Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- German (2)
- English (2)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5) (remove)
Keywords
- Carl Schmitt (5) (remove)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (5) (remove)
This article elucidates the spatial order that underpins the politics of the Anthropocene – the ecological nomos of the earth – and criticizes its imperial origins and legacies. It provides a critical reading of Carl Schmitt’s spatial thought to not only illuminate the spatio-political ontology but also the violence and usurpations that characterize the Anthropocene condition. The article first shows how with the emergence of the ecological nomos seemingly ‘natural’ spaces like the biosphere and the atmosphere became politically charged. This challenges the modernist separation between natural facts and political norms. It then underlines the imperial origins of this nomos by introducing the concept of air-appropriation understood as the colonization of atmospheric space by CO2 emissions. Instead of assuming that the ecological nomos represents a transition from a colonial to an ecological and cosmopolitan world order, focusing on air-appropriation highlights forms of ecological imperialism that go along with the new nomos. Accordingly, the article calls for a just redistribution of ecospace that takes into account the imperial legacies and ongoing effects of air-appropriation.
Este artigo tem por objetivo analisar comparativamente as semelhanças contidas nas críticas à democracia liberal presentes em alguns trabalhos selecionados de Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) e Robert Kurz (1943-2012). A despeito da estreita associação do primeiro autor com o regime nazista após 1933 e do segundo ser normalmente caracterizado como um pensador marxista (embora bastante crítico ao marxismo “ortodoxo”), são verificáveis inúmeras similitudes entre ambos quando se propõem a analisar as características do liberalismo parlamentar das democracias do século XX. Uma hipótese que pode explicar tais semelhanças seria a influência exercida por Schmitt sobre diversos teóricos da escola de Frankfurt, com os quais Kurz frequentemente dialoga em seus escritos e que foram inspiradores de algumas de suas reflexões – em especial, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno e Max Horkheimer, embora Schmitt também tenha influenciado Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, Karl Korsch e Herbert Marcuse. Outra via de interpretação abordada aqui se refere à possibilidade de Schmitt ter encontrado, em suas teorias sobre o Estado e sobre o direito, os limites epistemológicos do liberalismo moderno, o que constitui o principal objeto de pesquisa de Kurz e foi tema recorrente nos escritos dos teóricos de Frankfurt.
Hamlet or Europe and the end of modern Trauerspiel. On some shakespearians motifs in Walter Benjamin
(2019)
Hamlet’s character sets, under different shapes and extents, the benchmark against which a large part of the European philosophy of the very long «short twentieth-century» behind us has had to measure. In the name of Hamlet as the most enigmatic among Shakespeare’s creatures, even Europe, its spirit and destiny, is identified, according to the well-known claim by Paul Valery.
Common trait to a big part of these interpretations – from the juvenile works of Pavel Florenskij and Lev S. Vygotskij (respectively written in 1905 and 1915) to Carl Schmitt’s Hamlet oder Ekuba. Der Einbruch der Zeit in das Spiel (1956) – is offered by the detection, in Hamlet’s figure, of the contradiction inherent to an epochal transition: the time of an unresolved passage between two ages that only knows the endless pain of an “interim”. My paper concerns the possibility to interpret Hamlet’s time as the time of an “interim” in light of Benjamin’s claims about Shakespeare’s drama contained in his book on the German Trauerspiel.
While Florenskij interprets Hamlet’s time as tragic and the figure of Hamlet as a tragic one, in my essay - moving from some observations on the " Hamlet Problem " by the young Franz Rosenzweig - I consider the original Benjaminian thesis about the character and the drama of Hamlet as the end of the modern Trauerspiel. Starting from a statement by Theodor Adorno in the famed Hornberger Brief to Benjamin of August 2, 1935, I outline, therefore, how Benjamin characterizes the figure of Hamlet. This, from his early writings on the relationship between tragedy and Trauerspiel up to the great book on the Origin of the German Trauerspiel.
In the frame of Benjamin’s interpretation, exactly by virtue of its distance from the thesis on the duality of tragedy (evoked by Florenskij’s interpretation as well as other ones), the Shakespearian theatrum of consciousness, paradigmatically represented in the figure of Hamlet and in the intimately dialectic character of his drama, is accounted for as necessary correlate of the Cartesian’s theatrum of consciousness. From a theoretical point of view, the Benjaminian characterization of Hamlet's figure reveals, therefore, something of the nature of modern consciousness and of consciousness in general in relation to the problem of truth and its representation. Hence the end of modern Trauerspiel coincides with the original incompleteness of its time. Consequently, I also claim Hamlet's dramatic figure to represent the aporetic characters of modern politics. This contrasts the thesis of Carl Schmitt who (in direct controversy with Benjamin) speaks, instead, of the Shakespearean drama as an expression of a pre-modern barbaric time.
Die Arbeit widmet sich der bisher wenig beachteten Demokratietheorie des neoliberalen Ökonomen und Sozialphilosophen Friedrich Hayeks. In seiner Ablehnung des Prinzips der Volkssouveränität scheint es Hayek nicht in erster Linie um die Kritik des demokratischen Elements zu gehen, sondern vielmehr um die moderne Idee staatlicher Souveränität schlechthin. Es ist folglich die Idee der Rechtssouveränität, so die grundlegende These, auf der Hayek seine doppelte Kritik von Naturrecht und Rechtspositivismus gründet. Entprechend ist der Staat in der von Hayek gezeichneten Utopie nicht länger Souverän, Ausdruck, Grund oder Herrscher (in) der Gesellschaft, sondern bloßes Mittel, um die "spontanen Ordnungen" der Gesellschaft (und der Märkte) zu schützen, ohne durch Gesetzgebung planen, gestalten oder intervenieren zu wollen. Allein solches, an den "Nomos" gebundenes, staatliches Handeln könne (und muss!) der "Meinung" der Menschen entsprechen. Die Klärung dieses sehr speziellen und auf David Hume zurückgehenden Verständnisses von "Meinung" erlaubt schließlich, das Denken Hayeks nicht nur hinsichtlich seines Souveränitätsbegriffs, sondern auch hinsichtlich seines Demokratiebegriffs vom Denken Carl Schmitts abzugrenzen. Entgegen dem prägenden Diskurs nach Cristi und Scheuerman, der die Kritik der hayekschen Theorie über die Problematisierung ihres schmittschen Gehalt unternimmt, soll die Arbeit den Blick dafür schärfen, dass der in Hayeks Theorie angelegte Autoritarismus auf eigenen philosophischen Füßen steht und sich nicht erschöpfend aus einem bewusst oder unbewusst übernommenen schmittschen Erbe erklären lässt.