Hans Kelsens Critique of Eric Voegelins "New Science of Politics" has for a long time been very difficult to access, because Kelsen has published only parts of it in his life time and left other parts unpublished. This allowed Voegelin to spread the myth that Kelsen had refrained from publishing his criticism, because he had understood that he was wrong. This is nonsense. The reasons why Kelsen left part of his criticism unpublished are mostly accidental. At the same time (...) Kelsens criticism itself is a very sound rejection of Voegelin's hopelessly flawed theory of modernity as an age of Gnosticism. In this Nachwort to the Edition of Kelsen's Voegelin-criticism I summarize and comment the most important points of Kelsens criticism: 1. Kelsen's take on Voegelin's criticism of positivism. 2. Kelsen's rejection of Voegelin's "theory of representation" which is in fact a rejection of democratic representation in favor of an authoritarian and theocratic model of politics and 3. Kelsen's refuation of Voegelin's explanation of political disorder in the 20th century as a result of Gnostic heresy. My conclusion is that Kelen's criticism is successful (with only very minor qualifications) in all of these points and that thus it is an important contribution to the discussion of Voegelin's scholarship which has until recently been almost entirely apologetic. (shrink)

La riflessione filosofica di Eric Voegelin sembra possedere una certa forza teorica per far fronte speculativamente alla metanarrazione islamista, specialmente nella versione del salafismo-jihadismo di marca qaedista e pseudo-califfale. Il concetto di religione politica sviluppato da Voegelin nella giovinezza, già applicato all’islamismo da diversi pensatori, risulta però inadeguato, essendo stato peraltro rigettato dallo stesso Voegelin per la sua vaghezza. Pertanto, seguendo l’itinerario voegeliano abbiamo recuperato le tre componenti che vivificano la nozione (rivisitata) di religione politica – la (...) componente metastatica, apocalittica e gnostica –, concetti sviluppati da un Voegelin ormai maturo, e li abbiamo applicati al salafismo- jihadismo, ottenendo come risultato quello di rendere maggiormente intelligibile il fenomeno islamista. L’Islam politico appare alfine come una religione politica a tutti gli effetti, ovverosia una degenerazione secolarizzata della fede tradizionale che confida nella violenza per mutare magicamente la natura del reale. (shrink)

Hans Kelsen's thorough critique of Eric Voegelin's "New Science of Politcs" is - in my oppinion - the best commentary on Voegelin that has been written so far.

The secularisation idea is that modernity leaves religion behind. But for Gauchet, modernity just is religion transformed, without remainder. The Axial Age discovery of the inner world of the psyche and its symbolic expressions, was at the same time a growth in understanding of God as creator, transcendent and incommensurable with all of creation. Henceforth, religion would be in the key of personal struggle and symbolic transformation, putting aside heteronomy. Taylor adds a caveat: the self-image of the self-sufficient, autonomous individual (...) subtracted from the canopy of 'higher' mythological entities obscures the basic human need for recognition and identity. This issues in an unhelpful politics of mobilization and manipulation. Likewise, Voegelin sees both liberal modernity and present-day religion as largely gnostic, closed and ideological versions of the traditions. Secular public policy types the religions as sects. But the autonomy of self-determination arises out of religion and a plausible secularisation thesis would see contemporary culture as containing within it the possibility for a secular expression of the authentic religious tradition - including resistance to sect-like religiosity. The revisionist history suggested here entails a rethink of the image of modernity in terms of a complete break with the pre-secular culture and entails a re-positioning of religion within secular society. (shrink)

La thématique de ce recueil collectif consacré à l' esprit démocratique est mise à l' enseigne du célèbre discours de Benjamin Constant comparant, au nom de l'idéal démocratique, la liberté politique des Anciens et celle qui se décline chez les Modernes. Comme le résume Jean-Marc Narbonne dans l'une de ses conférences : « Dans une démocratie directe [...] la nécessité du sacrifice des intérêts privés au profit du service à la collectivité peut faire craindre la disparition ou l' effacement des (...) aspirations personnelles ; dans une démocratie indirecte, plus encline à promouvoir la poursuite individuelle du bonheur et les bénéfices parti-culiers, c' est en revanche l'intérêt pour la chose publique en général qui risque de faire défaut [...] et qu'il s' agit de préserver. » Pour éviter ce double danger, à savoir l' embrigadement de l'individu d'un côté, la dislocation du lien social de l' autre, il faut combiner et maintenir fermement ensemble, comme le réclamait Constant lui-même, ces deux formes de liberté. Les contributions composant ce premier recueil des Cahiers Verbatim questionnent les liens objectifs entre la démocratie antique et nos démocraties modernes et l'influence, oui ou non déterminante, de celle-là sur ces dernières. LIBERTÉ DES ANCIENS, LIBERTÉ DES MODERNES. (shrink)

Hans Kelsen's thorough critique of Eric Voegelin's "New Science of Politcs" is - in my oppinion - the best commentary on Voegelin that has been written so far.

Published in 1951, The origins of totalitarianism was a quantum leap in Hannah Arendt’s academic career. The book made her one of the most important scholars of Nazi ideology. Arendt’s work also won wide acclaim, partly due to a critical review by Eric Voegelin, which did not remain without responses from the author (both in public and in private correspondence). This paper tries to reconstruct the debates of Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin (including in the articles New science (...) of politics and Some problems of German hegemony) on the origins of Nazism. (shrink)

Revolutionary Gnosticism is a religious–philo- sophical category introduced in the academic debate by the philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901–1985). Starting from his important work, several philosophers and sociologists have adopted Gnosticism as a useful explanatory notion to frame and define numerous modern and contemporary political and cultural movements. The immanentization of the eschaton, which is a renowned Voegelian expression, intimately defines the politico–cultural project of revolutionary Gnosticism. The destruction of the past for the creation of a new world, the last (...) aeon, demarcates the vision of history of revolutionary Gnosticism. Hence, according to a similar Weltanschauung, man replaces God, giving birth to «the idea of a transfiguration of mankind through a process of auto–redemption (grace replaced by revolution)» (Augusto Del Noce). The paper aims to investigate in broad terms the vast time span in which the concept of rev- olutionary Gnosticism has taken shape, from ancient Gnosis to Late Middle Ages, through seventeenth century Puritanism and Jacobinism, until twentieth–century totalitarianisms, eventually suggesting further lines of research. The present study intends to suggest a new interpretation for politico–revolutionary phenomena that have emerged in the whole West and in all epochs, with the purpose of finding a recurrent pattern that reflects one of the most disruptive intellectual engine for radical politics. (shrink)