Online research in philosophy

The paper addresses Giorgio Agamben’s affirmation of post-sovereign politics by analyzing his critical engagement with the Hobbesian problematic of the state of nature. Radicalizing Carl Schmitt’s criticism of Hobbes, Agamben deconstructs the distinction between the state of nature and the civil order of the Commonwealth by demonstrating the ‘inclusive exclusion’ of the former within the latter in the manner of the state of exception, which functions as a negative foundation of any positive order. Since the state of nature is no longer cast as spatially external and temporally antecedent to the former, it cannot be escaped by the perfection of the legal order, nor can it itself be posited in an essentialist manner as a pre-political site uncontaminated by sovereign violence. While denying any way out of the state of exception, Agamben nonetheless argues for the possibility of its appropriation in the way that dissociates anomie from the locus of sovereignty and reclaims it as an attribute of free social praxis. The paper analyzes three central features of this ‘post-sovereign’ politics and concludes with a discussion of the differences between Schmitt and Agamben with regard to the fate of Hobbes’s Leviathan in late modern politics.

The notion of ‘omnipotence’ (potentia dei) runs through the history of medieval philosophy especially after the contribution of Augustine’s thought. Augustine thus traces ethical developments from the idea of God’s sovereignty to the construction of an order of things comparable with his power of creation. Augustine was the first Christian thinker to introduce and document the notion of potentia dei in an ethical context, proving at the same time that the ambivalence of God’s power results either from the activity of ordering, or from the impossibility of God’s duplication, or from the incapacity to destroy the world in respect to a rational configuration of laws and events.

The aim of the article is to outline and compare the way that Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt understand the spheree of politics as well as analyse the concepts of power and freedom connected with their theories. Both Schmitt and Arendt criticise liberal democracy for its “neutrality” and counterpoise it with their own understanding of political action. Especially Schmitt who understand such action as a conflict between friends and enemies. The analysis of their approach to the power and the contrasting their models of politics allows Wonicki to draw conclusions about contemporary liberalism and indicating its limits.

Focus of this article is Bernard's definitions and ideas surrounding power (potestas). The first section will outline terminology drawing a distinction between Bernard's use of the terms potestas and auctoritas. Auctoritas is used less frequently by Bernard and is limited to descriptions of ecclesiastical matters; it is not predicated to the functions of a secular ruler whether king or emperor. Conversely, potestas has a wide variety of uses and applications including descriptions of the power of God, the secular power and the ecclesiastical power which is defined as potestas ligandi et solvendi. Given its range of meanings and uses, potestas is not a technical term for Bernard. Rather, potestas is a biblical term of which the frequency and prevalence in the text of the Vulgate certainly influenced Bernard. Since Bernard uses potestas in both ecclesiastical and secular descriptions, other terms are helpful in drawing distinctions between the two spheres, e. g. ministerium and dominium, which as contrasting terms provide a point of entry into this discussion. /// Objectivo do presente artigo é estudar as definições de Bernardo de Claraval bem como as suas ideias a propósito da noção de poder (potestas). Na primeira secção do artigo, a autora clarifica a terminologia estabelecendo uma distinção entre o uso que Bernardo faz dos termos potestas e auctoritas. O termo auctoritas é usado por Bernardo menos frequentemente e aparece limitado a descrições relativas a assuntos eclesiásticos; o termo não se aplica às funções de um governante secular, seja ele rei ou imperador. Por outro lado, potestas possui uma ampla variedade de usos e aplicações incluindo descrições do poder de Deus, do poder secular e do poder eclesiástico o qual é definido como potestas ligandi et solvendi. Dada a amplitude dos seus significados e dos seus usos, potestas não é para Bernardo um termo técnico. Pelo contrário, potestas é um termo bíblico sendo que a sua frequência e prevalência no texto da Vulgata certamente influenciou Bernardo. Dado que Bernardo usa potestas tanto em descrições eclesiásticas como seculares, outros termos são considerados úteis para o estabelecimento de distinqoes entre as duas esferas, nomeadamente ministerium e dominium, termos estes que, em si contrastantes, providenciam um autêntico ponto de entrada nesta discussão.

One of the most significant political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt is a deeply controversial figure who has been labeled both Nazi sympathizer and modern-day Thomas Hobbes. First published in 1938, The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes used the Enlightenment philosopher’s enduring symbol of the protective Leviathan to address the nature of modern statehood. A work that predicted the demise of the Third Reich and that still holds relevance in today’s security-obsessed society, this volume will be essential reading for students and scholars of political science. “Carl Schmitt is surely the most controversial German political and legal philosopher of this century. . . . We deal with Schmitt, against all odds, because history stubbornly persists in proving many of his tenets right.”— Perspectives on Political Science “[A] significant contribution. . . . The relation between Hobbes and Schmitt is one of the most important questions surrounding Schmitt: it includes a distinct, though occasionally vacillating, personal identification as well as an association of ideas.”— Telos.