Talk:Carl Schmitt/Archive 1

"Facts and logical analysis"
A high-quality encyclopedia wouldn't debase itself by engaging in partisan polemics. There is no reason why this biased author should self-righteously impose his silly moralistic unction on the reader merely looking for FACTS AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS, not ideological opinion. 171.75.223.26 09:44, 21 March 2004 (UTC)


 * The previous commentator's faith in FACTS AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS is fascinating, if a little quaint and outdated. This article is full of FACTS regarding chronology, and the summary of Schmitt's political theses is not unfair considering that no summary of a few paragraphs can ever really capture the complexity of a notable thinker.  Speculating about motives is perfectly legitimate historiography and the author openly admits the inconclusiveness of the evidence.  As far as I can see the only sentence that is obviously critiquing (rather than simpliy expositing) Schmitt's thought and life is the final sentence, which is easily pegged as authorial voice. 67.170.128.44 19:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems the author of the original entry presents a very selective assessment of the work of Carl Schmitt. To concentrate only on the two books "Die Diktatur" and "The Concept of the Political" ignores his other important works, "Political Theology", "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy", and his later works, "Land and Sea" and "The Nomos of the Earth". The entry seems determined to associate Schmitt with the Nazi party, which he joined after they came to power in 1933. What is not mentioned is that Schmitt was very aware of the dangers of Nazi Fascism, which is why he had actively and vehemently opposed them before they came to power, going so far as to advise that Hindenburg suspend the constitution in order to arrest and imprison the Nazi (and Communist) leadership. He did this because almost alone among Weimar right-wingers he understood the power of Hitler, describing him as having a "shem" which needed to be understood in order to be combatted. The rest of the right, Schleicher, von Papen, et al. did a deal with Hitler which brought him to power, mainly because they wanted to use his popular appeal, but also because they didn't take him that seriously. They thought he was a clown.

What is also not mentioned is that when Schmitt described the night of the long knives as "the highest form of adminstrative justice" this can easily be read (in a sophisticated academic sort of way) as a perjorative, and it should be remembered that many of those killed were his friends. It showed pretty effectively what might happen to him if he didn't tow the line.

Schmitt was quite clear about what kind of "dictatorship" he was talking about and it bore no resemblance to Nazi ideas on the subject. He never elided the state with the will of one man, but instead theorised the existential qualities of sovereign acts. He never believed in some millenarian apocalypse, nor indeed did he believe in, or advocate, race war as the basis for foreign and domestic policy. Any reading of Schmitt makes this abundantly clear.

If one accepts that even democracies contain some element of dictatorship, then one can extend Schmittian characteristics to all American Presidents, and British Prime Ministers (by virtue of their extensive emergency powers). But perhaps, interestingly enough, the figure of Pierre Trudeau exhibits the most Schmittian characteristics of any one figure (from a supposedly liberal and democratic setting). He enacted emergency powers to suspend the constitution and arrest militant separatists, he clearly possessed a charismatic legitimacy at a time of existential crisis in Canadian history, and had the personal authority to shift the constitutional consensus and partially reinvent an understanding of Canada (which remains an unresolved problem). Had it not been for these Schmittian interventions, it is quite probable that Canada would not exist today.

Schmitt is a far more complex and interesting political theorist than can be encompassed by consideration only of the years 1933 to 1936, however controversial and unhappy they must have been. 158.143.100.87 17:01, 9 June 2004 (UTC)

Facts and convenient Fictions
I'm uncertain as to why the 'facts' seem to not include the very polemics (not analysis by any standards I'm aware of) that Schmitt published as a Jurisprudent under the N' regime. They elucidate the thinking in much the same way that any historical study will. To read it becomes clear that something is amiss ... a functionary of the state (sadly denied serving post 45, unlike many of his fellows), serving demonstrably in his own service, uses the language of his bosses not even barely disguised as Jurisprudence, let alone philosophy. I've been reading Schmitt in the originals (I'm german) pre through post WWII. George Bush could certainly have used a Schmitt to dress up 'waterboarding' a bit. But I think the Cheney contingent will do just fine.

Incidentally, a recent article in issue 86 of Lettre International, fairly fumes with the well documented betrayal of thought that is Schmitt. —Preceding comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing txt
"Although decisiveness may have its virtues in the exceptional case, it can also lead to hasty choices based on hope and faith, which can be so much more dangerous than deliberate choices based on reason and discussion." This passage is non-NPOV, so I'm excising it.--XmarkX 09:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comparing against the German article
No disputes about the polemical nature and rather less than comprehensive ambition of the article in its current form. The German article is well-developed &mdash; I'll give a shot at translating it for a rip and replace. I'll also try to put together a reasonable bibliography of Schmitt, including translations, and selection of scholarship that lists some of the more prominent English-language work. Buffyg 12:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would certainly disagree with this. The German article is convoluted, opinionated, and does not reflect the state of the art of CS research.  Especially the "Wirkung" passage is just embarrassing.  It's one of these pieces that nobody will edit because it takes too much effort to do such massive work in the wikipedia (those who could would rather write a "real article", I always think).  I think that potentially, the sketch here is superior.  In addition, there are different audiences for the German- and the English-language wikipedia.  What would be interesting here is a larger para. on Schmitt in (Anglo-)American PolPhil; after all, a certain rediscovery and even mainstreaming of CS in the last two, three decades comes from the US and not from Germany. Clossius 19:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The german article de:WP:Carl Schmitt has advanced even further. Maybe someting interesting appeared? --84.153.234.110 16:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Depoliticize Schmitt?
'''Let's not all rush to neutralize and depoliticize Schmitt all at once. ''' Facts and logical analysis? It is odd that one would try to impose upon any assessment of Schmitt a pretense to neutrality and depolitization that he himself would have detested and decried as a fraud. I think it’s rather clear which elements of the entry on Schmitt are polemical and which are neutral. Anyone likely to be interested in Schmitt is also able to make the same distinction—this is an area unlikely to be taken up as the subject of a report by fifth-graders.

I’m not the author of the original entry—I edited it, inserting, among other things, the passage from Diktatur and some of the rest of what you find objectionable. Originally, the entry only referenced Concept of the Political, a work that, deservedly or otherwise, has emerged as Schmitt’s most cited work. In fact, it has assumed a centrality that may be a bit misleading, because in many ways it is not really representative of Schmitt’s work as a whole. I proposed that bit arguing for the importance of Die Diktatur because it’s understudied, significant for understanding Schmitt’s later work, and relevant to the issues that interest us in Schmitt today.

As far as ignoring his other works is concerned, I did notice someone put something in there about Political Theology and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. You may think Land und Meer or Nomos is more important. Fine. How about Verfassungslehre? How could we fail to mention that one? How about Legality and Legitimacy? If you want to compile a Schmitt bibliography, go nuts.

With regard to Schmitt’s Nazism, I don’t think the entry is all that black and white. I did write the last three sentences of the article. Even the irony that the Nazis wound up having little use for someone like Schmitt isn’t simply editorializing, but goes directly to Schmitt’s own thought. I mean, it’s all well and good for an intellectual to critique enlightenment rationality, but how on earth does such an intellectual concretely relate to a regime that puts irrationality into practice?

I fail to see how the entry is “encompassed by consideration only of the years 1933 to 1936,” as it references none of the works from that period. Which perhaps is a shame, as these works are overlooked. The question of the significance of Schmitt’s involvement with the Nazis is one that must be raised, but cannot be settled in an encyclopedia article. I have no doubt that Schmitt was conflicted about the party, Hitler, and perhaps even anti-Semitism. Still, the fact remains that Schmitt joined the party at the very moment of its political triumph. Partisan? No, that’s an objective fact. Did not the Nazis decide upon an enemy with remarkable clarity and then mobilize the entire resources of the nation against them? Is this not exactly the sort of decisiveness Schmitt calls for in dBdP? Is not such a total mobilization the antidote to the civilian-bourgeois softness and lack of seriousness he laments? Did they not conclude the struggle between “Wirtschaft, Industrie und Technik” and “Staat, Krieg und Politik” decisively in favor of the latter? And can Schmitt admire the Nazis for this, without at the same time necessarily being a Nazi himself?

As far as millennialism or race war goes, that’s in your imagination. I fail to see any reference to these concepts in the entry. At any rate, nothing I put in addressed the question of schmitt's anti-Semitism, but what is there seems pretty well-supported, though I suppose we could spend hours pondering whether Schmitt really hated Jews in his heart of hearts (that he did so in print is well-documented). I think you’ve imputed a partisanship to the entry that was not intended. The example of Trudeau is a good one—Lincoln, FDR and Churchill would also serve. The admiration of executive decisiveness is part and parcel of Schmitt’s critique of parliamentarianism as a form of rule by endless discussion.

If you really want a hornet’s nest to whack, why not go over to the entry for Leo Strauss? It doesn’t even mention Schmitt, which is odd, given the fact that Meier’s spent so much time trying to link the two.

---

I think it rather clear that there is little confidence in the current incarnation of the article, and I cannot object with the basic reasoning. This is not a matter of trying to depoliticise Schmitt; it is a matter of trying to give an account of his work that would begin to engage his rather formidable enduring influence; one cannot understand this if one is too busy dismissing him as little else than the "Crown Jurist of the Third Reich," nascent, in fact, or in retirement. When the article is introduced by emphasising his ties to the Nazis and does not mention that his influence persists in rather plain view of this, I don't think it's unreasonable to call the current article overwhelmingly polemical and well less than comprehensive. There's little one can say to substantially mitigate that. I still think it a reasonable plan to finish a translation of the German article and then to start making revisions from there, and nothing said in reply promises a better way. I certainly intend to start those revisions with a review of Strauss's remarks on Schmitt. Buffyg 19:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on.

I certainly agree that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done here—what little I’ve added was whipped up in a few minutes, and if that serves to ignite someone’s interest in making this Schmitt entry anywhere near as comprehensive as the German entry, then my purpose was served.

Did I miss something in the entry as it now stands? No, there’s nothing in there about Schmitt being the Kronjurist of the Third Reich. (Though that is the second thing mentioned in the German entry on Schmitt). Though I didn’t write the intro, it seems reasonable. What are the first few things an average dude is likely to have heard about Schmitt? Certainly his Nazi involvement is one of these things. Mentioning it does not automatically disqualify Schmitt as someone in whom we might legitimately maintain an interest—obviously, or why would anyone bother contributing to the entry? You’ll find the German entry goes into this theme at some length. Yes, Schmitt was only in the Nazi Party for a short time, yes, he was kicked out, yes, he considered himself a victim. Nonetheless, his Nazi involvement became the central fact of his professional life, if not his intellectual life

As far as the Strauss stuff goes, I really wouldn’t take the time. Strauss’ involvement with Schmitt lasted only a very short period of time, and Schmitt himself didn’t think Strauss’ letters were important enough to answer. There are Strauss’ Notes on the Concept of the Political, but that’s been done to death, and besides, there are so many of Schmitt’s writings that are languishing unread that it’s silly to spend a lot of time on a bit of the secondary literature that, by all documented accounts, was treated as unimportant by the principals. It would be far more useful to do a paragraph on Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen, or Staatsgefüge und Zusammenbruch des Zweiten Reiches: Der Sieg des Bürgers über den Soldaten.

Seriously dude, thanks for taking this on.

New Comment:

Is it cricket to decry something as non NPOV, to claim that one will make revisions that will satisfy one's own demands, and then to fail to do so?

Here are some minor edits I made while we are awaiting the revisions/translation of the German that supposedly will fix the supposed problems:

Replaced the too-literally translated German term of “state theory” (which also linked itself to a sort of state theory that has nothing at all to do with Schmitt) to “political science and law.”

Deleted: “In many important ways, “On Dictatorship” is equally important, as its central theme presages much of Schmitt’s later work.”

Deleted: “States must rule, and rule must be exercised decisively.”

Deleted: "Most Anglo-American scholars...."

8.26.05 Added quote from Paul Adams at end to support the claim that Schmitt was ill-suited for his chosen role in the Nazi Party.

Remove NPOV?
I've only now come to the CS page, and I must say that, by the general standards of the CS discourse, who is anathema to many and extremely loyally followed by a core group - easily comparable to Heidegger and Leo Strauss -, this article seems quite objective and NPOV to me. Is the warning an old one? Does anyone insist on keeping it? I think it's by now a good source for the English-language reader; still incomplete of course, but basically correct. Clossius 06:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see it removed. I'm the author of the "Let's not all rush" and "seriously, dude" posts above, and most of the recent changes around here--I'm working on a dissertation on Schmitt, so I haven't actually had the time to make a proper job of amending this listing. One of the earlier posters evidently noticed some changes and got mad about some stuff--oddly, not the things that had been changed, for the most part, but some older stuff, especially regarding Schmitt being the "crown jurist of the Reich," which is a strange thing to get upset about. After all, Bendersky's probably the most sympathetic of all the Anglo-American Schmitt reception authors, and he entitled his book "Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich." Someone also got all upset about the "Kronjurist" bit, (when this article never uses the phrase), and reccomends the German post be translated, which he has chosen not to do, after I pointed out that it begins with affirming Schmitt's "Kronjurist" status.

Unlike some of the other posters, I will keep at this, trying to improve this little entry in my spare time, of which I have little. Studies of Schmitt are a minefield of silently exploding mines left by various partisans. As regards the Nazi issue, my own opinion is that he was a Nazi, but did get kicked out of the party, I think in part because of what Adams suggested, i.e Schmitt was simply too original a person to toe any party line as closely as the Nazis would require, try as he might (and he did try). That doesn't make him Eichmann, but it doesn't make him Mother Theresa, either. Al Cibiades 22:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've advised a thesis or two about Schmitt (not that this matters here ;-)), I hope I have a fairly objective view of him, and I do follow the discourse both in Germany and in the US, and I would definitely say that the term Kronjurist belongs into a CS article, like him and/or it nor not. As regards the Nazi issue, even if you read the most sympathetic accounts (youth letters edn. and the like), the Nazi affiliation cannot be, and is not, discussed away.  He might have been primarily a Catholic thinker (but in a highly unorthodox, extra-Church way, which does not appear in the article!); he might not have been an anti-Semite - but as has been pointed out, if he wasn't even an anti-Semite and still pursued aggressively anti-Semitic policies (some say, to look better to those Nazis who suspected him of Catholic Hegelianism), it's - certainly by Catholic standards - even worse.  And I certainly agree with you that someone who tries to be a key Nazi thinker but isn't accepted in that role by the Nazis, or loses an internal fight, does not exactly become a resistance fighter.  This is exactly the case with Schmitt as well as with Heidegger (but not, e.g., with Jünger or Sombart).  And it takes nothing away from his eminence as a legal or political thinker (again, same with Heidegger for philosophy) - tough to accept for some who think that you have to be a Nazi (sympathizer) or a great thinker, but one of the main lessons of the CS biography is that, more's the pity, you can be both.  In sum, I think the article is, by general encyclopedic standards, more friendly towards Schmitt than the general discourse, and certainly NPOV. Clossius 19:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that a I agree with Clossius that this article needs something on Schmitt's Catholicism - Schmitt stands in a tradition of authoritarian Catholic thinkers (probably hardly known to Anglo-American readers): De Maistre, De Bonald, Donoso Cortes for instance. Of course it is debatable as to how Catholic he really was (Schmitt himself said that he was as Catholic as trees are green!) and how this influenced his political thinking - but it should definitely be mentioned here (at least that's what I think). For anyone with good German reading skills I recommend 'Carl Schmitt und der deutsche Katholizismus' by Manfred Dahlheimer as an excellent introduction to this field of Schmitt-scholarship.

That’s a good point. Schmitt certainly saw himself as a Catholic intellectual, though this does raise issues about his break with the church over the annulment issue and certain other statements he made about his sympathies for Protestantism. It also raises the question of how Schmitt should be mainly regarded. This is a matter of opinion, which is why I’ve avoided it. I disagree with the notion that the primary influence on his thinking is that he is a Catholic, preferring to regard him as primarily a specifically political thinker whose main influences are Hegel and Hobbes. Though Schmitt certainly writes about De Maistre, De Bonald, & Cortes, if you take the number of citations in his texts as any clue, Hobbes and Hegel have far more centrality in this regard. That being said, something should be written about Schmitt’s historical connection with Catholic political & intellectual life, though this would probably be something done better by someone other than me. Al Cibiades

By the way, so long as we are talking about things that should be added, one of the most common bits of misinformation one finds floating about the Internet is the idea that Leo Strauss is somehow a disciple of Schmitt. This idea was spread, initially, by rightist supporters of Schmitt seeking to legitimize him in the US, and then by leftist critics of Schmitt seeking to establish a Nazi connection to everyone who ever studied under Strauss and, by extension, to neo-conservatives more generally. This acceptance by people on both the right and the left do not make the claim any less ridiculous. Nonetheless, the frequency with which this claim has been repeated on the Internet may be giving it an aura of “truth.” Is it worth discrediting here, or should we not waste time and space? Al Cibiades

10.6.05 Added cursory summary of Die Geistgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus. Added sentence on von Papen's dissolution of the Prussian government, made other minor edits. Al Cibiades 03:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Remove NPOV" (formerly a subsection of "Depoliticize Schmitt?") has been transformed in a main section.Miguel de Servet 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the “neutrality/weasel words” caution form “Legacy” section of main article

I have decided to boldly cut the “Gordian Knot” of the disputed “neutrality” of the “Legacy” section of the main article, supposedly “compromised by weasel words”, removing the relative notice form the section.

I believe that the “Legacy” section is no more POV than the section on “Nazi complicity”, where Schmitt’s initial complicity with the Nazi regime is presented, as well as the opportunism, of which the SS publication "Das schwarze Korps" accused him at the end of 1936.

Before engaging in a re-insertion/re-deletion of the notice, I invite further discussion here. In particular, I invite whoever does not approve of my decision, to point out in what way the “Legacy” section would be more biased (by the use of “weasel” words) that the section on “Nazi complicity”. Miguel de Servet 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolfowitz and Schmitt
Should alleged links between the thought of Paul Wolfowitz and Shmitt's writings be mentioned? --Dpr 06:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC) If the 'allegations' are verifiable, and notable, I`d be interested in hearing them --Isolani 21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there’s less than nothing to link Wolfowitz to Schmitt, other than a desire to link the two on the part of some who would like to establish a link between the Bush administration and Schmitt the “notorious Nazi.” They never met, and I’ve read nothing to show that either even knew of the other. This is, I’m sure, controversial, at least to those who would like to establish a link between Schmitt and the neocons, but it is factually simply wrong. Given that this claim is one of the main reasons for popular interest in Schmitt lately, it might be worthwhile to spend a little time discussing it, I don’t know. Al Cibiades

17. November 2005 - It is not true that there is no link between Wolfowitz and Schmitt. Wolfowitz was a disciple of Leo Strauss, he studied under Leo Strauss and Wolfowitz has admitted this. Strauss in turn was a bit of a crackpot, or at least if he was not mad, he certainly was not highly regarded by the majority of the German philosophical establishment. Strauss, whilst an insignificant and unknown student of political theory, published a critique of "The Concept of the Political", a work by Carl Schmitt. Obviously Schmitt never answered, even after Strauss wrote several letters to Schmitt. So there is a real connection between Wolfowitz and Schmitt, alas Wolfowitz's teacher disagreed with the great German legal thinker and Schmitt never saw fit to reply to Strauss' "critique", obviously not deeming it worthy of riposte. Some claim subsequent editions of "The Concept of the Political" were modified in response to Strauss, but this is flimsy conjecture unsupported by evidence. [User: Logos]

February 11, 2006 - I’m quite familiar with Straussian political theory, and I’m sorry, but Schmitt’s work is not at all important to understanding the work of either Strauss or his students. Perhaps it has been passed along as a secret, esoteric teaching, but I doubt it. Go ahead and look up the syllabi for Strauss’ students who are still teaching. I have not looked, but I bet Schmitt’s not on there. Was he on Strauss’ own syllabi? Again, I have not checked, but I doubt it. Again, I fail to see how Strauss’ critique of Schmitt establishes some enduring connection between their ideas. The brief Strauss-Schmitt exchange is hardly worth mentioning when we look for the textual evidence of influence by someone else—say, for example, Heidegger. For the record, I absolutely hate the Bush administration, and if there were a real connection between Schmitt and Wolfowitz, I’d be the first to acknowledge it with the pointy finger of accusation. I doubt Wolfowitz has ever read Schmitt. [User: Al Cibiades]

17. November 2005 - Incidentally, it is clear that this article in English is biased against Schmitt from the very first line, where Schmitt is described as a "controversial legal theoretician". Schmitt is and was in fact recognised universally as one of the greatest legal minds of all time, a status that was obviously achieved against a background of controversy, however, nobody would dream of describing Albert Einstein as a "controversial physics theorist". The "controversial" label is only ever pushed out in order to discredit the individual, when in fact, all great thinkers are, by definition, controversial. To those who object that Einstein was proven true, but Schmitt was not, I would reply that quite the opposite most of what Schmitt wrote can now be seen as true, not everything, but then not everything that Einstein wrote was proven true either. The "controversial" label is a value judgement and should be deleted, readers can make their own minds up if Schmitt is controversial or not. [User: Logos]

February 11, 2006 - Why single out the use of the word “controversial” in the English article as evidence of bias against Schmitt? The second sentence of the German article, after all, reads: “Der Jurist ist einer der bekanntesten, aber auch umstrittensten deutschen Staats- und Völkerrechtler des 20. Jahrhunderts.” By the standard you propose, this is even more biased, depicting Schmitt as one of the “most controversial” political philosophers of the 20th century. Simply taking note of a controversy does not necessitate taking part in it. Schmitt was, and is, controversial, and his ideas provoke controversy, and you may take some of the debate on this very page as evidence of this. I don’t think “great” and “controversial” are somehow mutually exclusive—arguably, truly great philosophers always provoke controversy, following the example of Socrates.

By the bye, if you Google “Einstein” and “controversial,” you get over a million hits, including such items as “Einstein's theories were highly controversial for years after he proposed them,” and “There was no mention of his still-controversial work with relativity, which would become his most enduring legacy.” [User: Al Cibiades]

17. November 2005 - Finally, Clossius is quite wrong, the German article on Schmitt was superior to the English one, much better, far more informative, though obviously also flawed in parts, but not as biased as the English article. The article tries to make the point that Schmitt was rejected by the Nazis en Toto, and tries to portray Schmitt as a pathetic man trying to ingratiate himself with people who wanted nothing to do with him. This portrayal is factually untrue, anyone remotely familiar with Nazi history knows that the Schwarze Korps and many other non-academic journals critised people from Heisenberg, to Heidegger to Schmitt, however, these journals did not speak for Nazism as a whole and many Nazis continued to support these individuals. Anyway, the English article is very poor, biased and does not even provide a proper bibliography. [User: Logos]

22.11.2005 The fact that, one of the latest of many books consecrated to Carl Schmitt is titled ' A Dangerous Mind' witnesses of the strength of Carl Schmitt's mind and work. Whatever are the opinions on his personnality, till now, his ideas have become inevitable in any pbulic debate concerning grat themes of modernity.

Just wanted to add that I agree with the comment made on 17th November - the German article on Schmitt is about five times as long as the English one, a good deal more thorough, more balanced and quite simply a lot better! The idea that recent Anglo-Saxon Schmitt-scholarship is superior to German work on Schmitt is arrogant nonsense and it is worrying that a contributor to this article should hold such views.

I agree with the above, the German article is better and it is indeed unbelievable arrogance to presume that American scholarship on Carl Schmitt, a German legal thinker, is better than German scholarship, it is inconceivable on language grounds and cultural context alone. One would not expect German scholarship to be superior as regards Benjamin Franklin, nor would one expect American scholarship to be superior as regards Car Schmitt and the Wikipedia articles bear this out.

February 11, 2006 - Where is the assertion that Anglo-American scholarship on Schmitt is superior to German scholarship on Schmitt? It’s not there, and never was. The reference to Anglo-American scholarship was a specific reference to what might be called the English-language Schmitt reception, i.e., the recent vogue for Schmitt in English-language political theory. This is the English wiki, after all, and so these are the texts most English speakers would have encountered in studying Schmitt.

If anyone wants to write a synopsis of the German-language literature on Schmitt and add it, such a contribution would be most welcome! [User: Al Cibiades]

3.12.2005

The notion of any significant connection between the demonized Paul Wolfowitz and Schmitt is not colorable. First, there is no evidence for it. Wolfowitz has published virtually nothing, and what he has written is exclusively in the sphere of international relations. Second, one of Schmitt's distinguishing characteristics was his rabid anti-semitism. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Wolfowitz is of jewish descent.

Schmitt did have substantial communications with Leo Strauss, as well as many other European political thinkers; left, right and center. Mark Lilla cites Heinrich Meier to support the proposition that: "Schmitt thought [Strauss' 1932 review of The Concept of the Political] the most penetrating thing written about his essay." (Lilla, The Reckless Mind p. 67) I agree with Logos that relatively little should be made of this connection, since, as Gopal Balakrishnan puts it: "One of Schmitt's undeniable intellectual virtues was a willingness to read and engage seriously with the arguments of people at the other end of the political spectrum." (Balakrishnan, The Enemy p. 9) He apparently cooresponded with Jurgens Habermas, too, but no one views Habermas as a crypto-facist.

In any event, FAR too much has been made of Wolfowitz's connection to Strauss. Wolfowitz has always stated that his real intellectual mentor was Albert Wohlstetter. This makes sense, given that Wolfowitz's entire life's work has been spent working in International Relations and he has published zilch in the way of philosophy. The public obsession Wolfowitz's Straussianism (especially as regards Plato and the Noble Lie) verges on the paranoid. To impute guilt to Wolfowitz by his association with Strauss, let alone Schmitt, is to attempt to explain the mundane in terms of the occult. Fantasies of an international conspiracy of jewish intellectuals, driving the world to war through lies, were popular in certain other countries in this century, with unsavory results.

Conversely, Strauss bears ZERO responsibility (credit or guilt) for the Iraq war. He was dead years before Saddam Hussein even came to power. To condemn his work on the basis of a connection to Wolfowitz (or Schmitt for that matter) is both irrational and melodramatic. Strauss was a professor and by all accounts a mild-mannered one. There is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that he was "mad." Certainly this is never mentioned by anyone who knew him. Logos is free to view Strauss as a "crackpot"; I doubt Strauss had much use for the "German Philosophical Establishment."

-The Anaesthete

Hello there - although I agree that it is nonsense to carry on about Wolfowitz and Schmitt, I would like to say that 1. in my opinion it is wrong to say "one of Schmitt's distinguishing characteristics was his rabid anti-semitism" - this may be true for a phase of his career, but it would be wrong to assume this to be "distinguishing" for all his work, and 2. even if this were true, it shouldn't stop somebody of Jewish descent with a brilliant mind using Schmitt's theories on the workings of political structures to his own end. Of course I wouldn't wish to speculate on whether Wolfowitz has a brilliant mind...

9.12.2005

If I recall correctly, Lilla's book states that Schmitt was unrepentant in his hatred for jews, all the way to the grave. However, I admit my ignorance in this matter.

Schmitt is clearly compelling to Straussians, but though it seems to me that he is more an intellectual sparring partner than a mentor.

-The Anaesthete

Schmitt was in touch with a number of leading Jewish intellectuals throughout his career, even during the time of the Third Reich - so I understand. This is why the SS managed to undermine his career in 1936. Although anti-semitism certainly plays a role in his works, I still think it shouldn't be overstated. But I'm no expert in this field either, so...

February 11, 2006 - By the way, Lilla is relying on a quote from Heinrich Meier, who heard it secondhand from a student of Schmitt’s, who claimed Schmitt once told him (and I’ll paraphrase here) “You really ought to read Strauss’ Notes on the Concept of the Political. He x-rayed me as no one else has done.”

Whatever Schmitt’s other connections to Jewish intellectuals, he and Strauss did not keep in touch. If Schmitt was so important to Strauss, or vice versa, we would have a letter, an address book entry, a scrap of paper showing that the two stayed in touch after the war. There’s nothing, not one shred of evidence to indicate that this was the case. [User: Al Cibiades]

Wolfowitz & Schmitt's antisemitism
We all know Schmitt was antisemitist, and this of course must be said. However, this mustn't stop us either from thinking what Schmitt wrote, whether against him or with him. Henceforth, if a link between Wolfowitz and Schmitt is to be made, it certainly isn't because of Schmitt's rather uninteresting "racial" views. However, I think that a link between the two of them may be made because of a similarity on thought about sovereignty being simultaneously inside & outside law. This is exactly what the Bush administration is doing with its War on terror - let's not feign we're not talking about politics - first one who gets the "NPOV policy" out... alright, i suppose we're on a philosophy page. It is because they're is a real similarity between the neocons theories about the need to act on the world without being too much tied down by law. This is a conception of voluntarism which is linked to the theory of sovereignty (what sense can sovereignty have if it’s not to be a powerful will?) Apart from Wolfowitz, who is an interesting example, but just one guy after all, the Federalist Society - and this guy too-, have often claimed being inspired by Leo Strauss. However, beyond these explicit claims, it is easy to see a similarity with Schmitt's theory of sovereignty. Now, people on the left are also using Schmitt's ideas against him: ideas and discourses can always be reversed... Giorgio Agamben or Chantal Mouffe, for example. Therefore, I think that it would give more precision to the article if we stated influenced people on both sides of the political "game". At least, it gives an idea of what relevance those ideas are for today. Philosophy must always prove its relevance to history and reality, lest it is thought as simple abstract games. The only thing is to do it in a correct way, "NPOV" - awright, i'm the first one!-, which simply means being polite and justifying what's written. Hence, if Wolfowitz explicitly denies being influenced by Schmitt - which i don't know - it should be said. As it should be said that it's not because Agamben draws on Schmitt's theories that he's a nazi - some have claimed this. But if philosophical concepts are used, in a form or another, by Schmitt and then used again – in a sense or another – by other thinkers, it should be said, shouldn’t it? Lapaz


 * I would just like to say that I think it would be silly to mention Wolfowitz in an article on Schmitt - we simply don't know whether Wolfowitz has read Schmitt, and even if he has - so what? Are we then going to start pointing out every well known personality who has shown a passing interest in Schmitt... ? This is an article about Schmitt and not his readers! As to the above suggestion that "we all know" that Schmitt was anti-semitic - I'm really not particularly interested in protecting Schmitt, but I do know that there is considerable disagreement on this matter amongst Schmitt scholars. Which passages of his writings were you referring to? Also - be careful not to fall into the trap of accusing Schmitt of racism (which is what anti-semitism is generally seen to be) when in fact you mean anti-Jewish sentiment (which would reflect a more general cultural bias). Don't get me wrong - I don't wish to excuse Schmitt's anti-Jewish views any more than possible anti-semitic ones!


 * Although anti-semitism may be a matter of definition, not even Schmitt protagonists (at least not any academic ones that I know of) would disagree with that he certainly wrote anti-semitic texts, and that means, indeed, racially anti-semitic ones (i.e., who is a Jew would be determined genetically, not religiously or culturally). What is a matter of debate is whether he really believed this or, given his earlier friendship and/or close collegiality with Jews, from his early youth on, whether he just made this up in order to make himself less vulnerable to the criticism (from within the Nazi movement) that he was a mere conservative Catholic Hegelian.  (Some critics say, of course, that this would have been even worse than truly believing in anti-semitism.)  As we are talking about the years 1935 and 1936 for scholarly work (there are no such writings before 1933 at all, and later remarks that can be regarded anti-semitic are in personal letters and poems dating from after 1945), citing friendly relations of Schmitt with Jews does not really touch this debate, nor do later, especially post-war, contacts.


 * I still think the best summary of Schmitt's anti-semitic racist writings is in Bern Rüthers' classic, Entartetes Recht. Rechtslehren und Kronjuristen im Dritten Reich (Munich: Beck, 1988), pp. 133-139. The writings in question are mostly articles in the DJZ (Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung) between 1935 and 1936 - of which he was editor - and very legal-professional and thus not that accessible today, especially in English.  In those, he justifies the Nuremberg Race Laws on theoretical as well as political grounds.  Best known is his speech as Reichsgruppenwalter of the university section of the NS-Rechtswahrerbund (the Nazi version of the ABA) at a conference on "German Legal Scholarship in its Struggle against the Jewish Spirit" - i.e., in an authoritative and impactful context - on 3-4 October 1936, published i.a. in Das Judentum in der Rechtswissenschaft. Ansprachen, Vorträge und Ergebnisse... (Berlin: Deutscher Rechts-Verlag, 1936), Heft 1.  In the closing speech, Schmitt asks for
 * 1. a complete bibliographic inventory of all legal scholarship, regarding to whether the author is Jewish or not (racially defined)
 * 2. a "cleansing" of the libraries from Jewish authors to "protect the students from being confused"
 * so that would not be possible anymore to "cite a Jewish author as any other author... A Jewish author is for us, if he is then cited at all, a Jewish author." (p. 30; cited in Rüthers, p. 137) I think it is fair to say that these articles, and this conference speech, are the peak of Schmitt's anti-semitism, and everyone can make up his or her mind as to how he or she would evaluate and judge this. Clossius 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that the poster prior to Clossius has raised the issue of adducing some evidence to examine the nature of the anti-semitism allegations. These days it seems that anti-semitism is very much in the eye of the beholder, I have heard Norman Finkelstein being referred to as an anti-semite in the US (for reasons I must admit escape me entirely), in Germany Martin Hohmann was accused of antisemitsm for stating that neither Jews nor Germans were a nation of perpetrators, the Moellemann case also comes to mind where a German politician was accused of anti-semitism after criticising Israel. It also brings to mind the accusations against Karl Marx, who had written disparaging remarks about Lasalle and about Judaism, whose work however seems not to really to be informed by racism or anti-semitism. More recently Daniel Goldhagen would have had us believe that all Germans were homicidal anti-semites, until he was academically incapaciated by Ruth Birn and Finkelstein. It does then seem that these accusations are not always justified and some credit is due to Clossius for trying to provide some of the quotes which we can now indeed evaluate. I must say if these are the peak of anti-semitism with Schmitt then it appears a mild case if at all. Moreover, if one reads Schmitt's major works none seems to be infiltrated by an obsession with jews, an antisemitism of the kind found in Chamberlain's works for example. I do not recall Schmitt raising the "jewish spirit" in any of his major works, and if he did he has probably done so in a way reminiscent of Nietzsche, using clichees rather than vicious anti-semitism. I have yet to see any work where Schmitt argues that jews are racially inferior to aryans. When Wilhelm Marr who popularised the term "anti-semitism" used it to denote "a hatred of jews", for which Marr sought a more scientific name to legitimise it. From what we read above I do not think we can conclude a "hatred of jews". A mere prejudice in relation to Jews is unlikely to be real hatred of jews, and there is prejudice against almost anyone, be they jew, muslims, Germans, or Americans. [User Logos: Jan 27 2006].


 * Hello there, I posted the bit before Clossius. Just wanted to add that I'm familiar with the heated discussions surrounding Richard Wagner's so-called anti-semitism and it strikes me that the arguments about Carl Schmitt fall into a similar sort of category. We all know that all this is a terribly delicate matter because of the crimes of the Third Reich, so I really don't want to get on anybody's nerves with this or excuse either Wagner or Schmitt... But what I do want to say is this: I believe it was the German-Jewish intellectual Moses Mendelssohn who in the mid 19th century made a distinction between what he termed "Antisemitismus" (racism) and "Antijudaismus" (cultural bias). I think it is now widely accepted that Wagner fell into the second of these categories, since he wanted to integrate Jews into German society, by making them lose their Jewish identity (thus turning them into Germans). This may not sound particularly nice - but it can't really be called racism. It strikes me from what I've read of Schmitt's works and from what Clossius has outlined above, that Schmitt could also be placed into this category of anti-Jewish thinking. But knowing that Schmitt was aware of the racist policies of the Nazis, this does make his intellectual activities during the 1930's somewhat sinister. I think that Schmitt's views on Jews is one of those scholarly subjects which will be endlessly battled over - there's no obvious answer to 'what he really thought' on this. So - to be continued... I disagree with the previous contributor's comment on Nietzsche - Nietzsche was extremely supportive of Jews in modern Europe, one could almost say in a bizarrely racist sort of way, seeing the Jews as some kind of master race. He merely criticised what he called the 'ascetic philosophy' of the Bible.


 * Actually that is quite wrong, in the "Genealogy of Morals" and other places one finds comments on Judaism which are quite clearly modern Antisemitism. Parts of chapter 7 and 8 of the first treatise of the Genealogy of Morals contain antisemitic motives: The Jews are presented as a people filled with "hatred" and "vengeance"; Nietzsche speculates about a "secret black art", so that the Jews can triumph over the noble. Nietzsche himself admitted his antisemitism: "May I be forgiven that I myself was not spared completely from this disease [inter alia "anti-judaism"]." It would be interesting if Schmitt also spoke disparagingly of anti-semitism. [User Logos Jan 30 2006]


 * Sorry to put it so bluntly: but what you've just written is blatant nonsense. Although I do not claim absolute knowledge of Nietzsche's writings, I do feel qualified to say this since I'm currently writing a doctoral thesis on Nietzsche and therefore know my way around his work pretty well. What you're saying essentially negates the whole of the past fifty years of Nietzsche scholarship. You seem to suggest that Nietzsche was a perfect ideologist for Nazi Germany - already in the 1950's the German-American scholar Walter Kaufmann went to great lengths to free Nietzsche of the charge of being a proto fascist and since then many others have followed in his footsteps. Nietzsche cites Jewish moral values (known to most of us Westerners through the Bible) as an example of how moral systems are not the result of eternal truths but rather the product of a psychological pressure system. Nowhere in his writings does he deride the Jews as being racially inferior to Germans or Europeans - it is therefore WRONG to call him a "modern anti-semite"! To substantiate what I said before about Nietzsche seeing the Jews as a European master race, I quote the following from 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse': "Die Juden sind ohne allen Zweifel die stärkste, zäheste und reinste Rasse, die jetzt in Europa lebt; sie verstehen es, selbst noch unter den schlimmsten Bedingungen sich durchzusetzen (besser sogar als unter günstigen), vermöge irgendwelcher Tugenden, die man heute gern zu Lastern stempeln möchte - dank vor allem, einem resoluten Glauben, der sich nicht vor den 'modernen Ideen' zu schämen braucht. Ein Denker, der die Zukunft Europas auf seinem Gewissen hat, wird, bei allen Entwürfen, welche er bei sich über diese Zukunft macht, mit den Juden rechnen wie mit den Russen, als den zunächst sichersten und wahrscheinlichsten Faktoren im großen Spiel und Kampf der Kräfte." Sorry to everyone for quoting Nietzsche at such length on the Carl Schmitt discusssion page, but I just couldn't let anyone get away with calling Nietzsche an anti-semite - it's such rubbish!


 * The previoius poster is quite wrong, we can read in the German Wiki about Nietzsche: "In der Genealogie der Moral und an anderen Stellen finden sich dabei Gedanken zum Judentum, die durchaus in Einklang mit Ideen des modernen Antisemitismus zu bringen sind. Teile von Kapitel 7 und 8 der ersten Abhandlung der Genealogie der Moral ähneln in Inhalt und Sprache typischen antisemitischen Motiven: So erscheinen die Juden als Volk des „Hasses“ und der „Rache“; es wird ein Gegensatz zwischen „den Juden“ und allen anderen konstruiert; und ihnen wird – wenn auch spekulativ – eine „geheime schwarze Kunst“ zugeschrieben, so dass sie mit „vorausrechnende[r] Rache“ und „Raffinement“ über die Welt und insbesondere die „Vornehmen“ triumphieren konnten." " Im Blick auf seine Beiträge unter anderem zu den Juden schrieb er: „Möge man mir verzeihn, dass auch ich [...] nicht völlig von der Krankheit [u. a. der „antijüdischen“] verschont blieb.“ The quote which shows that Nietzsche thought of Jews in terms of a race, like the Nazis, obviously shows his thought is akin to modern anti-semitism, as the German Wiki article quite rightly points out. Moreover if Nietzsche himself admits to the "anti-judaist disease" this should give one pause for thought. It is actually quite relevant to the accusations against Schmitt, since Schmitt appears, unlike Nietzsche, not to have made Jews as a race a part of his major works. This may mitigate the accusations against Schmitt. [User: Logos 2.2.2006]


 * I'm not wrong. The German Wikipedia is no authority on Nietzsche I'm afraid - and it is interesting that you mention it because I'll go over there and tell them how nonsensical it is to say Nietzsche was an anti-semite. I don't understand what motivates your stubborn opinion on Nietzsche's supposed anti-semitism - as I've said above, you're contradicting the whole of Nietzsche scholarship of the last fifty years and essentially saying that Nietzsche was a Nazi, which is roughly what a bunch of ignorant American lawyers said at the Nuremburg trials in 1945. That's more or less the level you're operating at here! You also seem to have no idea of even the most basic aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy - when Nietzsche uses the word "Rasse" (race), he is not using a biological term but rather a cultural concept. There's plenty on this in every simple introduction to the philosophy of Nietzsche. Also - you have not responded to the very famous quote from 'Beyong good and evil' I included above, in which Nietzsche effectively calls the Jews a master race. There are plenty of other passages I can quote from where Nietzsche goes so far as to say that Germans are culturally inferior to Jews, that Jews are responsible for bringing civilisation and culture to Europe and Germany in particular. Nietzsche was shocked when his sister married a well-known German anti-semite. Even in his last so-called "mad letters" which Nietzsche sent to friends after his mental breakdown he speaks of wanting to shoot all anti-semites. It is not very surprising that Nietzsche has been much admired by Jewish intellectuals over the past 100 years. As to your Nietzsche-quote - please cite where in his writings you found this. Finally: I believe that neither Nietzsche nor Schmitt referred to Jews in modern racist terms, but Schmitt almost certainly more so than Nietzsche. At a conferenece (read this up on German Wikipedia!) he once apparently even cited Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' as an authority on dealing with Jews.


 * Some remarks on Schmitt, some on Nietzsche:
 * Very few serious Nietzsche scholars do not interpret him according to his phases. To pick statements out of context does not seem legitimate to me. And while it is true that there are anti-Semitic (in the "modern" sense) statements in Nietzsche, the basso continuo of his work is anti-anti-Semitism, from his youth on to his death; actually, this is one of the few features that stay fairly consistent. One has to watch, of course, that one uses the Colli/Montinari edition of Nietzsche's texts (and notes and letters!), or editions based thereon, and not the forgeries by his indeed anti-Semitic sister, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche. I think the basic quote here is, "the art to lie, the 'unconscious' stretching out of long, all-too-long fingers, the swallowing of other people's property, appeared to me so far much more pronounced with any anti-Semite than with any Jew. An anti-Semite always steals, always lies – he cannot other..." What is important - and the results of scholarly study in this area have not yet been included in all Anglo-American work on the subject - is not to confuse Nietzsche's hatred for the Old Testament with that for the Jews.
 * It is a matter of debate whether seeing the Jews as a race is really per se anti-Semitic; that this makes one a Nazi is indeed quite absurd. But, never mind for a moment the explicitly anti-Semitic times of Schmitt and later rantings, what is clear is that Schmitt viewed the Jews, racially understood, indeed as a "chosen race", much akin to Disraeli (and Schmitt himself makes the Disraeli reference). In that sense, this is an attitude of respect and awe that can turn into anti-Jewish policy, but the question is whether this is anti-Semitic already. What is very clear to me is that Schmitt saw the Jews as a racial, not as a cultural group, and that from the very beginning.
 * I don't really get the "major works" argument. If we look at Schmitt the person, his major works are those with which he meant to influence policy, and these are not the same as those works that are important for theory today. We can - as with Heidegger - try to separate the person from the work and salvage the latter if we mind the former, but we cannot go from a lack of anti-Semitism in some theoretical works to the conclusion that he was not, or did not act as, an anti-Semite.
 * Reading, and contibuting to, both, I would say that that the German wikipedia is much weaker and less reliable than the English one, especially in philosophical areas. When German-language issues are under question, it might help to check there, but generally speaking, I don't think much can be learned from there. Clossius 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not "not interpreting Nietzsche according to his phrases". Nietzsche's use of the word 'race' can not be equated with our use of the word. In the 19th and early 20th century the German word "Rasse" meant many other things apart from a biological category ("rassig", for instance, can mean 'temperamental' even in current German) - read Spengler, Ernst Jünger etc etc on this. If you don't know that, then you don't know the basics of Nietzsche! Neither am I quoting Nietzsche out of context - I just think it would be a little trying for readers here to read whole pages of Nietzsche's work (I can check the exact aphorism number of the above from 'Beyond good and evil' if you insist... just don't have my copy with me right now). Also - if you carefully read the above contributions, you'll find that noone is saying that defining the Jews as a race automatically means that you're an anti-semite. Finally, I know you've gone on about this before, Clossius: saying that the German Wikipedia is generally inferior to the English one is simply nonsense! German articles on German subjects tend to be better than English ones, especially in "philosophical areas" (rather unsurprisingly I think) - previous contributors above have already agreed with me on this. The German Schmitt article is a lot better than the English one, and contributions to the discussion page are generally more poignant, though at times a little emotional. Your attitude strikes me as being transparently comfortable - I would advise you not to sit back on your laurels. "Die Konkurrenz schläft nicht!" as they say in German.


 * First, would you mind signing your contributions? I am really not sure who you are, even as regards the points above. I know Spengler, Jünger etc. rather well, but I do not really know how they enter the discourse here (unless you mean Friedrich Georg Jünger, but I doubt that). In Nietzsche's time, the concept of a biological Rasse was very clear; you can tell pretty well when that is meant and when not. Then, on the German wikipedia, I have mentioned that before, but it doesn't become less true (let alone "simply nonsense", which is kind of an odd language for a discussion such as ours) - that has to do with a much inferior review mechanism, with who writes there, etc. I think German-speakers ought to make this point if the German wikipedia is used for ligitimizing reasons - the Heidegger, Schmitt, and Nietzsche articles are excellent examples, and the agreement of another user or two really doesn't change this. And then, the cheap ad hominem shot about "transparently comfortable" - I don't really know what this kind of rhetioric does here; as for myself, I didn't write either the Schmitt or the Nietzsche article, in either language, and I only contributed a few minor points and something on the discussion page. So, I have no "ownership" here at all, and I am not sure what "sitting back on one's laurels" means - especially because you would seem to mind the opposite, i.e. engaging in any sort of discourse, just as much, at least as it wouldn't mean agreeing with your points, whatever they are. Finally, "the competition doesn't sleep" - what's that supposed to mean? The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a rat race. I really wasn't aware that anyone here was in a competition... Clossius 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Clossius, this is a discussion page and I think it is therefore entirely appropriate to use a colloquial term such as "nonsense" - by no means does it signify that I'm not prepared to discuss things, why else would I be contributing to a discussion page? If you can't handle somebody voicing a difference in opinion, then don't discuss anything with anyone! As to my good self - as I've said above, I'm currently writing a doctoral thesis on Nietzsche, having previously gained a first class BA + MA degree from Oxford University and I feel perfectly entitled to say a thing or two about Nietzsche. On your personal page you bewail the fact that Wikipedia stifles the academic elite - well, oddly enough I feel that that is very much what is going on here... Obviously you know little of either Spengler or Ernst Jünger - both make extensive usage of the term "Rasse", Jünger (whom I happen to know particularly well) mainly in his early 1920's political writing. "Rasse" is used in a general cultural context there and by no means can it be narrowed down to a simple biological term. My thesis on Nietzsche is on Nietzsche's concept of nature and I am therefore also writing about the influence of the natural sciences on his thought - it would be intellectual suicide if I were to claim that Nietzsche's "Rasse" is obviously a biological term! I could probably trash my whole thesis! But don't listen to me - feel free to write an article for a serious academic journal (not Wikipedia!) on why you think it is appropriate to call Nietzsche's use of the word "Rasse" biological. I'd be interested to read the reactions... Of course I'm only re-phrasing what years of study have taught me - maybe you're better informed than all those mad professors who wrote all those mad books?! Finally - "Die Konkurrenz schläft nicht" was meant to be ironic... Yours faithfully, Toby - 6 February 2006


 * Dear Mr. Toby, you sign things by 4 "~". Unpolemically speaking, what you are saying is that Nietzsche (and Jünger, although this is another epoch) use "race" never, or rarely, in a biological sense and/or one in which it is used today. I think both do so mostly (not always, as you point out), but not necessarily in a pejorative way. And I think, for what it's worth, that Nietzsche's positon is - especially if you don't periodize, which all serious Nietzsche scholars do - ambivalent, but that in the end he is basically not a racial anti-Semite (which according to my reading of the sources is a position that CS actually publicly did take - whether believing it himself or not). I would assume this is your position also (difficult to see because there are so many unsigned contributions to the discussion above); so, where is your problem? I do decidedly not think that because you would have to discard your thesis if something were true, this something couldn't be true. :-) I do think that PhD students at good universities are, if not right about their topic, very well informed about primary and even more so secondary literature, but I would say that in this case, my view is more meanstreamy that yours, i.e., that the literature on Nietzsche (let alone the early Jünger) is in line with what I am saying (though there are a lot of scientific polemics on either side of this or any question, so you always find someone for any other opinion). It may seem that you are getting a bit carried away, to the point of lashing people who share your view, because you feel so strongly about your thesis, down to the not very discursive claim that I have no idea about the literature - I have an (edited) book on N. with a survey of the literature in press, not that this means anything on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean I have an idea about how the discourse is going. We could now, if you want, parade out that secondary literature - either here or on the Nietzsche page or on our talk pages, or in real life (where this really belongs), but I am not sure how interesting this would be.  If your published PhD thesis should make a radically new point in a convincing way, however, I should be most happy to correct my view accordingly (that happens often enough with good literature), and I am looking forward to readng it. Clossius 19:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Clossius, I didn't mean to be insulting or hurtful. But I do feel Nietzsche has little or nothing in common with modern biology - anyway, as you rightly say Wikipedia is not the place for all this. Maybe we could just leave it there. As to my unwikipedian way of proceeding on this discussion page (not signing properly etc) - I seldom have the time to contribute to Wikipedia and so wouldn't establish a proper account and don't really know about all the etiquette stuff here. I only got so involved on this page since I happen to be writing on Nietzsche and was faced with someone claiming Nietzsche to be a modern anti-semite - which, as I think we can agree on, he plainly wasn't. So long. Yours, Toby - 6 February 2006


 * I agree. Yes, we can. And indeed, we do agree on Nietzsche's anti-Semitism, Clossius 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of people who agree with Creationism, but that does not make it true. In the Genealogy of Morals, first treatise "Good and evil, Good and bad", paragraphs 7 and 8, one reads the most vicious accusations agains Jews generally, Nietzsche speaks of "jewish hatred", of jews as the enemies of nobility and aristocracy, of jews as obsessed with vengeance due to their impotence, jews as rebellious slaves, jews as a people with a "black art" of vengeance, in short, one would be hard-pressed to find a more vicious antisemitic diatribe. Yes, Nietzsche also weighed in against antisemites, declared he was ashamed of his anti-judaism, but this does not change the fact that he himself wrote antisemitic texts. If I deplore murder and murder somebody, am I not still a murderer? In contrast one sees nothing of this vicious kind of focused antisemitism in any of Carl Schmitt's writings. It is obviously a nonsense to claim that because Nietzsche was antisemitic he was a Nazi, Nietzsche could factually never be a Nazi, due to his hatred of German nationalism for a start (though here again, Nietzsche has his moments of nationalism, even if he abhorrs it elsewhere). Clossius is of course right that Nietzsche uses "Race" in a a biological sense, for that is the primary sense in the German language, even the "rassig" example Toby provides is based on a biological connection, originally referring to the idea that those from southern nations were more temperamental, a woman's look for example is described as "rassig" if she has dark hair and resembles a mediterranean. Toby is right though that Spengler also uses the term "race" a lot, in connection with cultural assertions, but still not without its biological meaning. Toby's assertion that Nietzsche "effectively" calls Jews a "master race" shows that he lacks the most basic understanding of Nietzsche, sind Nietzsche of course saw the Jews as the exact opposite, a people of slaves, who destroyed all that is noble and good and provied a perverted, inverted moral codex, as the above referred to paragraphs make only too clear. I take Clossius' point that even an absence of antisemitism in Schmitt's main works does not mean he was not antisemitic, perhaps he was, but where does Schmitt declare a belief that Jews are a chosen people? On the other hand the assertion that the German wikipedia is weaker than the US version is blantantly false, as the Schmitt article makes especially clear. German wikipedia does have its problems, mostly due to excessive political correctness and overzealous administrators however overall its articles seem better, more detailed, though there are of course exceptions. It is quite funny to see Toby trying to pull rank "I have a first class from Oxford and a masters you know", even if true, this would merely be an indictment of Oxford, much as Goldhagen was an indictment on Harvard, and proves nothing, since most of the major scholarship on Nietzsche has come not from Oxford but other places. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari for instance were of course mainly teaching in little known Italian universities such as Pisa. I think it is usually a sure sign that someone is losing an argument when the best he can come up with is to try to boost his authority by name-dropping. It is also of course wrong to say that Nietzsche has little to do with biology, since one of the central tenents of his whole philosophy is that biology, the body, is paramount and that ideology is secondary. One has to wonder what is going on at Oxford these days. [Logos 9.2.2006]


 * To Logos: Just the two points that concern me. First, "blatantly false" the German wikipedia (geez, why this kind of rhetoric? "wrong" wouldn't have done? do we really need more emotions here?): The Schmitt article on the German wikipedia is wordier, and the discussion more interesting, but is it truly better? As far as the general level is concerned, look at the entries of "similar" figures, say, Heidegger, Jünger, Gadamer, Sombart. I would say that in general, the German wikipedia is weaker, and even on German people (including philosophers), which I as a German find really fascinating. And even if you don't agree, I would really think that, by its nature, to justify a claim in the English wikipedia by saying that it has to be stated in the German one is not valid, because it in the end is circular. (This was my point above, which I might not have made clear enough.) Second, on Schmitt and the Jews as the Chosen People: As I said, especially in the context of his dealing with Disraeli; there is quite some material on that. You might, for a quick reference, check Nicolaus Sombart's Die Deutschen Männer und ihre Feinde (in spite of all its problems); also really interesting are the Jungendbriefe (Berlin 2000) - when talking about Schmitt as a person, this is, I think, far too rarely considered yet anyway. (My best references for this, alas, are some personal conversations, which are not wiki because they are not published and thus what is called "original research", and so I'm afraid I cannot use them here.) Clossius 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, is it accurate to state then that in none of the Duncker Humboldt published works of Schmitt does Schmitt describe the Jews as "chosen people"? Not saying he did not, just that he may have stated it in the sense that the jews see themselves as a chosen people, rather than himself believing the jews are a chosen people, which I would find rather strange coming from Schmitt. Regarding German wiki vs US wiki, there are some US articles that are better, however, overall German wiki just edges it as the articles usually tend to be more thorough, with better bibliographies etc. Too often have I changed from a German to an English article only to find the English article much shorter and hardly comparable with the German article. Obviously with major figures the difference will be smaller, but as we see with the Schmitt article again the Germans edge it. I take the point though that "blatantly false" may be OTT, it is perhaps a subjective experience. What would interest me is the review difference you refer to, what is this difference? Btw, I did not mean to imply that for anything to be true it has to be stated in the German wiki, but obviously Nietzsche wrote antisemitic texts, German wiki states this accurately, so I thought it appropriate to point this out. [User: Logos 9 February 1006]


 * Well, let's disagree on the quality of the German vs. English wiki then. :-) On Nietzsche's anti-Semitism, we can call that a matter of judgment; if you indeed read the Colli/Montinari edn. (together with the recent scholarship I'd say) I think that he is overall not anti-Semitic, especially if one engages in periodization, which I think with Nietzsche is absolutely pivotal for serious scholarship. But I realize that this is debated, and for some people - I've experienced that at Nietzsche conferences - it's a very personal issue, either way. As to your Schmitt point, I am not sure (w/o further research) what of his work is out with D&H, but D&H is surely not the criterion of what his key texts are, no? I can assure you that Schmitt did for himself saw the Jews as a Chosen People, indeed saying that Disraeli's point (he always went back to that) was the correct one, and he surely did so also in writing. If you want to discuss this further, however - because it's a non-wiki matter -, you can write me an e-mail, if you wish. Clossius 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't think I'd get involved here again, but when somebody gets personal I do feel I have to defend myself (a little at least... !). Since Clossius and I have become great friends, I can now turn to the anonymous trouble-maker telling me I have no idea of Nietzsche whatsoever. You're too kind, sir! I knew that the Oxford bit would infuriate somebody and I sincerely apologise for ever having mentioned it - the only reason I did so was because I felt that Clossius was going at me in a sort of "what qualifies you to say anything about Nietzsche?" way and the only reply I had at hand was to mention my studies... I'm sorry if Oxord upsets you. I've come especially to Munich University, Germany to write my thesis on Nietzsche in German - but presumably German Nietzsche scholarship doesn't rank high in your intellectual world either. I can only stress what Clossius has already said above - Jesus Christ, don't get so emotional about it all. As for your highly scholarly language ("wrong", "blatantly false" - particularly interesting when considering a philosopher who denied the concept of truth), I'm afraid I shall have to echo your terminology - obviously YOU "lack the most basic understanding of Nietzsche"! Your interpretation of 'Zur Genealogie der Moral' can only be called extraordinarily primitive! Why do you think it has turned into a classic of modern psychology? Hardly possible if it were a racist pamphlet... He is NOT saying the Jews are a nasty bunch - he's trying to say that the moral system they develop in the Bible is nasty and it is the result of the psychological pressure of their experience of history. Now, you may or may not agree with Nietzsche's observation - the point is that 'Zur Genealogie der Moral' is a psychological study and not antisemitic ideology! Also - you haven't responded to my 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse' quote, where Nietzsche undoubtedly praises the Jews as a sort of 'master race' (if you'll excuse the phrase). As to your assertion that Nietzsche was not a Nazi - although I agree, it is nonetheless possible to interpret a philospher 'against' his philosophy (read Peter Sloterdijk's brilliant book on Heidegger on this). I've read a number of very interesting texts interpreting Nietzsche on Nazi terms - remember what Heiner Müller said: "a text knows more than its author". Finally: "Rasse"... again! Nietzsche, Spengler, Ernst Jünger and many others in the 'conservative revolution' used the word 'race' to signify adherence to a particular culture. Most of them hated modern biology and regarded it as too concrete, practical and materialist, indeed un-German, to explain complex abstract phenomena. Remember - the Germans like the big, cosmic ideas... So long. Yours, Toby, 9 February 2006


 * To Clossius: All right, let's agree to differ on the Wiki comparisons (though I note you did not substantiate your editing point). On Nietzsche's antisemitism, if you read the Colli-Montinari edition you will of course read in the Genealogy of Morals, first treatise "Good and evil, Good and bad", paragraphs 7 and 8, the antisemitic remarks I refer to. I am fully aware that much of recent scholarship has laboured intensely to save Nietzsche from the antisemitic label. This is perfectly understandable, particularly in view of the left-wing smear campaign against Nietzsche which culminated in the wholly false legend of Nietzsche's alleged Syphillis (here one really must credit American, not German, scholarship for unmasking this particular myth). However, no amount books, no amount of Nietzsche quotes to the effec that he abhorred antisemitism can make the above evidence of Nietzsche's antisemitic writings go away. Yes, Nietzsche had a jewish friend, yes Nietzsche admired certain aspects of judaism, but he was quintessentially a philosophical antisemite, according to him the Jews were the ones who inverted the true "Good" into a "Good" that served slaves, they were the original purveyors of slave morality, everything which Nietzsche hated and stood against (by no means a "master race" as Toby seems to believe, quite the opposite). This did not mean Nietzsche hated jews, it meant that he disagreed with what judaism stood for, this was Nietzsche's antisemitism, it was a philosophical antisemitism. Regarding Schmitt, as you are German Clossius, you can see on amazon.de which DH books by Schmitt are out, the DH series is really the only readily available Schmitt series in Germany today and contains a large range of his work. I referred to this series as I have most Schmitt works from this Series, so I could have checked regarding the Jewish question, alas, maybe another time. To Toby: It does not infuriate me that you claim to have a first and a Masters from Oxford, but I find it symptomatic that when one loses an argument one pulls rank like the father that runs out of ideas and merely tries to invoke the fact that he is the father. Fact is Genealogy of Morals contains obvious antisemitic writing and in these writings Nietzsche does not make excuses for the jews that their acts are the result of "psychological pressure" rather it is their very being, their existence as slaves, as the weak etc which makes them do what they do. Nietzsche here is quite merciless. To state that Nietzsche saw the Jews as a "master race" is really utterly ludicrous since Nietzsche saw them as the exact opposite, the initiators of the slave revolt, the original purveyors of slave morality. Incidentally I have read Sloterdijk's "Menschentreibhaus" and of course the only reason Sloterdijk describes Heidegger as a Nazi is that Heidegger WAS a Nazi, a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party. Nothing to do with Derridian deconstruction, Derrida of course being the appropriate reference here not Heiner Mueller. Finally I would suggest that in German the term "Rasse" almost always carries with it biological connotations. You read the right books, Toby, you just need to understand them. I hope you progress in this and wish you the best of luck with your thesis, you certainly chose a superb topic.

Alright smarty pants, you've lured me into commenting your smug reply. In contrast to Clossius you seem to have trouble staying relaxed and polite. Obviously you don't read what I write carefully - I explained that I mentioned Oxford because I felt Clossius wanted to know what qualifications I had to join in a discussion and disagree with him - get it now? I didn't do so to "pull rank" wise guy. As for Nietzsche: so you think he's some sort of metaphysical chauvinist do you? The Jews just happen to be born slaves - always? What a stupid thing to say! I wonder if Nietzsche is maybe just a little above your station?! I really don't wish to be offensive - but somebody telling me that I don't understand the books I read instead of just politely disagreeing with me really has it coming to him. Obviously YOU don't understand what you're reading! Nietzsche sees the Jews as the slaves of antiquity not because they were destined to be so on racial grounds. Mere chance! Nietzsche sees no secret order, plan etc in history. The Romans just happened to be politically stronger than the Jews for reasons x,y - no racial reasons (read Conrad's 'Heart of darkness' for a similar perspective to Nietzsche's - the coincidental strength of empire-building conquerors). Oh, and - there are no "facts" in Nietzsche's work, just thought you'd like to know. As for Sloterdijk - you didn't get what I was talking about. I meant 'Nicht gerettet. Versuche nach Heidegger', a whole book devoted to Heidegger, in which Sloterdijk tries to manipulate the techniques of Heidegger's thinking against Heidegger's philosophy - as Sloterdijk points out quite openly. By the way - Heidegger saw himself as a 'pure' Nazi (not a racist!) needing to defend the Nazi revolution against the Nazis in power in the Third Reich. As for "Rasse" - my second mother tongue is German, so don't tell me what Rasse means. Its meaning has changed considerably since the Second World War and has now lost all cultural implications. I very much hope that I've been able to broaden your horizon, but don't hesitate to ask if you need further help... P.S. It's always better to quote Heiner Müller rather than Derrida. Yours, Toby, 10 February 2006


 * Firstly, this is Wikipedia, one does not need to have any qualifications to post here so whether you are a Pofessor at Heidelberg or a retarded plumber is really irrelevant. What counts is your contribution and here is where the issues are. As for Nietzsche he was a self-professed radical aristocrat, chauvinism was one of Nietzsches main characteristics if by that we mean Nietzsche's partisanship on behalf of "his" group of free spirits against the herd. Since Nietzsche saw the cause of someone being a slave largely in their biology Nietzsche would probably view jews as slaves for the longest time, since one can not easily escape ones genes. It only takes a ten year old to link up genes, biology and race, there can be no doubt that Nietzsche saw the Jews as destined to their fate by their race, their biology. This has nothing to do with the Romans, Nietzsche would reply, even with the Egyptians the Jews were slaves, hence Nietzsche talks of "slaverevolt", to him the Jews were the slave people par excellence. As regards Sloterdijk your reference was not clear as the "Menschentreibhaus" also deals primarily with Heidegger. I never suggested that Heidegger was a racist. Finally the word "Rasse" is not used as often in a cultural context anymore as it was with Spengler etc, however, the meaning of the word has not changed entirely. The fact that German is your second language however explains why you falsely believe that "Rasse" can be used devoid of any biological meaning. It would be in your interest, with a view to your dissertation, to tackle this point. And Heiner Mueller may have adopted Derrida's deconstruction method, he did not invent it, so there is little merit in quoting Heiner Mueller. [Logos 14.2.2006]

Well, I feel a little appeased by your answer. The reason I was rather aggressive in my last contribution was that I felt pretty insulted by your previous comments. I can only recommend that you stay cool and polite in future discussions. Concerning Nietzsche: ONE last time... and then I think we'd best end this pointless argument - you know it isn't like I know all about Nietzsche, I'm not 150 years old and hence have no personal knowledge of the man or his time. All I'm doing is echoing the so-called "standard" scholarship on Nietzsche (German, English, French, Italian - I've even had a look at some Japanese stuff) and there seems to be a broad consensus here that Nietzsche was highly sceptical of modern biology (suggesting that the Übermensch was an intellectual ideal, not a physical one - for instance) and that his use of the word 'race' primarily has cultural connotations. This is very different with a contemporary full-blooded racist such as Gobineau. Other German writers such as Spengler or the Spengler-influnced Ernst Jünger followed very much in this tradition. I need hardly point out that the present-day German liberal mainstream is keen to identify any one of these writers as a chauvinist nutcase and I have heard professors here in Munich explain in painstaking detail that the 19th century use of the word "Rasse" can not be equated with the present-day meaning of the word - which has an obviously racist undertone! This was NOT the case in the 19th century. As I've said above - I simply wouldn't know, I can only try to remould what sources of authority I have in order to form a personal opinion on this. I do not think that present-day Nietzsche scholars are surpressing a racist edge to Nietzsche's philosophy in order to circumnavigate today's liberal mainstream and make him an OK-writer to read. That is precisely what a small group of staunch left-wing French anti-Nietzsche intellectuals would have us believe however - you seem to be following in their footsteps. Alternatively - even more worrying - you're emphasising that Nietzsche was a bit of a racist because you think racism is a jolly good thing... !? I would also like to say that I find the manner in which you express your opinions to be oddly unscholarly. You simply can not use religious-like terminology such as "false", "fact" or "there can be no doubt" in the context of the present discussion. There can indeed always be some doubt about anything! That is what Western philosophical enquiry is all about - your language astonishes me particularly in connection with Nietzsche, who claimed that there is no such thing as truth and all is a matter of perspective (making him something of an ideologist of democracy, regardless of whether he himself did or did not realise this, as Thomas Mann pointed out). You're entitled to your own opinion - but you should indentify it as such and respect the fact that other people may have come to completely different conclusions to yourself on subject x or y. Anyway, let's stop this - it's getting boring. Yours, Toby - 17th February 2006

More Minor Edits
Changed:

“as did Giorgio Agamben underlined.” To “as Giorgio Agamben has noted.” Added, for clarification, “Although the German concept of the Aunahmezustand is best translated as  state of emergency, it literally means state of exception, which Schmitt contends frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply.”

“At stake in this debate is a number of his views, but also a number of interpretations of contemporary politics:” to “This debate concerns not only the interpretation of Schmitt’s own positions, but also matters relevant to contemporary politics:”

“In recent speeches, for example, President George W. Bush, echoing an argument made by Richard Nixon in the late 1970s” Changed “late 1970s” to “1970s”: the Nixon presidency ended in 1974, and it was at that time (in defending against the charges that ultimately toppled that administration), not later, that this argument was advanced.

Changed the phrase “and that even if done illegally, it is legal by virtue of its being enacted by executive power:”, as this really just repeats what had been written earlier in the same sentence, and it renders the Bush argument tautological (Bush’s position precisely being that such wiretapping is not illegal, and therefore that it is not being done illegally.) Changed to “and that any illegality of such surveillance is only apparent, because, though it may be in breach of the letter of the law according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief in time of war supercedes the normal law, and because the president was somehow implicitly given this authority when Congress authorized the use of military force.” Bush’s argument (or, rather, the argument of those who do his thinking for him, which is wrong, in my opinion) is based on an interpretation of the Constitution that has been made before, and not on Schmitt. Any resemblance is purely coincidental (which is not to say that Schmitt is not relevant here nonetheless).

Changed the phrase “Interesting further instances of Schmitt's influence” to “Schmitt’s influence has also recently been seen as consequential for those interested in”

Changed “Though some have recently made apologies for Schmitt’s conduct during the Nazi era - Schmitt himself hasn't given any such apologies -,” Whoever decided to interject the notice that Schmitt has failed to issue any apologies for his behavior during the Nazi period failed to note that the qualifier “recently” would also seem to apply to this little hyphenated interjection. Of course Schmitt has not given any such apologies recently—he’s been dead for twenty years! Whatever. Changed to “and no such apologies were issued by Schmitt himself during his lifetime.”

Finally, I do have a bit of a problem with the one-liner that “Similarly, the influential political philosopher Leo Strauss engaged Schmitt in a wide-ranging critique of The Concept of the Political (now included in that book) and bequeathed to his disciples a distinct sense of Schmitt's legal and political significance.” Whatever the importance of the Schmitt-Strauss dialogue—and I think it was minor—where’s the evidence that Strauss “bequeathed to his disciples a distinct sense of Schmitt's legal and political significance”? Does Schmitt get a chapter in Strauss’ history of political philosophy? No. Is he even mentioned? No. Does Strauss mention Schmitt anywhere in his major works? No. Did any Straussian of consequence even take note of Schmitt before Meier’s book? Not to my recollection. Now, I know it is fashionable to charge Strauss and Straussians with holding all manner of secret doctrines, but the importance of Schmitt seems so secret as to have been kept a secret from Strauss himself. Al Cibiades


 * I have no problem with any of your changes, though even when Schmitt is not expressly referred to it may be more than mere coincidence that his arguments and those used by Bush coincide (if indeed they do).


 * You are also right that the Schmitt-Strauss dialog was minor, however, Strauss obviously must have believed Schmitt to be a lot more important than Strauss was to Schmitt, since it was Strauss who initiated the "dialog" with Schmitt which Schmitt never replied to in substantial terms. As for Straussians, for some reason the US seems to be a final destination for all manner of strange cults like Scientology, Straussianism, Bible Code practitioners, and Lord knows what else. Poor America. [Logos 14.2.2006]


 * I agree the Strauss-Schmitt thing is really Meier's creation as far as reception is concerned, but of course, these letters are really there, and there is no doubt that Schmitt took Strauss' - and Joachim v. Elbe's - critique of the Concept seriously enough to make some changes in subsequent editions, so this should indeed be retained, because it's really interesting. Naturally, this does not make Strauss a Schmittian (or Schmitt a Straussian). Also - but, again, this is "original research" and thus not wiki, as far as I know -, Schmitt did try to contact Strauss - and v. Elbe - after the war (both had fled to the US) and continue the discussion, I think several times, but both refused, and nothing ever happened there. Clossius 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you actually evidence that the changes Schmitt made were due to suggestions by Strauss?


 * No, but he (Schmitt) said so. :-) Maybe he lied, but how likely is that? And anyway, why would this be unlikely? Meier's book does document this quite well, and it's anyway very clear from the review and the Concept. Clossius 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Strauss-Schmitt two more points:
 * to say that "the influential political philosopher Leo Strauss engaged Schmitt..." is indeed misleading, because at that point, Schmitt was an academic superstar and Strauss was just a graduate student (or very junior scholar), and one with a "politically incorrect" background at that
 * that Strauss didn't acknowledge Schmitt's influence is indeed no argument for that there wasn't any - not only or even mainly because of Strauss' esotericism, but because Strauss very clearly differentiated between intellectual capacity and human quality, and he would not give people he detested the benefit of discussion - vide his famous statement (I quote by memory, sorry), "Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of his time, and his name will not be mentioned again in my seminar."
 * Clossius 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical comparison of the Nazi continual state of emergency to the global war on terror, which is soapboxing. Llajwa 22:10, 12 March 2006

Rewiew
Sorry, my english is not very good, but I would like to point out, that this article contains some errors and - as far as I know - some point of views, that are not labeled as mere opinions. As an example of a wrong information I would point out, that Schmitt published his Concept of the Political for the first time in 1927. In 1932 (February) it was re-released as a book, with numerous additions. In February, Schmitt was in Berlin, not in Cologne. He accepted the position in Cologne at the end of the year. Following sentence: It was in Cologne, too, that he wrote his most famous paper, "Der Begriff des Politischen" ("The Concept of the Political") is incorrect. Another Example would be the sentence: One of the counsels for the Prussian government was Hermann Heller. Heller was not counseling the prussian government, but the "SPD-Fraktion" of the Prussian "Landtag". As unmarked POV I would see sentences as: denying free will based on a catholic world view. Is it possible to provide proof for this statement? Or another example: Another year later, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper "Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus". What does "totalitarian power structures" mean? That are just some examples. There are more phrases like this and more incorrections. Because my english is not that good, I will not correct any of this in the article. But my advise would be to carefully review the text. In the current state it is not ideal. The german version de:Carl Schmitt contains better biographical informations and is more abstinent to opinionate judgements. According to WP:NOR and WP:V judgements should be appointed to reputable sources. Instead of judging on his writings there should be more information. The text and the discussions are interesting, but the article is in my eyes far from being ready. Greetings --192.35.17.10 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with this user. Although there has been a great deal of talk on this page, I see little movement towards a more reasonable set of views. Although the German Wikipedia tends toward an excess of text, I moved that we consciously try to model the en page on the de page. Any objections? 140.247.163.163

I would like to add my agreement with the users above. The article does contain useful information for individuals unfamiliar with Schmitt. It also does a great job at offering a basic overview of Schmitt's ideas without entering into the enigmatic nature of Schmitt's writings. However, the article is riddled with opinions that are indicative of a bias against Schmitt. For example, the author implies that Schmitt's theories were ' authoritarian' in nature (On Dictatorship was followed by another essay in 1922, titled "Politische Theologie" (political theology); in it, Schmitt, who at the time was working as a professor at the University of Bonn, gave further substance to his authoritarian theories, analyzing the concept of "free will" influenced by Christian-Catholic thinkers.) This is clearly a matter of opinion. What I find particularly interesting is that the author is aware of the conjecture that exists with Schmitt's works and how they should be interpreted. The article, in my view, drives the reader towards an interpretation of Schmitt as a proponent of unchecked executive power. In this sense, the article is actually quite interesting because it betrays the fractured nature of the discourse surrounding Schmitt. Despite my comments, I would like to add my thanks to the author for their work and the time they have put into writing this article. My concluding remarks would be to remove the more opinionated critiques of Schmitt.Bateman49 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hint
In the german WP the Article about Carl Schmitt ist blockaded since months, because some users, want to prevent that the author Nicolaus Sombart is enlisted in the bibliography. Nicolaus Sombart knew Carl Schmitt as a teenager, when the young scientist Schmitt visited his father Werner Sombart and his adored mother. Son Nicolaus Sombart wrote the book German men and their enemys about Schmitt and gives a close view to his mentor Carl Schmitt. This book is not loved by some kind of university scientists, who dislike N. Sombarts way of focusing on psychological matters. The same users try to prevent the entry of Schmitts citations into the german version of this article. CreateContext 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? If so, that is really silly. Both the normal Schmittians and the anti-Schmittians use N. Sombart; sure, that book is not without problems, but I agree that it has great value as a source, and it contains some interesting theoretical points. Surely this belongs into the entry. Even the Schmitt lecture series in Plettenberg featured Nicolaus once, and even if some people are amused or annoyed by Sombart, it would certainly be a form of vandalism to remove the reference from the entry. Clossius 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and if anyone really wants to suggest again that the German wiki is in any sense (just because of length and complexity of the articles?) better than the English one regarding German philosophers etc., just check the Schmitt page and discussion page there. Indeed, it strikes me to lock the page and the discussion (!) is an abuse of administrative powers, because that discussion was surely not in any way getting out of hand. And indeed, the deletion of Sombart because his alleged irrelevance and oddity is, in the context of the Wikipedia, surely POV, non-wiki, and also not helpful. I can only speculate that this is, as so often, the work of some grad students who either try to be "more catholic than the pope" (i.e., more Schmittian than the Schmittians; I can really vouchsafe that the German Schmittians usually dislike Sombart, but most do not deal with him in such a way), and/or have a too rigid sense of scholarship and evidence, which they interpret, as is quite common, in a highly positivistic, self-referential, 19th century way ("recognized science is what recognized scientists recognize as science"). In the Schmitt context, that is particularly absurd and unhelpful. Clossius 08:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ten days or so ago Nicolaus Sombart was interviewed in radio in Berlin, where Sombart lives today. It is disgusting, how a few people in the german WP repeat some negative POV-sentences about Sombart again and again. And take that as a reason to remove Sombarts books from the bibliography. I read a handfull of his books with a lot of interesting insights of famous persons in social science and philosophy-context, who were teachers of N.Sombart: Alfred Weber, Max Weber, Karl Jaspers, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Carl Schmitt, studies in Heidelberg and so on... CreateContext 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Schmitt and Kelsen
It struck me as odd that the Schmitt and Kelsen pages refer to each other without Schmitt's being mentioned on the Kelsen page or vice-versa. And going to add a Kelsen ref to the discussion of Political Theology, I found that section a bit sketchy, perhaps b/c On Dictatorship is discussed at such length. Still, it seemed that anyone curious just about PT would benefit from having that section be a bit more informative.

(Will add Kelsen quote to his page when I get my copy of Dark Continent back -- there's a pointed remark about sovereignty that's pretty clearly aimed at Schmitt.) --Andersonblog 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cites, please
This page does have an excellent general bibliography, however in common with many Wikipedia articles it would greatly benefit from providing specific cites for specific facts (especially since the topics here tend to be quite controversial.) (E.g. "[Schmitt] justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives as the 'highest form of administrative justice' ('höchste Form administrativer Justiz')" Strong stuff! Cite? (n.b. that I'm not questioning the actual veracity of anything here, I just want to see the cites.) Thanks. -- 201.50.251.197 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'just like the global war on terror' bit seems a little POV to me, as well as inaccurate- no one in power has claimed that the Constitution no longer applies because of some terror-related state of emergency. That's not to say that they haven't taken such an emergency to trigger extended executive powers, but only that those powers are at least supposed to be found in the Constitution itself.

Agamben
This belongs in an Agamben article, not Schmitt's. Does Schmitt anywhere use categories like homo sacer or zoe/bios? This is Agamben's own synthesis, not an analysis of Schmitt.

"According to Agamben,[citation needed] Schmitt's conceptualization of the 'state of exception' as belonging to the core-concept of sovereignty was a response to Walter Benjamin's concept of a 'pure' or 'revolutionary' violence, which didn't enter into any relationship whatsoever with right. Through the state of exception, Carl Schmitt included all types of violence under right, linking right & life (zoe) together, and thus transforming the juridical system into a 'death machine', creating an Homo sacer."

129.137.202.93 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitics and Nomos
Why is there a heading for Nomos of the Earth, but no summary of the text? Also, this article requires a discussion of Schmitt's later work on international law and geopolitics.

I will provide the above if necessary.

John Yoo
this could do with some actual evidence that Yoo was influenced by Schmitt, rather than just conjecture by others -- especially magazines unsympathetic to Yoo.

unless there's a direct citation by Yoo acknowledging Schmitt, it's probably best to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.43.50 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish "scientists" or Jewish "academics"?
In the section on Schmitt's nazi period it states that he went "so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol". While not necessarily doubting this I wondered if anyone has acitation for this. I also wondered whether the word should be "scientists" (which in English usually suggests natural scientists, unless qualified) or did Schmitt wish to label Jewish academics in general. The latter seems more likely, given the fields he was mostly involved in. Any thoughts? It just struck me as perhaps being a translation error from German.

Neoconservatism
The section under the title "Neoconservatism" reads

"Neoconservatism, based on Leo Strauss's teachings,[2] was influenced by Schmitt.[3] Most notably the legal opinions offered by John Yoo et al. justifying controversial policies -such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions,[4] enhanced interrogation techniques, NSA electronic surveillance program, unitary executive theory- in the war on terror mimic his writings.[3]"

This section is incoherent. Is it trying to establish a connection between Schmitt and Yoo "et al"? If this is the case, then the author has the task of demonstrating that Schmitt advocated "introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, enhanced interrogation techniques, NSA electronic surveillance program, unitary executive theory- in the war on terror." Aside from the notion of a "unitary executive", all of these legalistic "introductions" are either antithetical or irrelevant to Schmitt's international legal perspective, which is exhibited in, for instance, The Nomos of the Earth and the Theory of the Partisan.--160.94.237.215 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that it's a much better approach to point out the (many?) parallels in thought between Schmitt and modern Neo-Conservatism, particularly Wolfowitz, than to go on and on and on on irrelevant tangents on what "anti-Semitism" or "race" could possibly mean in the writings of Nietzsche, Wagner, and Jünger whenever the name Wolfowitz is mentioned here on this talkpage. Some traces about the parallels in thought between Schmitt and Wolfowitz were given above by Lapaz, before they were buried under months and months of quarrels on those tangents entirely irrelevant in this context. You don't need to be of a particular "race" or faith to be accused of fascism and totalitarian leanings. Quoting Lapaz to remind people:


 * However, I think that a link between the two of them may be made because of a similarity on thought about sovereignty being simultaneously inside & outside law. [...] It is because they're is a real similarity between the neocons theories about the need to act on the world without being too much tied down by law. This is a conception of voluntarism which is linked to the theory of sovereignty (what sense can sovereignty have if it’s not to be a powerful will?) Apart from Wolfowitz, who is an interesting example, but just one guy after all, the Federalist Society - and this guy too-, have often claimed being inspired by Leo Strauss.


 * I'd also point out something which might be a precedent: Lebensraum links to Manifest Destiny as a more or less "intrinsically similar concept" even in the prominent lead section, so why not link from this article to Wolfowitz, as one of the main, maybe the ideologist of the Bush administration?


 * Also, why does the section on Schmitt's published work end abruptly with the 1932 Preußenschlag, and why is he made to look in his short biographical stub as if only putting on an anti-Semitic front from 1933 onwards? This is a man who glorified the Nuremberg Laws as the "Constitution of Freedom", and, beside delegitimizing democracy, spent most of his published thought from the 1920s until 1945 on how to eradicate "Jewish influence" in or on Germany. IMHO, he deserved a place next to ideologist Rosenberg on the gallup for shaping and legitimizing the legal attitudes of Nazism, including how to deprive people of their civil and human rights for which he gave them concise step-by-step manuals. --87.154.25.28 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ditto I chime in. The article also fails to use much of the readily available primary sources. I assume that's because of a lack of will and or ability to read German. In any case, I've made some trivial additions citing one of Schmitt's originals. It's insufficient, but it was clear that the thought was being described from formalisms that lack the force of Schmitt's formalism when used in power politics at the time. That force, I would add, is not of the convince me with the force of your argument kind. I will put more effort into primary source citation in the context of the original and expand it's sections without dabbling in what is largely a balanced article... sadly missing in the historical sources that make the abstractions so much less so....Mwasheim (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Influenced"
I hope none of the other contributors mind that I added Jurgen Habermas to the "Influenced" section. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is replete with footnotes to (and reverence for) works by Schmitt. Indeed, Habermas's concept of the political sphere (and public authority) is largely indebted to Schmitt. I'd venture to guess that Habermas quotes Schmitt more frequently than any other scholar in that work. BasilSeal (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilSeal (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl Schmitt at Arplan, Berlin, 1930?
The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Planwirtschaft, a circle to debate the first Soviet five year plan, around 1930 is a pet issues de:talk:Arvid Harnack and Schmitt is said (disputed by others) to have taken part in it. Does anybody here has ever read anything about this?--Radh (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Derrida-fort
Does this Derrida quote add anything at all to our understanding of CS?--Radh (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Alfonso Otero Varela member of the Falange party?
I am quite surprised at the following:

"His daughter Anima Schmitt de Otero (1931–1983) was married, from 1957, to Alfonso Otero Valera (born 1925), a Spanish law professor at the University of Santiago de Compostela and a member of the ruling Spanish Falange party"

My name is Gabriel Tojo Suárez. Ánima and Alfonso were my neighbours upstairs during my youth when I was still living with my parents. My mother, Emilia Suárez Guntín, and Ánima were very close friends. My mother helped Ánima with pain-killers when she was dying from cancer.

I do not remember Alfonso Otero as belonging to the Falange party. Its affiliation to this party would be at most a minor circumstance in his biography. At some period of time millions of Spaniards belonged to this party.

I find quite unfair to highlight this point of Alfonso Otero, when he lived a life with hundreds of more important things to tell.

--79.158.222.163 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Gabriel Tojo Suárez

"Nazi Party"
The official name of the party (now disbanded) is NSDAP. Wie don't call the respective Communist Parties, Socialist Parties, Liberal parties Commie Party, Sozi Party or Libtard Party neither, do we. --105.12.4.113 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)