Sunday, April 25, 2004
Gottfried on Alan Wolfe on Carl Schmitt
I. A letter
To: Lew Rockwell; Paul Gottfried; persons with an insight
Re: censorship; &c
I have a musing to write, pertaining to the process of publication and to the case under review here.
Alan Wolfe wrote an essay [LINK] published in the Chronicle for Education (?) in which he reviews the political philosphy of Carl Schmitt and its influenced descendants, and, too, the insight it has on contemporary politics. LewRockwell.com has published a letter of Paul Gottfried, professor of political philosophy or something related, addressed to the editors of the Chronicle in objection to what he understands to be a slur and a misinterpretation. The Chronicle apparently declined to publish this letter themselves. The question occurs whether said action constitutes an act of censorship.
* * *
To prevent myself (try and...) from drifting in my writing session here, a list of issues in mind:
II. Thoughts on the subject matter itself, of Wolfe and Schmitt (and Gottfried?)
It is well to review the outline of Gottfried's letter here. He says: Context is everything, and Wolfe has decontextualized my views in his citations. I must note here that I distance my self (Gottfried) from Schmitt in more than a couple of salient ways (points). I must note that Wolfe is erroneous in tying together two quite distinct groups of political adherents, namely, Schmittians and modern-day neoconservatives. Note well, too, that I am -- contrary to Wolfe -- not a neoconservative; far from it. Also: An intellectual sin has been committed by Wolfe as well as by a wider circle of thinkers, in branding the thought of persons such as myself* as extremists, whereas we are in truth advocates of rather moderate positions such as notably with respect to immigration controls and also in our stance on the history or origins of Nazi Germany.
Thus, Gottfried.
Now, Regarding the conflation of Schmittians and neoconservatives, a few comments: Foremost, isn't that question a merely intellectual one and not, as I -- perhaps mistakenly -- understand to be the theme of Gottfried, a question of "indiscriminate digs" and "lashing out" (his words)?
That question aside, some comments on that conflation, or question of that. I, too, wonder about that. And I must here disclaim that I'm very ignorant of Schmitt and much else pertinent to this. But: And this may be jumbled but that's OK:
My interpretation: Schmitt wrote on the metaphysics of politics. Politics is fundamentally about the opposition -- more: antagonism -- between friend and enemy. Politics is therefore a competition for power. Furthermore, it's a conflict over power. He who is my enemy may , in the end, need to be fought with -- without interference of principle. This applies no less to domestic politics than to international politics.
Further (Schmitt): Liberalism is off-base. It promotes adherence to rules as reflections of principled restraint from treating 'one''s opposition as a mere antagonist. This obviously contradicts the reality insofar as the opposition under study is delimited as not merely a subset of humanity what's rather close to 'home' and 'friend',(?) but rather as the entirety of humanity. That is to say, if we understand liberalism to profess that none of humanity is antagonistic to its own party*, then, it thereby pretends to eliminate the reality of the friend/enemy duality.
But perhaps -- as I feel out an impression of this all -- I may have that last remark somewhat backwards. Perhaps Schmitt would emphasize the other side of the coin that is liberalism (let's say) straight and narrow: that liberalism which considers all of humanity as the only political grouping having metaphysical (?) meaning, and which considers -- thereby -- its tenet of principled rules as valid against all opposition. In other words, we are all friends;- with no enemies. The other side of the coin (?) is, do principled rules exist at all? Let me explain.
What I mean by this vague, slippery term here, "the coin" is, conservatism straight and narrow being the other side of < >. This conservatism treats ^all^ humans as enemies, none as friends.
I must say, as my readers will likely wonder aroundabout that whether such a conservatism exists (just as likewise of the liberalism represented above). I do, too. This leads me to what may be my motivating idea. I reckon I don't have it quite well in mind yet, however.
Why can't someone be both a liberal and a conservative? Rather, aren't nearly all humans like that? Like that, only, with a spectrum what's pertinent. I am talking about -- perhaps -- the extent of the domain. (May I import also the term realm, from algebra? I don't deny it.)
Compare [what's here not quite the same as the spectrum thus introduced] -- at one end -- a German homesteader, and at the other end, an Italian merchant. The homesteader (I do hope I didn't now make up or abuse this word) produces everything for himself, from food and clothing to the implements which make them. The merchant does nothing but trade to earn his living. The one [the latter] operates on the political principle of liberalism (and that of principled rules); the other, on that of conservatism (and that of friends and enemies). < >
Enough said on Schmitt. I had been discussing Wolfe on Schmitt against modern-day politics. I had been wishing to say a few things. For one, Wolfe is right [or leastways, he makes sense] that Schmitt has his valuable insight in the respect considered: why conservatives treat liberals as enemies. Why: To them, liberals lie outside of friends and thus outside of the political method of principled rules. Thus Schmitt. But Wolfe goes too (much) in this point.
< >
I. A letter
To: Lew Rockwell; Paul Gottfried; persons with an insight
Re: censorship; &c
I have a musing to write, pertaining to the process of publication and to the case under review here.
Alan Wolfe wrote an essay [LINK] published in the Chronicle for Education (?) in which he reviews the political philosphy of Carl Schmitt and its influenced descendants, and, too, the insight it has on contemporary politics. LewRockwell.com has published a letter of Paul Gottfried, professor of political philosophy or something related, addressed to the editors of the Chronicle in objection to what he understands to be a slur and a misinterpretation. The Chronicle apparently declined to publish this letter themselves. The question occurs whether said action constitutes an act of censorship.
* * *
To prevent myself (try and...) from drifting in my writing session here, a list of issues in mind:
- Wolfe wrote a mere two or three sentences with reference to Gottfried and no more to the movement in which he has been associated by Wolfe (namely, right-wing proponents of Schmittian thought in America). Looking only at the brevity here, it seems it's reasonable for a publication to decline to publish any response of a length quite disproportionately long, as I say is Gottfried's.
- It is true, what Wolfe wrote can be reasonably understood as having been < >
II. Thoughts on the subject matter itself, of Wolfe and Schmitt (and Gottfried?)
It is well to review the outline of Gottfried's letter here. He says: Context is everything, and Wolfe has decontextualized my views in his citations. I must note here that I distance my self (Gottfried) from Schmitt in more than a couple of salient ways (points). I must note that Wolfe is erroneous in tying together two quite distinct groups of political adherents, namely, Schmittians and modern-day neoconservatives. Note well, too, that I am -- contrary to Wolfe -- not a neoconservative; far from it. Also: An intellectual sin has been committed by Wolfe as well as by a wider circle of thinkers, in branding the thought of persons such as myself* as extremists, whereas we are in truth advocates of rather moderate positions such as notably with respect to immigration controls and also in our stance on the history or origins of Nazi Germany.
Thus, Gottfried.
Now, Regarding the conflation of Schmittians and neoconservatives, a few comments: Foremost, isn't that question a merely intellectual one and not, as I -- perhaps mistakenly -- understand to be the theme of Gottfried, a question of "indiscriminate digs" and "lashing out" (his words)?
That question aside, some comments on that conflation, or question of that. I, too, wonder about that. And I must here disclaim that I'm very ignorant of Schmitt and much else pertinent to this. But: And this may be jumbled but that's OK:
My interpretation: Schmitt wrote on the metaphysics of politics. Politics is fundamentally about the opposition -- more: antagonism -- between friend and enemy. Politics is therefore a competition for power. Furthermore, it's a conflict over power. He who is my enemy may , in the end, need to be fought with -- without interference of principle. This applies no less to domestic politics than to international politics.
Further (Schmitt): Liberalism is off-base. It promotes adherence to rules as reflections of principled restraint from treating 'one''s opposition as a mere antagonist. This obviously contradicts the reality insofar as the opposition under study is delimited as not merely a subset of humanity what's rather close to 'home' and 'friend',(?) but rather as the entirety of humanity. That is to say, if we understand liberalism to profess that none of humanity is antagonistic to its own party*, then, it thereby pretends to eliminate the reality of the friend/enemy duality.
But perhaps -- as I feel out an impression of this all -- I may have that last remark somewhat backwards. Perhaps Schmitt would emphasize the other side of the coin that is liberalism (let's say) straight and narrow: that liberalism which considers all of humanity as the only political grouping having metaphysical (?) meaning, and which considers -- thereby -- its tenet of principled rules as valid against all opposition. In other words, we are all friends;- with no enemies. The other side of the coin (?) is, do principled rules exist at all? Let me explain.
What I mean by this vague, slippery term here, "the coin" is, conservatism straight and narrow being the other side of < >. This conservatism treats ^all^ humans as enemies, none as friends.
I must say, as my readers will likely wonder aroundabout that whether such a conservatism exists (just as likewise of the liberalism represented above). I do, too. This leads me to what may be my motivating idea. I reckon I don't have it quite well in mind yet, however.
Why can't someone be both a liberal and a conservative? Rather, aren't nearly all humans like that? Like that, only, with a spectrum what's pertinent. I am talking about -- perhaps -- the extent of the domain. (May I import also the term realm, from algebra? I don't deny it.)
Compare [what's here not quite the same as the spectrum thus introduced] -- at one end -- a German homesteader, and at the other end, an Italian merchant. The homesteader (I do hope I didn't now make up or abuse this word) produces everything for himself, from food and clothing to the implements which make them. The merchant does nothing but trade to earn his living. The one [the latter] operates on the political principle of liberalism (and that of principled rules); the other, on that of conservatism (and that of friends and enemies). < >
Enough said on Schmitt. I had been discussing Wolfe on Schmitt against modern-day politics. I had been wishing to say a few things. For one, Wolfe is right [or leastways, he makes sense] that Schmitt has his valuable insight in the respect considered: why conservatives treat liberals as enemies. Why: To them, liberals lie outside of friends and thus outside of the political method of principled rules. Thus Schmitt. But Wolfe goes too (much) in this point.
< >
Comments:
Post a Comment
