/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16520464]

It is I - Carl Schmitt!

I love my friends and hate my enemies.
I also know a lot about law and stuff.

[Anonymous No.16520592]

>>16520464
Schmitt > Heidegger
You know it's true.

[Anonymous No.16520610]

[Anonymous No.16520622]

Ô mes amis, il n'y a nul amy !

[Anonymous No.16520632]

Where to start with Schmitt?

[Anonymous No.16520671]

>>16520632
Political Theology. If you can read Cortes' "Essays on Catholicism, Socialism, and Liberalism before hand.

[Anonymous No.16520680]

>>16520592
>It would be more accurate to say that Heidegger’s originality is widely overestimated, and that many things he says at great length in his highly obscure German were said earlier by various writers who had made the same points much more elegantly.

[Anonymous No.16520711]

>>16520632
He is easy to get into. Read whatever.

[Anonymous No.16520762]

>>16520592
Junger > Schmitt
You know it's true.

[Anonymous No.16520783]

>>16520762
They are not competitors, they are Conservative Revolutionary frens :3

[Anonymous No.16520792]

>>16520783
Thas rite

[Anonymous No.16520800]

>>16520762
Jünger likes to smell his own farts too much for my taste. His later books become aesthetically masturbatory.

[Anonymous No.16520810]

>>16520800
>begome anargg dddddd

[Anonymous No.16520831]

>>16520810
His individualist philosophy is good but his aesthetics just turns repetitive.

[Anonymous No.16521394]

>>16520800
They aren't aesthetics. You're just a retard.

[Anonymous No.16521809]

So, in the end, who had to be the guardian of the Constitution?

[Anonymous No.16522057]

>>16520783
Junger's Anarch, explored in Eumeswil, is inherently anti-political.

And Schmitt philosophy wasn't inherently revolutionary. He simply presumed that liberalism would be self-defeating so revolution was inevitable. Given that, he chose the more conservative revolutionaries to back.

[Anonymous No.16522087]

>>16522057
>anti-political
More like anti-the-political. It has a more specific meaning in Schmitt: the ally-enemy distinction.

The Anarch is skeptical, critical of authority, though not anti-authority. Rather, he doesn't hold authority to be an automatic ally.

[Anonymous No.16522093]

>>16520783
friends :)

[Anonymous No.16522392]

>>16520783
Truly the only thing they were left with

[Anonymous No.16523684]

>>16522057
>>16522087
The problem here is one of time. They are both political, but in the ancient or classical sense. Our law of politics is much different, and even detrimental to its functioning, both hardened in its categories and ineffectual in its real functioning. It is itself a law and yet has no basis in laws, a contradiction, and so is without possible impact in the age.
Interestingly enough, this is precisely the opposite problem posed by that of technology, which is without definite form and yet functions properly as law.
The Anarch is a necessary relation to nihilist politics, the passive form which weighs against the synoptic character without which decision can have no force.

[Anonymous No.16523777]

>>16523684
>the synoptic character of incursions upon justice*
In a sense, one could say that the Anarch is a response to the death of politics just as romanticism was a response to the death of nature. In the formation of their character they are the same, they only look towards different laws, which resolve, at the highest levels, the death of god.

[Anonymous No.16523837]

>>16520464
>>16520592
>>16520762
>>16520783
Constantin Frantz > Schmitt

You know it to be true.

>In 1878, Wagner republished “What is German?” requesting Frantz’s response. Frantz’s Open Letter to Richard Wagner (June 1878) also published in the Bayreuther Blätter, argued that the new Reich was as un-German as could be. Importantly, he distinguishes between (German) “metapolitics” and conventional politics (analogously with metaphysics and physics). Metapolitics must have a higher aim than mere political ends, a privileging characteristic in the idealism of the later Bayreuth Circle.

[Anonymous No.16523864]

>>16523837
>>16520762
Twilight of the Twitterfags, or How to Philosophize in a Royal Rumble

[Anonymous No.16523871]

Hate how current reality is validating him. Really hard to find arguments to refute him that don't sound like cope.

[Anonymous No.16523878]

>>16523871
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.16523908]

>>16523878
Totalitarianism is on the rise in the east and the west

[Anonymous No.16523917]

>>16523908
How is that bad?

[Anonymous No.16523967]

>>16523917
Bro... come on

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16523999]

>>16523908
When did it stop?
Statism plays nice and freedom loving democracy till their shit economics hits the fan and people start demanding their money’s worth. Then they bring out the fascist dogs as a threat. It’s all a game they play.

[Anonymous No.16524682]

>>16523999
>muh fascism is rotting capitalism in its final form
Yawn, be more original.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16524725]

>>16524682
>final form
Uhh, no. In its auxiliary form. The oligarchy never allows it to overtake the world or to keep too much power for very long.
The trouble with it is that it’s seriously old fashioned. Roman was not resurrected by Napoleon for more than a short reign. Hitler’s attempt was even shorter. That sort of thing isn’t coming back. The new model uses layers of deception.
We need an actual revolution that throws of state and capital. Organizing that, we organize environmental repairs. Fascism is a dead end

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16524737]

>>16524682
>final form
Uhh, no. In its auxiliary form. The oligarchy never allows it to overtake the world or to keep too much power for very long.
The trouble with it is that it’s seriously old fashioned. Rome was not resurrected by Napoleon for more than a short reign. Hitler’s attempt was even shorter. That sort of thing just isn’t coming back. The new model uses layers of deception.
We need an actual revolution that throws off state and capital. Organizing that, we organize environmental repairs. Fascism is a dead end