What does Yea Forums think of Carl Schmitt?

Oliver hasn't even read Marx

Reminder he's a liar that doesnt even read his sources
Survive the Jive absolutley demolished him for 30 minutes straight and exposed his lies

I think he was mentioned by Moldbug and some other alt/dissident guys.

Where do I start with him?

This is a reminder that Schmitt was one of the few who truly understood Moby Dick.

Attached: Dw5SK45WkAApst6.jpg (802x83, 19K)

First of all stop follow internet e-celebs and get out of those brainlet white nationalist circles

>Though Carl Schmitt is best known for his legal and political theory, his 1956 Hamlet or Hecuba provides aninnovative and insightful analysis of Shakespeare’s tragedy in terms of the historical situation of its creation. Arguing that the construction of the figure of Hamlet was shaped by the politics of James I’s succession tothe throne, Schmitt uses this interpretation to develop a theory of myth and politics that serves as a cultural foundation for his concept of political representation. More than literary criticism or historical analysis,Schmitt’s book lays out a comprehensive theory of the relationship between aesthetics and politics that responds to alternative ideas developed by Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno. Jennifer R. Rust and Julia Reinhard Lupton’s introduction places Schmitt’s work in the context of contemporary Renaissance studies,and David Pan’s afterword analyzes the links to Schmitt’s political theory. Presented in its entirety in anauthorized translation, Hamlet or Hecuba is essential reading for scholars of Shakespeare and Schmitt alike.

Is there nothing he can't do?

No

This guy seems interesting I will just see how much a hardcover of Political Theology is on amazon..

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 12.10.28 PM.png (506x340, 57K)

You can find it for much less with some small effort.

Attached: pol.jpg (1036x654, 239K)

That is a paperback, which I will probably buy. I just rather hate buying paperbacks unless it is something I wish to mark up or is otherwise disposable. This is an unfortunate position for me as I find that hardcovers of certain authors are very, very expensive. Jünger's books are like this, for example.

Forgive me, I hadn't realized you were specifically interested in the hard back.

You are fine. For you or any one else who has read him: how is he to read? Is he a pleasure to read, like his friend Jünger?

Anyone have any information about Schmitt's education, especially regarding language?
He is constantly switching between Latin, Ancient Greek, Italian, French etc. in his books, it's quite fascinating and I've never seen authors write like that except for maybe Nietzsche.
I want to know if he was actually fluent in all those languages or if he was just doing it for pseud cred.

>I want to know if he was actually fluent in all those languages or if he was just doing it for pseud cred.

The man had a gift for language.

Attached: Lang.jpg (882x302, 83K)

>Is he a pleasure to read, like his friend Jünger?

That his books can be so wide-ranging makes them very appealing. He'll seamlessly jump from theology, ancient history, word etymologies, philosophy, etc. It can be intoxicating.

Wow well that explains it, he really was a genius.
What book is that from?

The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt

I've not read it in full yet, but I hear good things.

Thanks!

Reinhard Mehring's bio would probably be the best place to get an answer.

Off the cuff though, that's not unusual. Latin and Greek would have been standard for any German high school student, French completely standard for any German intellectual, and Schmitt spent a lot of time in Paris during the war, and Italian is an easy language and many figures of interest to Schmitt were Italian.

That's the bog standard run of languages for Schmitt's milieu to know, in other words. If he knew Russian or Polish I'd be more surprised.

Schmitt is the based right-wing thinker. His writing and reasoning is clear and straight forward.

The friend-enemy distinction and his critique of liberal democracy is pretty searing. The concept of there being an absence of a 'legitimate' enemy in liberalism is both applicable to the domestic level (i.e. it was prescient of political correctness becoming a thing) and international relations (where every power a liberal state faces in war must be destroyed because it is illegitimate).

I don't know how I feel (as in I'm genuinely unsure) about some of his more predictive/prescriptive theories, such as the need for a leader to 'homogenise' the polity - to reassert stability. But the positivistic theories he has are, basically, flawless in my opinion.

Also - check out his dialogue on power from the postwar-era, and his dialogue on geopolitics. They're legitimately quite funny.

>Also - check out his dialogue on power from the postwar-era, and his dialogue on geopolitics. They're legitimately quite funny.

This is my favorite part of his corpus to be honest. Nomos of the Earth is a masterpiece.

Geez 250 for a 90 page book?

Absolutely brilliant mind

"Today we even recognize the secret law of this vocabulary and know that the most terrible war is pursued only in the name of peace, the most terrible oppression only in the name of freedom, the most terrible inhumanity only in the name of humanity.

Finally, we also see through the mood of that generation which saw only spiritual death or a soulless mechanism in the age of technicity. We recognize the pluralism of spiritual life and know that the central domain of spiritual existence cannot be a neutral domain and that it is wrong to solve a political problem with the antithesis of organic and mechanistic, life and death.

A life which has only death as its antithesis is no longer life but powerlessness and helplessness. Whoever knows no other enemy than death and recognizes in his enemy nothing more than an empty mechanism is nearer to death than life.

The comfortable antithesis of the organic and the mechanistic is itself something crudely mechanistic. A grouping which sees on the one side only spirit and life and on the other only death and mechanism signifies nothing more than a renunciation of the struggle and amounts to nothing more than a romantic lament.

For life struggles not with death, spirit not with spiritlessness; spirit struggles with spirit, life with life, and out of the power of an integral understanding of this arises the order of human things.

Ab integro nascitur ordo.

>not buying the new one for 650

>I've never seen authors write like that except for maybe Nietzsche.
Leibniz wrote his published works mostly in Latin, then French, then German, but the scholars that are presently mining his Nachlass have to wade through notes and letters in some 8+ languages. I wonder how many languages did he and Spinoza converse in when he visited him.

What do you mean dialogue?
How is Nomos of the Earth a dialogue?

>What do you mean dialogue?

You misunderstand. It's like this.

Attached: dialogues.jpg (1447x555, 305K)

What work is this from?

>A life which has only death as its antithesis is no longer life but powerlessness and helplessness. Whoever knows no other enemy than death and recognizes in his enemy nothing more than an empty mechanism is nearer to death than life.
Liberalism is gonna be the death of humanity because of this. it only breeds mediocrity and fear of life in all its aspect.

>Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss are extremely popular in China, especially in Mainland China—this is no longer a secret in the Western academia. As early as 2003, Stanley Rosen had already told the Boston Globe that “A very, very significant circle of Strauss admirers has sprung up, of all places, China.”[1] Then, in 2010, Mark Lilla, after returning from a visit to Chinese universities, published a widely-circulated article in the New Republic, reporting that there was a “strange taste in Western philosophers” among Chinese scholars and college students, i.e. their strange obsession with Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt.[2] A 2015 article published on “The China Story” website by Flora Sapio further described the reception of Carl Schmitt by China’s New Left intellectuals and showed the author’s concern with the potential danger of Schmitt’s legal and political theory.[3] Schmitt and Strauss have become philosophical and political stars in China is well-known in the Western world.

IT'S HAPPENING

Attached: FotoJet-71-加粗.png (2479x3507, 1.66M)

Considering everyone admires him as a thinker except the most boneless of libs, yeah he's pretty fucking good.

Attached: 578AC454-D76A-48CF-BB54-F1F6F1D7F39F.jpg (750x865, 260K)

And yet, liberalism won, as if it transcended power and law. What does this mean for the Right, who have all along followed the same mechanisms of liberalism? Twisting dials, or even reversing gears, will not stop the destructive processes of the machine.
What if the Right has been missing something more significant?

I recently became aware of him by reading this other far-left guy, and just today I was in this chic-chic-frou-frou bookstore and they had a book about him. Leftists seem to love this nazi; but then, I'm only just now paying attention.

>Nazi

Attached: 1508177453254.png (380x380, 235K)