Speaker made a mistake. The concept of human rights DID exist in Schmitt's time. They were call the "rights of man" and had been around since the late 18th century. It was only the growing influence of feminism that got them relabeled "human" rights when the United Nations was founded.(also in Schmitt's lifetime).
I'm a Chinese international reading the concept of the Political and found this video in which Keane talked to a Chinese audience with such a slow and clear delivery. how lucky am I.
I'm not sure if Schmitt was actually ready to suggest that friend-enemy distinction is built-in human nature in any sense. Especially when he was trying so hard to make the distinction between the enemy of a people and the enemy of an individual.
"when he was trying so hard to make the distinction between the enemy of a people and the enemy of an individual." -- This distinction is built into the Greek and Latin languages, which have two different words for these two different concepts, so I don't think Schmitt would have had to "try very hard" in an age when most well educated people still had taken classes in Latin and sometimes Greek as well.
It is not that it is built in human nature more so than when the element of the political arises, and his definition of the political being irreconcilable differences of an existential manner often associated with the sovereign or rule, the friend enemy distinction is unavoidable. It's often associated with democracy as the concept of democracy was actually an Aristotelian thought experiment that posited the conflict of rule by the demos would end up with 51% defeating 49% in a war so in order to avoid the bloodshed, the majority would rule, effectively making democracy in concept a simulacrum of war.
Have listened to several other discussions of Schmidt's philosophy. This one was all over the place. Pick and choose this and that. Jump to other philosophers to somehow link them. Quite bad.
This is creepy to hear when I see kids that value money and Tesla’s and good vibes over other things. Denying the violent nature outside spaces they delve in... hmm
Speaker made a mistake. The concept of human rights DID exist in Schmitt's time. They were call the "rights of man" and had been around since the late 18th century. It was only the growing influence of feminism that got them relabeled "human" rights when the United Nations was founded.(also in Schmitt's lifetime).
Man means man and woman not only man
I'm a Chinese international reading the concept of the Political and found this video in which Keane talked to a Chinese audience with such a slow and clear delivery. how lucky am I.
@Accelerationist based Chinese government.
@@will-macnairahh how good does it feel to meet a fellow nick land reader
Excellent, thank you for uploading 👍
Thanks for sharing!
Such a good lecture, thank you.
Wonderful
The part about the essay starts at 19:30.
Excellent
I'm not sure if Schmitt was actually ready to suggest that friend-enemy distinction is built-in human nature in any sense. Especially when he was trying so hard to make the distinction between the enemy of a people and the enemy of an individual.
"when he was trying so hard to make the distinction between the enemy of a people and the enemy of an individual." -- This distinction is built into the Greek and Latin languages, which have two different words for these two different concepts, so I don't think Schmitt would have had to "try very hard" in an age when most well educated people still had taken classes in Latin and sometimes Greek as well.
It is not that it is built in human nature more so than when the element of the political arises, and his definition of the political being irreconcilable differences of an existential manner often associated with the sovereign or rule, the friend enemy distinction is unavoidable. It's often associated with democracy as the concept of democracy was actually an Aristotelian thought experiment that posited the conflict of rule by the demos would end up with 51% defeating 49% in a war so in order to avoid the bloodshed, the majority would rule, effectively making democracy in concept a simulacrum of war.
❤❤❤
I as well as so many other don’t want the total state. Most of us want a plot of land to live and work on in peace
Genning
Have listened to several other discussions of Schmidt's philosophy. This one was all over the place. Pick and choose this and that. Jump to other philosophers to somehow link them. Quite bad.
竟然是在北大的讲座
This is creepy to hear when I see kids that value money and Tesla’s and good vibes over other things. Denying the violent nature outside spaces they delve in... hmm
isn't the Total State "Gesamtstaat" in german?
I don't know. I know in my copy of the Concept of the Political, Schmitt refers to Totalitarianism as the Totalstaat.
Gesamtstaat would be used to describe the entities of the state (quantitative), but not the scope (qualitative).
TDS
For 10 minutes he simply talked nonsense...........
No basis in science as regards human nature, among other things
Yep human nature is cringe