The political in two Substantiations - The political as conflict
9 important questions on The political in two Substantiations - The political as conflict
How does Schmit view conflict?
Schmitt does not believe in a world without the political;
It is impossible to have no state / or one global state > this would negate the political;
To have only culture, etc. And good people etc....
This is not possible because people are inherently divisive.
What is the difference between Schmitt and Arendt?
Arendt focused on the unpredictable yet creative consequences of political conflict and action.
Plurality is the condition of human action, says Arendt, why?
This sameness in our differences drives us and conditions us in such a way that our actions are what makes us human.
There may be some similarities among us, our distinct experiences make even these shared similarities uniquely individual.
Even the things we have in common will never be exactly the same.
- Higher grades + faster learning
- Never study anything twice
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
What are the similarities between Arendt and Schmitt?
- Both believe that the political belongs to the public realm, because political actions impact all who are involved.
What are the differences between Arendt and Schmitt?
Arendt sees conflict as an opportunity for human action.
Humans are bound by actions through vita activa - our action upon things and people are a part of the human condition and continuously determine the trajectory of human existence.
Our actions are ever present, but they become problematic because they are inherently unpredictable and often irreversible. These actions can result in more unforeseeable conflicts, which propel the existence of the political.
How might we get past these conflicts? What does Arendt suggest?
Forgiveness becomes the linchpin upon which human existence can continue and progress.
"Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we could remain the vitims of its consequences forever."
What does action require according to Arendt?
According to Arendt, the public should be restored and preserved so that agonism and its outcomes can exist, why?
As people are leading more private lives, they are becoming less human. (like the slave wasn't allowed in the public realm and the barbarian did not create a public realm)
It is important to note that the public and the political rests in the pluralistic nature of existence.
Arendt has, like Schmitt, an agonistic view of pluralism, what does this mean for conflict?
For both Schmitt and Arendt conflict begets (verwekt) the political.
Conflict is not destructive, instead it is an unavoidable necessity that provides opportunitiies for actionable solutions in a pluralistic society.
The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:
- A unique study and practice tool
- Never study anything twice again
- Get the grades you hope for
- 100% sure, 100% understanding