editor added it, 1 (FKC) restored it = 2, while only 1 (me) removed it), with Maunus's comment, it's now 2 to 2, so there's no longer a consensus as FKC defines it, so I've reverted it again.
The reason FKC's criteria is false is that WP:BRD calls for the article to remain in the status quo ante during discussion (i.e. no category), and consensus is not determined on a minute-by-minute basis. Please leave the article as it is until a real consensus is determined in this discussion, at which time the category can be re-added, if that's what consensus says. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Even if there is a sound rationale for removing the category you should not have violated WP:3RR to do so. Again, you should consider self-reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of having categories called "theologian" is to be able to find people who are theologians (i.e. have a theological degree or have contributed to the field of theology enough that other theologians consider them to be so). Schmitt's book "Political theology" is not as far as I can see a contribution to theology at all, but rather a contribution to political theory. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus: We have not added the category "theologian" to this article. The term "political theology" as conventionally understood is chiefly associated with Schmitt, which would make this categorization more than appropriate. Your opinion about whether a book you haven't read is a contribution to one or another discipline is irrelevant. I have chosen to revert because the previous user violated 3RR. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Political theologians" is a subcategory of "theologians".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Endymion: Please provide a citation from a reliable source to support the contention that "The term 'political theology' as conventionally understood is chiefly associated with Schmitt". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Endymion.12: Fix ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

Two of the sources recommended here (that I know of) are by far right authors—Alain de benoist and Paul gottfried. OK, maybe they belong here given the subject, but it seems sketchy to me. It’s not mainstream scholarship. 72.95.130.125 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitt "excommunicated"

[Moved from above] -BMK

Persons attempting a second marriage while a spouse lives are not usually described as 'excommunicated' -- at least not in Queensland (where I am) today, so far as my experience goes.

People who attempt such a marriage would have been told in the !930s 'Don't come to the sacraments even if you are not involved in marital relations, since your coming to the sacraments would bring grave scandal (except, of course, in the hour of death.) Nick_cool (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to use the way things are done now as a guide to the way they were done in other historical periods. Schmitt's second marriage took place almost 100 years ago. The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not change its rituals and policies at the drop of a hat, but it does change them nonetheless. If a WP:Reliable source says that Schmitt was excommunicated because he remarried without having his first marriage annuled, then that's what we report. What the Church does today is really not relevant to this article.
If you believe that the source cited (The Nazi Conscience by Claudia Koonz, page 57) is not a reliable source by our definition (unlikely, as -- according to our article -- she is a historian specializing in Nazi Germany), or that the book does not say that Schmitt was excommunicated, please present evidence to support that conjecture. which is not based on your personal experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

significance

I cite "but its value and significance are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism".

If Schmitt's value is indeed controversial, I don't see how his significance could be controversial, it's factual and Schmitt's relations with Nazism don't change the significance of his thought. 62.211.90.151 (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Schmitt&oldid=1158646498"