Dr. Millerman is great. Cool recent article on Schmitt. President Xi Jinping and the Chinese study Schmitt...U.S. ignores it at their own expense! www.ft.com/content/bc9c69fe-14da-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
Excellent overview, thank you. I haven't read The Concept of the Political, but I will. When you spoke of different views of Schmitt (Strauss and Derrida) I recalled that Walter Benjamin wrote Schmitt a fan letter in the 1930s - much to the embarrassment of his admirers. (Benjamin despised Heidegger, however.) More recently, I hear that Schmitt's concept of the political is popular with the Chinese leadership - one can see why. Somehow though I can't see any equivalent interest in Schmitt's ideas in the US government.
Very good introduction to one of Schmitt's main works. However, I would be rather careful with accepting Strauss' criticism so directly. As you said, Schmitt saw great value in Strauss' comments on this particular book, but his notes do not see this work as a part of Schmitt's whole work. Another contemporary interpreter, though mostly unknown for it, Hugo Ball, commented on Political Theology and anticipated much of what would be said in the Concept of the Political; Schmitt praised Ball as one of the, if not the, best interpreter of his whole thought. As I see it, the Concept of the Political is a work which lets us see the limitations of liberal thought, even down to Hobbes -whom Schmitt later recognized as the one of the great neutralizers-, and works to justify what had been presupposed in Political Theology. Even Strauss notes, in his notes, that the Concept of the Political seems to only set the stage for a true critique of liberalism. I propose that the critique had already been made from the classical point of view in Political Theology. Political Theology, now justified by the latter work, demonstrates the unbreakable link that unites the Political, and the very possibility of the Political, with the Theological, through the anthropological, the moral and the metaphysical. In this ascent, Schmitt's thought finds itself deep in the classical philosophical tradition; indeed, it almost mirrors the structure of Plato's Republic -as Plato's Republic ends not with political philosophy, as a separate category, but with political theology, as fully encompassing. This, of course, ties into the idea of Schmitt as a Catholic political philosopher. The comment is, I know, long, and, perhaps, excessive. I've studied Schmitt rigorously for a few years now, and I agree with him on most things; and I believe my interpretation, though seemingly unorthodox, - and certainly unusual- is confirmed by his diaries, later works, and appraisal of Ball's interpretation.
Thanks for the comment. For sure Schmitt's other texts are relevant. I hope that anyone who watched the video and found Schmitt interesting consults political theology and other texts for a more complete picture, eventually.
Is this the same Hugo Ball of Dada and Cabaret Voltaire fame? I recall reading that he later became an assistant to (and close friend of) Hermann Hesse.
i think this is my favorite video on carl schmitt. basically the point that “friends and enemies” are the essence of “politics” just like in any playground 🛝 thanks for this!!
Nice overview. Just two thoughts: another creative interpretation of Schmitt is Ernesto Laclau's theory of populism based on a particular kind of friend/enemy dialectics. And also, the poet William Blake develops a very interesting solution to the problem of antagonism: instead of the liberal solution of universal peace or mere economic competition, he imagines a sort of antagonism in which each contriary does not strive to negate the other, but accepts the opposition as a necessary stimulus to progression. This is developed throughout Blake's work but particularly in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
Thank you for this. I'm working backwards, so to speak, from Dugin to Schmitt--which he references in The Fourth Political Theory--and I look forward to reading The Concept of the Political and what Leo Strauss has to say about Schmitt.
This is by far the best analysis I've found so far on the political, have seen a lot even in spanish but they mostly just read what the book says, I feel you put it together really well, thanks man. Btw, I read a fragment of a journal written by Ricardo Duchesne, honestly I don't like that guy, I follow him on twitter too, and his arguments are just kinda lame...Anyways, thanks for the vid.
Hey Michael. Nice upload. I'd love to see you do a video explaining the term "liberal/liberalism" in depth. I think this needs to be explained and clarified more since is my understanding that same word means different things depending on the context but also mainly where in the world the term is being used.
Thanks for the comment. I'd like to do a video on that topic, and I'm already thinking about how to do it. But it will take a little while to get there.
Is the current tension around globalists versus populism / multipolarity to be understood as a return of the political at the global and local levels ?
Fascinating stuff, expands what little I know about this author. Had previously understood that he meant ethnic difference as being the chief determinant of the friend enemy distinction, whereas you are mainly talking about ideology. I’ll be reading the book to try to understand how it all comes together. Great channel
I'd love it if you went back to put time stamps on your videos for the topics arising in the video so it would be easy to search the video for specific points.
Thanks for this. I wonder where geopolitics fits in here. I mean, look at the current war in Ukraine. Geopolitics dictates for both sides to have, let's say, Turkey on their side. But any side that is successful in this has practically allied itself with a Muslim nation against other Christians. I mean, states usually determine enimies and friends based on geopolitics as this is where its existential threats are coming from. Again, look at Russia and Ukraine. Iran and Saudi Arabia. Japan qnd China. Russia and the US. Etc.
Morality does not exist. The only "justice" in existence is fundamentally subjective and intersubjective, and therefore resides within the friend-enemy ontology.
![Public lecture: Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political [1927] - John Keane](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gEyFKWZFq2U/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this Michael, very well put together.
Stumbled upon this channel. Content looks promising. More organized than a lot of stuff out there.
This is great - Thanks!
Dr. Millerman is great. Cool recent article on Schmitt. President Xi Jinping and the Chinese study Schmitt...U.S. ignores it at their own expense! www.ft.com/content/bc9c69fe-14da-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
Thank you
This was fantastic thank you, the perfect introductory to Schmitt, I’m ordering his book right now cuz of this video.
Excellent overview, thank you. I haven't read The Concept of the Political, but I will. When you spoke of different views of Schmitt (Strauss and Derrida) I recalled that Walter Benjamin wrote Schmitt a fan letter in the 1930s - much to the embarrassment of his admirers. (Benjamin despised Heidegger, however.) More recently, I hear that Schmitt's concept of the political is popular with the Chinese leadership - one can see why. Somehow though I can't see any equivalent interest in Schmitt's ideas in the US government.
Thank you , it was so clear and direct .
Very good introduction to one of Schmitt's main works. However, I would be rather careful with accepting Strauss' criticism so directly. As you said, Schmitt saw great value in Strauss' comments on this particular book, but his notes do not see this work as a part of Schmitt's whole work. Another contemporary interpreter, though mostly unknown for it, Hugo Ball, commented on Political Theology and anticipated much of what would be said in the Concept of the Political; Schmitt praised Ball as one of the, if not the, best interpreter of his whole thought. As I see it, the Concept of the Political is a work which lets us see the limitations of liberal thought, even down to Hobbes -whom Schmitt later recognized as the one of the great neutralizers-, and works to justify what had been presupposed in Political Theology. Even Strauss notes, in his notes, that the Concept of the Political seems to only set the stage for a true critique of liberalism. I propose that the critique had already been made from the classical point of view in Political Theology.
Political Theology, now justified by the latter work, demonstrates the unbreakable link that unites the Political, and the very possibility of the Political, with the Theological, through the anthropological, the moral and the metaphysical. In this ascent, Schmitt's thought finds itself deep in the classical philosophical tradition; indeed, it almost mirrors the structure of Plato's Republic -as Plato's Republic ends not with political philosophy, as a separate category, but with political theology, as fully encompassing. This, of course, ties into the idea of Schmitt as a Catholic political philosopher.
The comment is, I know, long, and, perhaps, excessive. I've studied Schmitt rigorously for a few years now, and I agree with him on most things; and I believe my interpretation, though seemingly unorthodox, - and certainly unusual- is confirmed by his diaries, later works, and appraisal of Ball's interpretation.
Thanks for the comment. For sure Schmitt's other texts are relevant. I hope that anyone who watched the video and found Schmitt interesting consults political theology and other texts for a more complete picture, eventually.
Thank you for studying Carl Schmitt!
Is this the same Hugo Ball of Dada and Cabaret Voltaire fame? I recall reading that he later became an assistant to (and close friend of) Hermann Hesse.
@@akiva7774 Yes, he is the very same. He had a very interesting relationship with Schmitt (who mentions him positively in Political Theology II).
Currently reading this. Than you for further explaining the ideas.
About to start reading Schmitt. Thanks, Michael.
Excellent video and incredible channel! Been looking for complex and objective analysis into Bannon, Schmitt, Dugin, Heidegger, etc. so thank you sir!
do more videos on Schmitt; he's the best of the ones that you talk about.
Thank you for everything.
Schmitt also has a big following in China, where Liu Xiofeng has been one of his chief promoters.
🔎🧐 Thanks for this, professor.
i think this is my favorite video on carl schmitt. basically the point that “friends and enemies” are the essence of “politics” just like in any playground 🛝 thanks for this!!
Nice overview.
Just two thoughts: another creative interpretation of Schmitt is Ernesto Laclau's theory of populism based on a particular kind of friend/enemy dialectics.
And also, the poet William Blake develops a very interesting solution to the problem of antagonism: instead of the liberal solution of universal peace or mere economic competition, he imagines a sort of antagonism in which each contriary does not strive to negate the other, but accepts the opposition as a necessary stimulus to progression. This is developed throughout Blake's work but particularly in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
I demonetized it. Anyone who wants to support the channel can donate at michaelmillerman.ca cheers
*mind blown* 🤯🤯🤯 loved this
Thank you for this. I'm working backwards, so to speak, from Dugin to Schmitt--which he references in The Fourth Political Theory--and I look forward to reading The Concept of the Political and what Leo Strauss has to say about Schmitt.
Excellent. As someone who has little background in political science i find these videos extremely useful.
Good to hear. Thank you for the feedback.
Thanks 🙏🏽😊
The Peace Corps sounds like a perfect name for the new Ministry Of War.
ah yes, irony
State of exception haha
This is by far the best analysis I've found so far on the political, have seen a lot even in spanish but they mostly just read what the book says, I feel you put it together really well, thanks man. Btw, I read a fragment of a journal written by Ricardo Duchesne, honestly I don't like that guy, I follow him on twitter too, and his arguments are just kinda lame...Anyways, thanks for the vid.
Hey Michael.
Nice upload. I'd love to see you do a video explaining the term "liberal/liberalism" in depth. I think this needs to be explained and clarified more since is my understanding that same word means different things depending on the context but also mainly where in the world the term is being used.
Thanks for the comment. I'd like to do a video on that topic, and I'm already thinking about how to do it. But it will take a little while to get there.
@@millerman Awesome. Is there somebody that can show light on that pic that's gotta be you brother. Gracias!
Is the current tension around globalists versus populism / multipolarity to be understood as a return of the political at the global and local levels ?
Millerman, where you at?
Micheal have you ever thought about arranging a interview with Mr Dugin.
Fascinating stuff, expands what little I know about this author. Had previously understood that he meant ethnic difference as being the chief determinant of the friend enemy distinction, whereas you are mainly talking about ideology. I’ll be reading the book to try to understand how it all comes together.
Great channel
Thank you, I'm glad you're liking the videos so far!
Great summary! Any thoughts on how China and the CPC are applying the works of Carl Schmitt?
I'd love it if you went back to put time stamps on your videos for the topics arising in the video so it would be easy to search the video for specific points.
great
Thanks!
Everything is perfect except subtitles😑 Pls add english subtitle cuz i have difficulty in following you. Thanks again
Thanks for this.
I wonder where geopolitics fits in here. I mean, look at the current war in Ukraine. Geopolitics dictates for both sides to have, let's say, Turkey on their side. But any side that is successful in this has practically allied itself with a Muslim nation against other Christians.
I mean, states usually determine enimies and friends based on geopolitics as this is where its existential threats are coming from. Again, look at Russia and Ukraine. Iran and Saudi Arabia. Japan qnd China. Russia and the US. Etc.
It seems to me that the just-unjust distinction is more fundamentally political.
"just" implies morality, no?
Morality does not exist. The only "justice" in existence is fundamentally subjective and intersubjective, and therefore resides within the friend-enemy ontology.
@@IndustrialMilitia The Platonic conception of justice is not moral
@@daledheyalef Is that part of Strauss' critique of Schmitt by going back to the Platonic notions of the politic?
@@IndustrialMilitia No, just my own observation regarding Plato's understanding of justice in the Republic. I don't know Strauss' view on this