Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  SCHMITT
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

POLITICAL ORDER, EMERGENCY POWERS AND LAW IN MACHIAVELLI AND SCHMITT

100%
Tarhan Çelebi G.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2022
|
vol. 77
|
issue 6
427 – 441
EN
This article critically examines Machiavelli’s and Schmitt’s views on emergencies. Both philosophers are known for their emphasis on the unpredictable nature of politics, which cannot be fully captured by legal norms. Thus, they both state that every political order requires an extraordinary figure who could act beyond laws during emergencies. For Machiavelli, this figure is called a dictator; for Schmitt, it is the sovereign. The author aims to show that, despite this apparent similarity, Machiavelli and Schmitt conceptualize the extraordinary figure in a significantly different manner. Machiavelli regards dictatorship merely as a legal instrument bound by the constitution. A dictator only acts to protect the existing order, which he cannot alter. On the contrary, Schmitt’s conceptualization of exception suggests that the sovereign is not bound by any legal norm. Sovereignty implies that this extraordinary figure can suspend and even alter the existing legal order. The author concludes that the difference between Machiavelli’s and Schmitt’s diverse attitudes towards law stems from their different views on the nature of political unity. While Machiavelli perceives polity as composed of two distinct groups with incompatible interests, Schmitt defines polity as a homogenous one. For Machiavelli the survival of political unity depends on a mixed constitution and respect for laws that hold society together. On the other hand, for Schmitt, it depends on the preservation of its homogeneity.
2

O EPISTEMOLOGICKEJ VÝHODE PORAZENÝCH: C. SCHMITT A R. KOSELLECK

75%
Šajda P.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2017
|
vol. 72
|
issue 10
789 – 799
EN
The paper critically examines Carl Schmitt’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s contributions to the reflection of the epistemological advantage of the vanquished. Both authors claim that the experience of being defeated contains a unique potential for creation of innovative historical interpretations and historiographic procedures which have long-term usefulness. Adverse historical development intensifies explanatory pressure on the vanquished historian and directs his attention to long-term factors that have influenced this development. Non-ideological analysis of these factors facilitates the discovery of historical connections which are repeatable and will probably occur in later historical contexts. Both authors polemicize against the philosophical-historical principle. History is written by the victors whose does not prove itself in the long-term perspective. In this paper the author especially focuses on typological aspects of the analysis of the phenomenon of defeat.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.