Focusing on the problem of bureaucracy as a striking example of the ‘necessary stupidity’ that real-life forces us to tolerate, the philosophical meaning of Musil’s «intelligent stupidity» will be discussed. To a closer confrontation with the text, and with passages from Man Without Qualities that are particularly relevant to the theme of the relationship between stupidity and bureaucracy, a number of reflections will be anteposed in order to highlight how, by making the concepts of liberalism and bureaucracy react to each (...) other, it is possible to sketch a first outline of that aporetic of stupidity that seems to characterise so substantially the behaviour of modern man. (shrink)

Este artigo discute como os conceitos de mediação e representação se articulam na reflexão de Carl Schmitt em alguns de seus primeiros escritos e preparam o terreno para a formulação da ideia de representação política em um de seus trabalhos mais conhecidos: Teoria da Constituição. O procedimento mediante o qual se traduz uma realidade amorfa ou um coletivo em forma de representação política se atém à noção de presentificar algo ausente ou tornar visível algo invisível. Toda ideia entra no mundo (...) empírico como hóspede forasteiro e para ganhar existência ou visibilidade necessita de uma decisão soberana pela sua representação. A finalidade deste estudo é explicar o modo pelo qual ocorre este procedimento. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie Jahrgang: 5 Heft: 2 Seiten: 303-337.

Aunque el debate jurídico entre Hans Kelsen y Carl Schmitt ha sido extensamente discutido y analizado, rara vez se lo sitúa en el marco de la disputa entre el mundo político antiguo y el moderno. La pérdida de este punto central de referencia impide focalizar la raíz filosófica de fondo en la polémica entre ambos autores, a saber, una batalla entre dos modelos alternativos de racionalidad política y moral. Uno es el antiguo (reivindicado por Schmitt) y otro el moderno (defendido (...) por Kelsen). Sostengo que no situar dicho debate en semejante contexto nos priva de comprender las implicaciones jurídicas que se desprenden del conflicto entre los supuestos teóricos normativos que hacen surgir a la Modernidad y el horizonte teleológico que da lugar a la Antigüedad. While the legal debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt has been widely discussed and analyzed, it is rarely located within the coordinates of the political dispute between the ancient and modern world. The loss of this central point of reference prevents focusing on the deeply philosophical root wich is in the midst of the controversy between the two authors, namely, a battle between two alternative models of political rationality and morality. One is the ancient (claimed by Schmitt) and the other is the modern (defended by Kelsen). i argue that not placing this debate in such context deprives us from understanding the legal implications arising from the conflict between the normative theoretical assumptions that give rise to Modernity and the teleological horizon which gives rise to the ancient world. (shrink)

RESUMEN En sus textos tempranos, Schmitt recurrentemente se dedica a criticar lo que se conoce como “positivismo jurídico”. Su principal objeción, como bien ya se deja ver en Ley y juicio, es que esta teoría se queda en la pura abstracción de los textos jurídicos y no toma en consideración los aspectos concretos de la realidad a la que las categorías normativas se deben aplicar Este trabajo pretende justificar que ya en estos textos tempranos el pensador alemán identifica que uno (...) de los principales problemas del positivismo jurídico radica en el hecho de que se construye sobre la base de una interpretación ontológica del ser humano que resulta inadecuada. En particular, argumentaremos que Schmitt aboga por una comprensión del fenómeno jurídico que se erija sobre la base de la consideración de la existencia humana concreta, lo que importa, a su vez, el reconocimiento de ciertas estructuras fundamentales y originarias que operan en todo conocimiento humano. ABSTRACT In his first legal texts, Schmitt repeatedly engages in criticizing what is known as “legal positivism”'. His main objection, as it is well seen in Law and Judgment, is that this theory remains in the pure abstraction of legal texts and does not take into account the concrete aspects of reality to which the normative categories should apply. This work aims to justify that in those first texts, the German thinker identifies that one of the main issues of legal positivism lies in the fact that it is built based on an inadequate ontological interpretation of the human being. In particular, we will argue that Schmitt defends an understanding of the legal phenomenon that is constructed based on the consideration of concrete human existence, which in turn means the recognition of certain fundamental and original structures that operate in all human knowledge. (shrink)

In line with his theory of secularization according to which all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, Carl Schmitt argues in Constitutional Theory that people’s (Volk) constitution-making power in modern democracy is analogical to God’s potestas constituens in medieval theology. It is also undoubtedly possible to find a resemblance between Schmitt’s constitution-making power and God’s power as it is described in medieval theology. In the same sense as the constitution-making power is absolutely free (...) from all normative ties, God’s potestas constituens, or rather, God’s potentia absoluta is free from such ties. Yet, unlike the Schmittian constitution-making power, God’s potentia absoluta was not, in medieval theology, originally intended as a description of some form of divine action: the absolute power of God referred to the total possibilities initially open to God. However, when the canonists started to employ the term potentia absoluta in their speculations concerning the papal plenitude of power (plenitude potestatis) by the end of the thirteenth century, they used it in a different sense than the theologians previously. According to certain canonists, the pope, by his potentia absoluta, could grant de facto dispensations from divine and ecclesiastical laws. Later on, this notion became a theological notion as well, but given its origin in juridical discourse, the constitution-making power, rather than being a secularized theological notion, is a theologized juristic notion. (shrink)

"Every power is transcendent; the Transcendent is power; every attempt to escape power is a way to seize power; every movement, which is directed to the prevention or limitation of power, is a seizure of power. It makes no sense and is very dangerous to oppose a political myth" (Schmitt, 1991, p. 180). Behind these cryptic words, dated July 19, 1948, lies the ‘mystery’ of Carl Schmitt’s political theology. A complex problematic that has sealed the intellectual and political fate of (...) the German jurist, and around which he has laboured for more than half a century. (shrink)