This article, originally a preface to the French edition of Carl Schmitt’s book The Leviathan in the State theory of Thomas Hobbes, displays a critical analysis that not only puts the above work in context, but also raises a question about Schmitt’s appropriation of Hobbes, an author who was considered a beacon of light by the former during his whole lifetime. Thus, the article undertakes a reconstitution of Schmitt´s relevance for Political Theory and Philosophy in recent years, and then develops (...) the way Hobbes was analysed in Schmitt´s essay. The interpretation of the Jurist is not innocent at all, and the propinquity to the English author in some issues could have allowed the former to reinforce his own arguments by using the latter as a mere strategic tool. The key question the article tries to elucidate is whether this re-appropriation was successful or not. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Carl Schmitt’s interpretation of Thomas Hobbes. We will argue that, for Carl Schmitt, the first modern answer to the problem of the absence of a transcendent foundation for the political order was to be found in Hobbes’ theory. In two phases, we examine the tension that Schmitt finds in the Hobbesian solution to the problem of truth in politics. First, we present some problems that Schmitt encountered in Hobbes’ solution, focusing on Schmitt’s interpretation of the Hobbesian (...) distinction between inner faith and outer confession. Second, we outline some difficulties that arise from Schmitt’s interpretation of this problem. (shrink)

El artículo desentraña la relación entre Carl Schmitt y Jacob Taubes en sus interpretaciones sobre el Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes y la teología política. El jurista del nazismo y el rabino mantienen posiciones opuestas sobre el filósofo inglés hasta el punto de encontrar Taubes en Spinoza una alternativa aún por desarrollar. Frente a la interpretación de Schmitt que situaba a Spinoza como origen de la enfermedad que condujo a la muerte del Leviatán, Taubes lo sitúa en Pablo de Tarso (...) (“primer judío liberal”) y la separación entre interino y externo en el mesianismo paulino. (shrink)

Este artículo se ocupa del sentido de la teología políti-ca en las dos últimas partes de Leviatán, o la materia, forma y poder de un Estado eclesiástico o civil: “De un Estado cristiano” y “El reino de las tinieblas”. El análisis de estas secciones del opus magnum hobbe-siano se centra en tres temas: la forma política de los reinos de Dios en la tierra, la interpretación “materia-lista” de los espíritus y la concepción del soberano ci-vil como suprema autoridad interpretativa. (...) A partir de la querella entre Carl Schmitt y Erik Peterson respecto de la legitimidad política y doctrinal de la teología, se identifican presupuestos teóricos y metodológicos que están presentes en la argumentación presentada por Hobbes cuando aborda el vínculo entre religión y polí-tica. Si bien se adopta una perspectiva hermenéutica textualista que se restringe a un corpus limitado de la producción de Thomas Hobbes, el objetivo del artículo es reconocer en la teología política una práctica teórico política útil para conceptualizar las formas políticas representativas de una época. (shrink)

Resumen: El presente artículo busca presentar sumariamente las principales críticas elaboradas por Karl Löwith y Leo Strauss en su recepción del clásico trabajo de Carl Schmitt Der Begriff des Politischen [El concepto de lo político]. Se intentará explorar, en un primer apartado, la acusación löwithiana de “ocasionalismo ateológico”, formulada, aunque bajo pseudónimo, en un texto crítico de 1935 cuyo título original fue luego reemplazado por aquel con el que se lo conoce actualmente: Der okkasionelle Dezisionismus von Carl Schmitt [El decisionismo (...) ocasional de Carl Schmitt]. En la segunda sección, siguiendo principalmente la lectura propuesta de Heinrich Meier, se buscará dar cuenta de la interpretación que aparece en los Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen [Comentarios sobre El concepto de lo político de Carl Schmitt], las notas de Leo Strauss, publicadas en 1932, que sugieren entender la afirmación de lo político en la obra de Schmitt como constitutiva de la posterior crítica schmittiana de la filosofía política de Thomas Hobbes. Palabras clave: político, ocasionalismo, decisión, teología política, liberalismo. Abstract: This article seeks to briefly present the main criticisms elaborated by Karl Löwith and Leo Strauss in their reception of the classic work of Carl Schmitt Der Begriff des Politischen [The Concept of the Political]. It will be explored, in a f irst section, the Löwithian accusation of “atheological occasionalism”, offered, although under a pseudonym, in a text of 1935 whose original title was later replaced by that with which it is currently known: Der okkasionelle Dezisionismus von Carl Schmitt [The Occasional Decisionism of Carl Schmitt]. In the second section, following mainly the reading of Heinrich Meier, I will seek to give an account of the interpretation present in the Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen [Comments on Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political], the critical notes by Leo Strauss, published in 1932, which suggest understanding the assertion of politics in Schmitt’s work as constitutive for the later Schmittian critique of Thomas Hobbes’ political philosophy. Keywords: political, occasionalism, decision, politcal theoology, liberalism. (shrink)

This paper discusses the disanalogies between Schmitt and Hobbes on responses to emergencies, such as civil disorder. (The paper engages with literature that claims a greater common ground between the two figures than there actually is.).

Der oft schon totgesagte Leviathan des Thomas Hobbes ist so lebendig, aber auch so umstritten wie bei seiner Geburt. Carl Schmitt ist als der "Hobbes des 20. Jahrhunderts" bezeichnet worden. Er selbst sah sich gern als Nachfolger und Erben des Begrunders der neuzeitlichen Staatsphilosophie. In dem "Hobbes-Kristall" kommt Schmitts eigenwillige Hobbes-Interpretation besonders deutlich zum Vorschein. Denn in diesem Diagramm wird der Mikrokosmos Schmittschen Denkens sichtbar. Es enthalt funf Achsen, deren oberste die Wahrheit und deren unterste Gehorsam und Schutz des Einzelnen (...) sind. In drei Teilen setzen sich Philosophen, Staats- und Politikwissenschaftler mit der Interpretation des Leviatahn im Allgemeinen und der Schmittschen Hobbes-Interpretation im Besonderen auseinander. (shrink)

홉스의 독자로서 칼 슈미트는 홉스를 근대적 ‘개인적 자유’와 그 이후의 자유주의라는 판도라의 상자를 열어버린 인물로 저주한다. 물론 이러한 슈미트의 홉스 해석은 과장이다. 그러나 문제는 단순하지 않다. 이러한 슈미트의 ‘과장된’ 홉스 독해는 슈미트가 봉착한 난관에 대한 어떤 ‘징후’를 보여주는 것은 아닌가? 이 징후를 분석하는 가운데 우리는 슈미트의 이론을 넘어서, 혹은 슈미트를 거꾸로 독해함으로써 현대정치에 대한 정반대의 귀결을 도출하고자 한다. 그것은 자유주의의 역사적 의의를 ‘갈등의 제도화’에서 찾는 것이며, 따라서 자유주의가 낳은 제도화된 갈등의 영역 속에서 헤게모니적인 방식으로 이뤄지는 ‘정치적인 것’의 구성을 이론화하는 급진민주주의의 (...) 노선이다. 이는 역사적으로 제도화된 자유민주주의를 긍정하면서 동시에 비판하는 내재적 비판의 이론적 방법과 이를 통한 변혁적 실천이 오늘날 필요하다는 것을 뜻한다. 따라서 ‘정치적인 것’의 역동성을 이해하기 위해서는 이러한 급진적 비판이론에 의한 징후적인 슈미트 읽기가 시도될 필요가 있다는 점이 이 글에서 논의될 것이다. (shrink)

Many commentators are unconvinced by Carl Schmitt's interpretation of Hobbes's political theory which, to their minds, remakes Hobbes in Schmitt's own authoritarian image. The argument advanced in this essay comprises three claims about Hobbes and Schmitt and the ways in which they are construed. The first claim is that certain commentators are bewitched by a picture of authority which biases their own claims about Hobbes, perhaps in ways that they may not fully appreciate. The second claim relates to Hobbes's individualism. (...) On Schmitt's account, it was this individualism that opened the barely visible crack in the theoretical justification of the state through which it was worm-eaten by liberalism. This essay argues that Hobbes's individualism is not what Schmitt or his critics take it to be. The individualism that figures in Hobbes's discussions of covenant and conscience, pace Schmitt, is an illusion, albeit one that lies at the very heart of his conception of the state and animates his understanding of the relationship between protection and obedience that sustains it. The essay concludes with some remarks about the wider implications of the argument it advances. (shrink)

A diferencia de lo que sucede en la actualidad, durante la antigüedad griega, la economía no se estructuraba como una rama de la ciencia designada a estudiar el comercio, la riqueza, ni la distribución de los recursos de la sociedad; por el contrario, era un asunto doméstico, donde para el hombre griego el hogar era el centro de su responsabilidad como buen ciudadano: gobernándose y luego gobernando su propiedad. Este artículo, desarrollará así un análisis sobre el origen primario de las (...) prácticas de la economía en los mitos de Hestia, Hermes, Deméter y Cibeles. Así, partiendo de su raíz etimológica, se realizará una interpretación sobre estos cuatro dioses, otorgando elementos básicos para demostrar que el concepto de la economía es incluso anterior al discurso socrático de la época clásica, y cómo, partiendo de la interpretación del mito, es posible encontrar unas marcas que definen una serie de prácticas que posteriormente sirvieron para designar un valor a dicho concepto. (shrink)

El presente artículo ofrece una crítica de la interpretación decisionista de la doctrina de la soberanía postulada por C. Schmitt en Teología política. Partiendo de la teoría de la secularización del jurista alemán, se mostrará que la capacidad de decisión sobre el estado de excepción definitoria del soberano schmittiano no es absoluta sino que permanece determinada por un orden concreto inmanente cuya representación es tarea del Estado. Así, se pondrá en cuestión la raigambre hobbesiana de la teología política schmittiana, (...) deudora en mayor medida de la teoría hegeliana del Estado, y se presentará la razón jurídico- política de la desavenencia de Schmitt con el nacionalsocialismo. (shrink)

In this introduction, the author argues that Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt can help us rediscover the foundations of politics and political thought. In the years since World War II, the prevailing paradigm of politics has largely centred on the redistribution of resources. Hobbes and Schmitt, by contrast, help us appreciate two other conceptions of politics. Firstly, these thinkers averred that it is the problem of order ? not redistribution ? which is the fundamental concern for any society. Secondly, both (...) were acutely aware of the role played by myth: that is, how shared ideas ? sometimes created for this very purpose ? serve to promote order, social cohesion, and law?abiding behaviour. The author also argues, finally, that normative theory and the social sciences in general have often neglected these two conceptions of politics. (shrink)

Is Carl Schmitt the Thomas Hobbes of the twentieth century? Or is he the man who turned Hobbes's theory on its head? From Leo Strauss to Tracy Strong, a vast array of distinguished interpreters have addressed the above questions but have failed to reach any sort of consensus as to how they ought to be answered. The aim of this essay is to contribute to the debate by drawing attention to a single concept—conscription—that is addressed in the writings of both (...) thinkers. I propose that by examining Hobbes's and Schmitt's differing stands on conscription one comes to see that the…. (shrink)

El artículo analiza la interpretación que Walter Benjamin ofrece de la modernidad capitalista en Capitalismo como religión. Se indaga el sentido del carácter religio- so del capitalismo y se muestra que la primera elaboración sobre el capitalismo en términos de religión dio paso a una aproximación complementaria en términos de fuerzas míticas. Si bien este desplazamiento es visible ya en Capitalismo como reli- gión, cobra nitidez en el Libro de los pasajes, con la introducción del concepto de lo “siempre (...) igual” [immergleich] para describir la dinámica del modo de producción y la experiencia de la historia en el capitalismo. (shrink)

Hobbes's Leviathan transformed forever the meaning of the term, long debated by Biblical commentators. Alternatively, in the Book of Job chapter 41, a great chthonic beast, or Lucifer?like ?King of all the Children of Pride?, Leviathan for Hobbes was a figure for the modern state. Recent work by Quentin Skinner and Noel Malcolm treats Leviathan as in part a story about representation. But by juxtaposing the thesis of Carl Schmitt, juridical architect of the Third Reich, and author if his own (...) startling Leviathan, which reads the Biblical Beast as representing the state as demonic machine, we see not only Hobbes's purpose in invoking the God of fear, but also how it served as a self?fulfilling prophecy. (shrink)

En Ideals as Interests in Hobbes’s Leviathan, Sharon Ann Lloyd desarrolla una novedosa interpretación del problema político de Hobbes y de la solución que él elabora en El Leviatán. Lloyd se aparta de las interpretaciones estándares sobre Hobbes al sostener que el hombre hobbesiano es capaz de defender intereses transcendentales (es decir, intereses que no encajan en el esquema del deseo de autoconservación) y que la contradicción entre estos intereses constituye la principal amenaza del orden social. En contra de (...) la interpretación estándar, Lloyd afirma que el conflicto no se circunscribe al estado de naturaleza y que el problema fundamental de la teoría política de Hobbes concierne al establecimiento y el mantenimiento del orden social. De acuerdo con Lloyd, la solución del desorden social se lleva a cabo no sólo mediante estrategias realistas sino además mediante estrategias pedagógicas. (shrink)

Parmi les nombreux problèmes que pose l’ouvrage de Carl Schmitt Le Léviathan dans la doctrine de l’État de Thomas Hobbes, il en est un, majeur, qui concerne l’utilisation de la « mythologie politique » pour expliquer la réalité ou les doctrines politiques. Il y a là, à n’en pas douter, l’expression de l’un des versants de l’irrationalisme de Schmitt. La thèse de l’auteur est très claire : parce que Hobbes ne possédait aucun « sens mythologique », il s’est trompé de (...) monstre biblique, appelant Leviathan son traité consacré au pouvoir d’État, alors qu’il aurait dû l’appeler plus adéquatement Behemoth, manquant du coup la Meeresbild caractérisant l’Angleterre de son temps. La thèse peut paraître séduisante, elle s’appuie néanmoins sur un présupposé fort contestable, car Hobbes ne vise nullement à créer des mythes. Il s’agit donc d’interroger la théorisation hobbesienne de la piraterie, d’une part, et de la dissidence religieuse « sauvage », d’autre part, afin de montrer que le choix par Hobbes des monstres du Livre de Job est un choix rationnellement assumé. (shrink)

SummaryThis article sheds light on intellectual politics under Nazism by looking at a crucial shift in the field of Hobbes studies that was marked in a congress celebrating the three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Thomas Hobbes's birth, organised in Kiel, 1938. Before the congress, the decisive voice in Hobbes studies had for almost fifty years been that of Kiel University professor Ferdinand Tönnies. Tönnies was purged from the university upon the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 and died three (...) years later. At the opening of the Hobbes congress in Kiel, its convener, Cay von Brockdorff, declared that the phase of Hobbes studies shaped by Tönnies was ending and that a new phase, represented by Paul Ritterbusch and Carl Schmitt, had emerged. Against the background of a long tradition of Hobbes studies in Kiel, this article summarises Tönnies's contribution to Hobbes studies; analyses organisation and proceeedings of the congress, paying special attention to politico-theoretical disagreements between Ritterbusch and Schmitt and to von Brockdorff's exploitation of their rivalry; and contextualises Schmitt's interpretation of Hobbes published in the aftermath of the congress. (shrink)

En este trabajo se analizará la interpretación que hace Gilles Deleuze de la naturaleza y el genio como símbolos de la unidad suprasensible de las facultades en la Crítica del juicio. Deleuze propone que el juicio estético puro sería el proceso por el cual se alcanzaría la unidad de las facultades del sujeto trascendental: lo bello expresaría una “unidad suprasensible indeterminada” del sujeto del juicio de gusto. De este modo, aquí se indagará la factibilidad de la tesis deleuziana y (...) se la utilizará como puntapié inicial para realizar una investigación sobre la noción de símbolo y su relación con el juicio de gusto a partir de una lectura de la Crítica del juicio. (shrink)

Commentators of Hobbes’ Political Theory are divided between those who argue that the state of nature is caused by competition and distrust and those who affirm that it is caused by the fight for glory. In his work Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Jean Hampton analyzes the arguments presented in favor of both accounts, and proposes –against the aforementioned accounts– that conflict in the state of nature is the result of an error in reasoning that leads men to undervalue (...) the future benefits of cooperative work. The article describes the account developed by Hampton and establishes the differences it has in relation to the rationality and passions accounts of conflict. (shrink)

Both Michael Oakeshott and Carl Schmitt were deeply preoccupied with what Oakeshott called ‘the experience of living in a modern European state’; both felt that the state's proper origins and trajectory had not been grasped, that proper statehood had profoundly been put into doubt in the twentieth century, and that state authority and legitimacy needed to be shored up in an age of ‘mass politics’. Not surprisingly, then, both developed their conception of political association with and sometimes against Hobbes. Both (...) profoundly disagreed with conventional readings of Hobbes as propounding a materialist or ‘scientistic’ philosophy. Most importantly, both consistently de‐emphasized, or entirely discounted, Hobbes's contractualism – they cut off any possible route from Hobbes's thought to liberal theories of explicit or tacit consent. Instead, both stressed a concern with the cultural preconditions of political order. Oakeshott's civil association turned out to be an idealized picture of modern European individualism as a unique civilizational achievement that sustained a very limited state whose authority could only be acknowledged, rather than contested. Schmitt, on the other hand, advocated a deeply authoritarian fusion of political and religious elements, a sort of neo‐Erastian dictatorship as the solution to the problem of political order. Idiosyncratic as these visions might appear, they in fact sum up two ways of thinking about political order still prevalent today: the notion that liberal democracy is only for the West; and the idea that, ultimately, political cohesion depends on a shared religious mentality. (shrink)

Se ofrece una interpretación del enfoque estructural, fenomenológico y ontológico del mito a partir de una productividad filosófica abierta en Ricoeur por ciertos elementos tomados de Kant, los cuales explican por qué el mito es analizado por la constitución de su forma, por su intención significativa y por su revelación ontológica.

Normal 0 21 false false false ES-CO X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} This essay presents a reading of modern liberalism from Leo Strauss´thought. Starting with his analysis of Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political and its critique of liberal “neutralization and depolitization”, Strauss posits an affirmation of the (...) problem of natural right, for which it is a fundamental first step to study the political philosophy of Hobbes. In contrast with Schmitt and Hobbes, Strauss´ thought points towards a consideration of classical natural right as a riposte to the political nihilism or apolitical cosmopolitanism of late-modernity, both products of radical historicism as well as methodological positivism. Strauss considers the search of natural right qua representation of the idea of justice a distinct alternative to the affirmation of the will through sovereign power. Normal 0 21 false false false ES-CO X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4. (shrink)

Resumen La repercusión que el mito de Antígona ha tenido en la teoría feminista es comparable a la que ha tenido en la historia de la cultura y del pensamiento occidental. Pero, ¿cómo llega la figura de Antígona, una ficción indudablemente masculina, a convertirse en insignia feminista?, ¿podría perder sus reflejos de masculinidad y entrar a formar parte de una genealogía femenina? Atadas, como estamos, a una representación y lenguaje masculinos, se impone la necesidad de sacarla del mundo y lógica (...) edípicos para leerla bajo una perspectiva más cercana a la figura central, aunque invisible, de Yocasta.The impact that the myth of Antigone has had on feminist theory is comparable to the one it has had on the history of Western culture and thought. But how does the figure of Antigone, an undoubtedly masculine fiction, become a feminist badge? Could it lose its reflections of masculinity and become part of a female genealogy? Tied as we are to a masculine representation and language it becomes necessary to take it out of the Oedipal world and logic, to read it in keys that bring it closer to the central yet invisible figure of Yocasta. (shrink)

La mirada jerarquiza, organiza y etiqueta la realidad. Entonces, siguiendo a Foucault, la mirada puede interpretarse como una práctica de poder. Este trabajo se inspira en sus teorías y las aplica a uno de los ámbitos simbólicos más poderosos de la cultura occidental: los mitos griegos. Las nociones de visibilidad, invisibilidad y panoptismo arrojan nueva luz sobre la historia de Perseo y Medusa, y propician una relectura de este mito centrada en las distintas formas de poder que emergen de la (...) mirada. (shrink)

The present article discusses the relationship between might ( potentia ) and power ( potestas ) as it has unfolded throughout the modern age, from Thomas Hobbes to Carl Schmitt. Hobbes indicates the way forward for a progressive linguistic and conceptual coincidence of potentia and potestas : the goal of Hobbesian political philosophy (the search for peace and security) necessitates the reduction of potentia to potestas through the elimination of the content of actus . Schmitt accepts this reduction, by assigning (...) priority to potestas : the image of modern technology as a privileged dimension of potentia—potestas comes together as the modern state. Instead of taking the route of potentia understood as an opening-up to new possibilities and as human self-affirmation, the language of potentia—potestas has triggered a process, which is that of a naturalization of power relations, that is based on and justified by the social inequality arising from the differing extent of ownership of the instruments of technological production. (shrink)

This article presents a reading of Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political, in recourse to lesser known works of his such as Dictatorship and On the Three Types of Juristic Thought and in light of a hypothesis developed while examining his comment to Concept, going back to the German re-edition of the latter in 1963. There, Schmitt offers an interpretative scheme he has himself named “Hobbes-Crystal”, encapsulating not only a suggestion of how to decipher Hobbes, but also Schmitt’s own approach (...) to politics as Political Theology. As I argue below, the relevant comment also hints at Schmitt’s opposing stance to Natural Law as a legal paradigm and philosophical tradition. I show how this is supported by the Concept’s main text and other works mentioned above, proceeding to claim the former functions on a double-level: Schmitt‘s nominalist inquiry in the concept, circular in itself (although favourably supported by a sup-posedly mere description of what is “the case”) sits on premises which not only have not been articulated openly, but also contradict the nominalist proceeding. Bringing both insights to-gether and fleshing them out by close reading, I show that Schmitt’s nominalism presupposes his adversary stance towards Natural Law. Examining the arguments for this position of his and endorsing Oliver Marchart’s work in history of political theory, I read the nominalist façade of the Concept as a case of postfundamentalist criticism of Natural Law, which Schmitt’s Hobbes studies were formative to. (shrink)