Logic and Carl Schmitt: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SmackBot (talk | contribs)
3,734,324 edits
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes
 
SmackBot (talk | contribs)
3,734,324 edits
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Carl Schmitt''' ([[July 11]] [[1888]]{{ndash}} [[April 7]] [[1985]]) was a [[Germany|German]] [[jurist]], [[political theorist]], and professor of [[law]].
{{otheruses}}
{{portal|Logic}}
'''Logic''' is the study of the principles of valid [[demonstration (proof)|demonstration]] and [[inference]]. The word derives from [[Greek language|Greek]] ''λογική'' (''logike''), fem. of ''λογικός'' (''logikos''), "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", from ''λόγος'' [[logos]], "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle".<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2363716 Logikos, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', at Perseus]</ref><ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=logic&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>


Schmitt published several essays, influential in the 20th century and beyond, on the mentalities that surround the effective wielding of political power. His ideas have attracted the attention of numerous philosophers and political theorists, including [[Walter Benjamin]], [[Leo Strauss]], [[Jacques Derrida]], [[Etienne Balibar]], [[Giorgio Agamben]], [[Paolo Virno]], [[Slavoj Žižek]], [[Alain Badiou]], [[Jacob Taubes]], [[Chantal Mouffe]], and [[Paul Gottfried]]. Much of his work remains controversial today, in part due to his involvement with [[Nazism]].
As a [[formal science]], logic investigates and classifies the structure of [[proposition|statements]] and [[argument]]s, both through the study of [[formal system]]s of [[inference]] and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of [[validity]], [[fallacies]] and [[paradox]]es, to specialized analysis of reasoning using [[probability]] and to arguments involving [[causality]]. Logic is also commonly used today in [[argumentation theory]].<ref> J. Robert Cox and [[Charles Arthur Willard]], eds. ''Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research'', Southern Illinois University Press, 1983 ISBN 0809310503, ISBN 978-0809310500 </ref>


== Biography ==
Traditionally, logic is considered a branch of [[philosophy]], a part of the classical [[Trivium (education)|trivium]] of [[grammar]], logic, and [[rhetoric]]. Since the mid-nineteenth century [[Mathematical logic|''formal logic'']] has been studied in the context of [[foundations of mathematics]], where it was often called [[symbolic logic]]. In 1879 [[Frege]] published [[Begriffsschrift|Begriffsschrift : A formula language or pure thought modelled on that of arithemetic]] which inaugurated modern logic with the invention of [[Quantification|quantifier]] notation. In 1903 [[Alfred North Whitehead]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] attempted to establish logic formally as the cornerstone of mathematics with the publication of [[Principia Mathematica]].<ref name="Principia"> Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, ''Principia Mathematical to *56'', Cambridge University Press, 1967, ISBN 0-521-62606-4 </ref> However, except for the elementary part, the system of Principia is no longer much used, having been largely superseded by [[set theory]]. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} At the same time the developments in the field of Logic since [[Frege]], [[Bertrand Russell|Russell]] and [[Wittgenstein]] had a profound influence on both the practice of philosophy and the ideas concerning the nature of philosophical problems especially in the English speaking world (see [[Analytic philosophy]]). As the study of formal logic expanded, research no longer focused solely on foundational issues, and the study of several resulting areas of mathematics came to be called [[mathematical logic]]. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} The development of formal logic and its implementation in computing machinery is fundamental to [[computer science]]. Logic is now widely taught by university philosophy departments, more often than not as a compulsory discipline for their students, especially in the English speaking world.
===Early years===
Schmitt was born the son of a small businessman in [[Plettenberg]], [[Westphalia]] on July 11, 1888; he studied [[law]] in [[Berlin]], [[Munich]] and [[Strasbourg]] and took his graduation and state exams in the then-German Strasbourg in 1915. In 1916 he married his first wife, Pawla Dorotić, a [[Serbs|Serbian]] woman. They were divorced in 1924. In 1925 he married his second wife, Duška Todorović, also Serbian—they had one daughter, called Anima. <br>
Schmitt had earned his [[habilitation]] in 1916 in Strasbourg. He taught at various business schools and universities - in Munich, Greifswald, Bonn, Berlin, and Cologne.


==Nature of logic==
=== Nazi period ===
Carl Schmitt, who became a professor at the University of [[Berlin]] in 1933 (a position he held until the end of [[World War II]]) joined the [[NSDAP]] on May 1, 1933; he quickly was appointed "''Preußischer Staatsrat''" by [[Hermann Göring]] and became the president of the "''Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen''" ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He thought his theories as an ideological foundation of the [[Nazism|Nazi]] dictatorship, and a justification of the "[[Führer]]" state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of ''[[auctoritas]]''.
Form is central to logic. It complicates exposition that 'formal' in "formal logic" is commonly used in an ambiguous manner. Symbolic logic is just one kind of formal logic, and is distinguished from another kind of formal logic, traditional [[syllogism|Aristotelian syllogistic logic]], which deals solely with [[categorical propositions]].
* '''[[Informal logic]]''' is the study of [[natural language]] [[Logical argument|arguments]]. The study of [[fallacies]] is an especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of [[Plato]]<ref> Plato, ''The Portable Plato'', edited by Scott Buchanan, Penguin, 1976, ISBN 0-14-015040-4 </ref> are a good example of informal logic.
* '''[[Mathematical logic|Formal logic]]''' is the study of [[inference]] with purely formal content, where that content is made explicit. (An inference possesses a ''purely formal content'' if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of [[Aristotle]] contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which were incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic.<ref> Aristotle, ''The Basic Works'', [[Richard Mckeon]], editor, Modern Library, 2001, ISBN 0-375-75799-6, see especially, ''[[Posterior Analytics]]''. </ref> In many definitions of logic, logical [[inference]] and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language.)
* '''[[Symbolic logic]]''' is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.<ref name="Principia"/><ref name="Hamilton"> For a more modern treatment, see A. G. Hamilton, ''Logic for Mathematicians'', Cambridge, 1980, ISBN 0-521-29291-3 </ref> Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches, [[propositional logic]] and [[predicate logic]].
* '''[[Mathematical logic]]''' is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of [[model theory]], [[proof theory]], [[set theory]], and [[recursion theory]].


Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt became editor in chief for the professional newspaper "''Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung''" ("German Jurists' Newspaper"); in July 1934, he justified the political murders of the ''[[Night of the Long Knives]]'' as the "highest form of administrative law" ("''höchste Form administrativer Justiz''"). {{Fact|date=February 2007}} Schmitt presented himself as a radical [[anti-semitism|anti-semite]] and also was the chairman of a law teachers' [[Convention (meeting)|convention]] in [[Berlin]] in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("''jüdischem Geist''"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.
"Formal logic" is often used as a synonym for symbolic logic, where informal logic is then understood to mean any logical investigation that does not involve symbolic abstraction; it is this sense of 'formal' that is parallel to the received usages coming from "[[formal language]]s" or "[[formal theory]]". {{Fact|date=October 2008}} In the broader sense, however, formal logic is old, dating back more than two millennia, while symbolic logic is comparatively new, only about a century old. {{Fact|date=October 2008}}


Nevertheless, in December 1936, the [[SS]] publication ''[[Das schwarze Korps]]'' accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, a Hegelian state thinker and basically a Catholic, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticised the Nazi's racial theories. After this, Schmitt lost most of his prominent offices, and retreated from his position as a leading Nazi jurist, although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin thanks to Göring. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
===Consistency, soundness, and completeness===
Among the valuable properties that [[logical system]]s can have are:
:* '''[[Consistency proof|Consistency]]''', which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another.
:* '''[[Soundness]]''', which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise. If a system is sound and its axioms are true then its theorems are also guaranteed to be true.
:* '''[[Completeness]]''', which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system.


=== Post-World War II ===
Not all systems achieve all three virtues. The work of [[Kurt Gödel]] has shown that no useful system of arithmetic can be both consistent and complete: see [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]].<ref name="Hamilton"/>
In 1945, Schmitt was captured by the [[USA|American]] forces; after spending more than a year in an internment camp, he returned to his home town of [[Plettenberg]] following his release in [[1946]], and later to the house of his housekeeper Anni Stand in Plettenberg-Pasel. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and political community, he continued his studies especially of [[international law]] from the 1950s on, and he received a never-ending stream of visitors, both colleagues and younger intellectuals, until well into his old age. Among these visitors, important are [[Ernst Jünger]], [[Jacob Taubes]], and [[Alexandre Kojève]].


In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in [[Francoist Spain]], two of them giving rise to the publication, the following year, of ''Theory of the Partisan'' (Telos Press, 2007), in which he qualified the [[Spanish civil war]] as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism." Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.
===Rival conceptions of logic===


Schmitt died on April 7, 1985 and is buried in [[Plettenberg]].
Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of [[argumentation]]. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for example the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] says of logic that it "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations" (Hofweber 2004).


==Work==
By contrast, [[Immanuel Kant]] argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgment, an idea taken up in [[Gottlob Frege]]'s logical and philosophical work, where thought (German: ''Gedanke'') is substituted for judgement (German: ''Urteil''). On this conception, the valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgements or thoughts.
===''On Dictatorship''===
In 1921, Schmitt became a professor at the [[University of Greifswald]], where he published his essay "''Die Diktatur''" ("On [[Dictatorship]]"), in which he discussed the foundations of the newly-established [[Weimar Republic]], emphasising the office of the ''[[Reichspräsident]]''. In this essay, Schmitt compared and contrasted what he saw as the effective and ineffective elements of the new constitution of his country. To him, the office of the president could be characterized as a comparatively effective element within the new constitution, because of the power granted to the president to declare a [[state of emergency]]. This power, which Schmitt discussed and implicitly praised as dictatorial, was seen as more effective, more in line with the underlying mentality of political power, than the comparatively slow and ineffective processes of legislative political power reached through parliamentary [[discussion]] and [[compromise]].


Schmitt was at pains to remove what he saw as a squeamish taboo surrounding the concept of "dictatorship" and to show that, in his eyes, the concept is implicit whenever power is wielded through pathways outside the slow and rusty processes of parliamentary politics:
===Deductive and inductive reasoning===


“If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship.”{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
[[Deductive reasoning]] concerns what follows necessarily from given premises. However, [[inductive reasoning]]&mdash;the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations&mdash;has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Correspondingly, we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity (called "[[cogency]]"). An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of [[semantics]]. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal than others; some of these definitions may use [[mathematical model]]s of probability. For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic.


For Schmitt, every government capable of decisive action must include a dictatorial element within its constitution. Although the German concept of ''Ausnahmezustand'' is best translated as "state of emergency", it literally means state of exception which,according to Schmitt, frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply. The use of the term "exceptional" has to be underlined here: Schmitt defines [[sovereignty]] as the power to ''decide'' the instauration of [[state of emergency|state of exception]], as [[Giorgio Agamben]] has noted. According to Agamben<ref>''State of Exception'' (2005), pp. 52-55.</ref>, Schmitt's conceptualization of the "state of exception" as belonging to the core-concept of sovereignty was a response to [[Walter Benjamin]]'s concept of a "pure" or "revolutionary" violence, which didn't enter into any relationship whatsoever with right. Through the state of exception, Carl Schmitt included all types of violence under right. According to Giorgio Agamben, this kind of violence, which necessarily bears a juridical value, is another example of the fusion of right to "bare life" (It. vita nuda, Grk. zoe) that transforms the juridical system into a "death machine," able to perform acts of pure violence as needed for self-legitimation, creating ''[[Homo sacer]], a being that cannot be "murdered" or "sacrificed" but only killed.
==History of logic==
{{main|History of logic}}


Schmitt opposed what he called "chief constable dictature", or the declaration of a state of emergency in order to save the legal order (a temporary suspension of law, defined itself by moral or legal right): the state of emergency is limited (even if ''a posteriori'', by law), to "sovereign dictature", in which law was suspended, as in the classical state of exception, not to "save the [[Constitution]]", but rather to create another Constitution. This is how he theorized [[Hitler]]'s continual suspension of the legal constitutional order during the [[Third Reich]] (the [[Weimar Republic]]'s Constitution was never abrogated, underlined Giorgio Agamben; {{Fact|date=February 2007}} rather, it was "suspended" for four years, first at February 28, 1933 [[Reichstag Fire Decree]], with the suspension renewed every four years, implyng a -- continual -- state of emergency).
Several ancient civilizations have employed intricate systems of reasoning and asked questions about logic or propounded logical paradoxes. In [[Indian logic|India]], the [[Nasadiya Sukta]] of the ''[[Rigveda]]'' ([[RV 10]].129) contains [[ontological]] speculation in terms of various logical divisions that were later recast formally as the four circles of ''[[tetralemma|catuskoti]]'': "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A".{{Fact|date=July 2008}} The Chinese philosopher [[Gongsun Long]] (ca. 325–250 BC) proposed the paradox "One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two."<ref>McGreal 1995, p. 33</ref> In China, the tradition of scholarly investigation into logic, however, was repressed by the [[Qin dynasty]] following the legalist philosophy of [[Han Feizi]].


The direction all this leads, and the reason why Schmitt has been taken so seriously by political theory, is to the theorisation of the crisis and state of emergency as not exceptional moments in political life opposed to some stable normality, but themselves the predominant form of the life of modern nations (according to generation online.org).
The first sustained work on the subject of logic which has survived was that of [[Aristotle]] <ref> Morris Kline, "Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506135-7, p.53 "A major achievement of Aristotle was the founding of the science of logic." </ref> although the Chinese 'School of Names' is recorded as having examined logical puzzles such as "A White Horse is not a Horse" as early as the fifth century BCE. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/ accessed 5 September 2008 </ref>The formally sophisticated treatment{{Fact|date=March 2008}} of modern logic descends from the Greek tradition, the latter mainly being informed from the transmission of [[Aristotelian logic]].


===''Political Theology''===
[[Logic in Islamic philosophy]] also contributed to the development of modern logic, which included the development of "[[Logic in Islamic philosophy#Avicennian logic|Avicennian logic]]" as an alternative to Aristotelian logic. [[Avicenna]]'s system of logic was responsible for the introduction of [[hypothetical syllogism]],<ref name=Goodman>Lenn Evan Goodman (2003), ''Islamic Humanism'', p. 155, [[Oxford University Press]], ISBN 0195135806.</ref> [[Temporal logic|temporal]] [[modal logic]],<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-65928 History of logic: Arabic logic], ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''.</ref><ref>Dr. Lotfollah Nabavi, [http://public.ut.ac.ir/html/fac/lit/articles.html Sohrevardi's Theory of Decisive Necessity and kripke's QSS System], ''Journal of Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences''.</ref> and [[Inductive reasoning|inductive logic]].<ref>[http://www.islamherald.com/asp/explore/science/science_muslim_scientists.asp Science and Muslim Scientists], Islam Herald.</ref><ref>Wael B. Hallaq (1993), ''Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians'', p. 48. [[Oxford University Press]], ISBN 0198240430.</ref> The rise of the [[Ash'ari|Asharite]] school, however, limited original work on [[logic in Islamic philosophy]], though it did continue into the 15th century and had a significant influence on European logic during the [[Renaissance]].
This was followed by another essay in 1922, titled "''Politische Theologie''" ("Political [[Theology]]"); in it, Schmitt, who at the time was working as a professor at the [[University of Bonn]], gave further substance to his authoritarian theories, effectively denying [[free will]] based on a [[Catholic]] world view. The book begins with Schmitt's famous, or notorious, definition: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." By "exception," Schmitt means the appropriate moment for stepping outside the [[rule of law]] in the public interest. (See discussion of "On Dictatorship," above.) Schmitt opposes this definition to those offered by contemporary theorists of sovereignty, particularly [[Hans Kelsen]], whose work is criticized at several points in the essay.


The book's title derives from Schmitt's assertion (in chapter 3) that "all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts" —in other words, that [[political theory]] addresses the state (and sovereignty) in much the same manner as [[theology]] does God.
In India, innovations in the scholastic school, called [[Nyaya]], continued from ancient times into the early 18th century, though it did not survive long into the [[Colonial India|colonial period]]. In the 20th century, western philosophers like Stanislaw Schayer and Klaus Glashoff have tried to explore certain aspects of the [[Indian logic|Indian tradition of logic]]. According to [[Hermann Weyl]] (1929):
<blockquote>Occidental mathematics has in past centuries broken away from the Greek view and followed a course which seems to have originated in India and which has been transmitted, with additions, to us by the Arabs; in it the concept of number appears as logically prior to the concepts of geometry.</blockquote>


A year later, Schmitt supported the emergence of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] power structures in his paper "''Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus''" (roughly: "The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today's [[Parliamentarianism]]", translated as ''The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy'' by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary [[party politics]], in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Schmitt also posits an essential division between the liberal doctrine of [[separation of powers]] and what he holds to be the nature of [[democracy]] itself, the identity of the rulers and the ruled. Although many critics {{Who|date=October 2008}} of Schmitt today take exception to his fundamentally [[authoritarian]] outlook, the idea of incompatibility between liberalism and democracy is one reason for the continued interest in his [[political philosophy]]{{Fact|date=October 2008}}.
During the medieval period, major efforts were made to show that Aristotle's ideas were compatible with [[Christian]] faith. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} During the later period of the Middle Ages, logic became a main focus of philosophers, who would engage in critical logical analyses of philosophical arguments. {{Fact|date=October 2008}}


===''The Concept of the Political''===
==Topics in logic==
Schmitt changed universities in 1926, when he became professor for law at the Handelshochschule in [[Berlin]], and again in 1932, when he accepted a position in [[University of Cologne|Cologne]]. It was in Cologne, too, that he wrote his most famous paper, "''Der Begriff des Politischen''" ("[[The Concept of the Political]]"), in which he developed his theory of "the political". Distinct from party politics, "the political" is the essence of the political. While churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceased to be merely theological when Protestants and Catholics killed one another, becoming instead political). The political is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the most essential to identity. Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between ''friend'' and ''enemy''. This distinction is to be determined "existentially," which is to say that the enemy is whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible." (Schmitt, 1996, p. 27) Such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything. Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning this work, there is broad agreement that ''"The Concept of the Political"'' is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the "other" (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests.) In addition, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force over potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to reach the level of the political, lest civil war result.
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2006}}


===The case "''Preussen contra Reich''"===
===Syllogistic logic===
Apart from his academic functions, in 1932 Schmitt was counsel for the Reich government in the case "''Preussen contra Reich''" wherein the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]]-led government of the state of [[Prussia]] disputed its dismissal by the right-wing [[Franz von Papen|von Papen]] government. Papen was motivated to make this move because Prussia, by far the largest state in [[Germany]], served as a powerful base upon which the political left could draw, and also provided them with institutional power, particularly in the form of the Prussian Police. One of the counsel for the Prussian government was [[Hermann Heller (legal scholar)|Hermann Heller]]. In German history, this struggle leading to the ''de facto'' destruction of federalism in the Weimar republic is known as the "''Preußenschlag''."
{{main|Aristotelian logic}}


==Influence==
The ''[[Organon]]'' was [[Aristotle]]'s body of work on logic, with the ''[[Prior Analytics]]'' constituting the first explicit work in formal logic, introducing the syllogistic. The parts of syllogistic, also known by the name [[term logic]], were the analysis of the judgements into propositions consisting of two terms that are related by one of a fixed number of relations, and the expression of inferences by means of [[syllogism]]s that consisted of two propositions sharing a common term as premise, and a conclusion which was a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises.
Through [[Giorgio Agamben]], [[Chantal Mouffe]] and other writers, Carl Schmitt has become a common reference in recent writings of the intellectual left as well as the right. This debate concerns not only the interpretation of Schmitt’s own positions, but also matters relevant to contemporary politics: the idea that laws of the state cannot strictly limit actions of its [[sovereignty|sovereign]]; the problem of a "[[state of exception]]", etc.


Schmitt’s influence has also recently been seen as consequential for those interested in contemporary [[political theology]], which is much influenced by Schmitt's argument that political concepts are ''secularized theological concepts''. The German-Jewish philosopher [[Jacob Taubes]], for example, engaged Schmitt widely in his study of [[Paul of Tarsus|Saint Paul]], ''The Political Theology of Paul'' (Stanford Univ. Press, 2004). Taubes' understanding of political theology is, however, very different from Schmitt's, and emphasizes the political aspect of theological claims, rather than the religious derivation of political claims.
Aristotle's work was regarded in classical times and from medieval times in Europe and the Middle East as the very picture of a fully worked out system. It was not alone: the [[Stoics]] proposed a system of [[propositional logic]] that was studied by medieval logicians; nor was the perfection of Aristotle's system undisputed; for example the [[problem of multiple generality]] was recognised in medieval times. Nonetheless, problems with syllogistic logic were not seen as being in need of revolutionary solutions.


===Neoconservatism===
Today, some academics claim that Aristotle's system is generally seen as having little more than historical value (though there is some current interest in extending term logics), regarded as made obsolete by the advent of [[sentential logic]] and the [[predicate calculus]]. Others use Aristotle in [[argumentation theory]] to help develop and critically question argumentation schemes that are used in [[artificial intelligence]] and [[legal]] arguments.
{{see|Neoconservatism}}
Neoconservatism, based on [[Leo Strauss]]'s teachings,<ref name="">[http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7335 No More Heroes] by Edward Skidelsky, [[Prospect Magazine]], March 2006</ref> has been accused by critics of being influenced by Schmitt.<ref name="The Return of Carl Schmitt">Legal justification
*[http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/thinking-out-loud-about-john-yoo.html Thinking out loud about John Yoo (and about Carl Schmitt)] by [[Sandy Levinson]], Balkinization, April 12, 2008
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=942865 The Bush Regime from Elections to Detentions: A Moral Economy of Carl Schmitt and Human Rights] by Abraham, David, University of Miami - School of Law, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-20 May 2007
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=870602 Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics] by Kutz, Christopher L., [[University of California]], Berkeley - School of Law (Boalt Hall), UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 870602, December 2005
*[http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html The Return of Carl Schmitt] Scott Horton, Balkinization, November 07, 2005
*[http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002226 Deconstructing John Yoo] by Scott Horton, Harpers, January 23, 2008
*[http://mondediplo.com/2006/09/08democracy The will to undemocratic power] By Philip S Golub, [[Le Monde Diplomatique]], September 2006
*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,259860,00.html The Leo-conservatives] by GERHARD SPÖRL, [[Der Spiegel]], August 04, 2003</ref> Most notably the legal opinions offered by [[John Yoo]] et al. justifying controversial policies -such as introducing [[unlawful combatant]] status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the [[Geneva Conventions]],<ref>War crimes warning
*[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/ Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings] By Michael Isikoff, [[Newsweek]], [[May 19]] [[2004]]
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman Torture and Accountability] by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, [[June 28]] [[2005]]
*[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0128uslawyers.htm US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes] By Grant McCool, [[Lawyers Against the War]], [[Global Policy Forum]], [[January 28]] [[2003]]</ref> [[enhanced interrogation techniques]], [[NSA electronic surveillance program]], [[unitary executive theory]]- in the [[war on terror]] mimic his writings.<ref name="The Return of Carl Schmitt"/>


== Bibliography ==
===Predicate logic===
===English translations of Carl Schmitt===
{{main|Predicate logic}}
Note: a complete bibliography of all English translations of Schmitt's books, articles, essays, and correspondence is available [http://www.theoria.ca/research/files/SchmittEnglish.pdf here].
* ''The Concept of the Political''. [[George D. Schwab]], trans. (University of Chicago Press, 1996; Expanded edition 2006, with an Introduction by Tracy B. Strong). Original publication: 1927, 2nd edn. 1932.
* ''Constitutional Theory''. Jeffrey Seitzer, trans. (Duke University Press, 2007). Original publication: 1928.
* ''The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.'' Ellen Kennedy, trans. (MIT Press, 1988). Original publication: 1923, 2nd edn. 1926.
* ''Four Articles, 1931 – 1938''. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1999). Originally published as part of ''Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar — Genf — Versailles, 1923 – 1939'' (1940).
* ''The Idea of Representation: A Discussion''. E. M. Codd, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1988), reprint of ''The Necessity of Politics'' (1931). Original publication: 1923.
* ''Land and Sea''. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1997). Original publication: 1954.
* ''Legality and Legitimacy''. Jeffrey Seitzer, trans. (Duke University Press, 2004). Original publication: 1932.
* ''The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol''. George D. Schwab & Erna Hilfstein, trans. (Greenwood Press, 1996). Original publication: 1938.
* ''The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum''. G.L. Ulmen, trans. ([http://www.telospress.com Telos Press], 2003). Original publication: 1950.
* ''On the Three Types of Juristic Thought''. Joseph Bendersky, trans. (Praegar, 2004). Original publication: 1934.
* ''Political Romanticism''. Guy Oakes, trans. (MIT Press, 1986). Original publication: 1919, 2nd edn. 1925.
* ''Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty''. George D. Schwab, trans. (MIT Press, 1985)(University of Chicago Press; University of Chicago edition, 2004 with an Introduction by Tracy B. Strong. Original publication: 1922, 2nd edn. 1934.
* ''Roman Catholicism and Political Form''. G. L. Ulmen, trans. (Greenwood Press, 1996). Original publication: 1923.
* ''State, Movement, People'' (includes ''The Question of Legality''). Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 2001). Original publication: ''Staat, Bewegung, Volk'' (1933); ''Das Problem der Legalität'' (1950).
* ''Theory of the Partisan''. G. L. Ulmen, trans. ([http://www.telospress.com Telos Press], 2007). Original publication: 1963; 2nd ed. 1975.
* ''The Tyranny of Values''. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1996). Original publication: 1979.
* ''War/Non-War: A Dilemma''. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 2004). Original publication: 1937.


===Works in German===
Logic as it is studied today is a very different subject to that studied before, and the principal difference is the innovation of predicate logic. Whereas Aristotelian syllogistic logic specified the forms that the relevant part of the involved judgements took, predicate logic allows sentences to be analysed into subject and argument in several different ways, thus allowing predicate logic to solve the [[problem of multiple generality]] that had perplexed medieval logicians. With predicate logic, for the first time, logicians were able to give an account of [[quantifiers]] general enough to express all arguments occurring in natural language.
* ''Über Schuld und Schuldarten. Eine terminologische Untersuchung'', 1910.
* ''Gesetz und Urteil. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Rechtspraxis'', 1912.
* ''Schattenrisse'' (veröffentlicht unter dem Pseudonym ‚Johannes Negelinus, mox Doctor‘, in Zusammenarbeit mit Dr. Fritz Eisler), 1913.
* ''Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen'', 1914.
* ''Theodor Däublers ‚Nordlicht‘: Drei Studien über die Elemente, den Geist und die Aktualität des Werkes'', 1916.
* ''Die Buribunken'', in: ''Summa'' 1/1917/18, 89 ff.
* ''Politische Romantik'', 1919.
* Die Diktatur. Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveränitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf, 1921.
* ''Politische Theologie. Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität'', 1922.
* ''Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus'', 1923.
* ''Römischer Katholizismus und politische Form'', 1923.
* ''Die Rheinlande als Objekt internationaler Politik'', 1925.
* ''Die Kernfrage des Völkerbundes'', 1926.
* ''Der Begriff des Politischen'', in: ''Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik'' 58/1927, 1 ff.
* ''Volksentscheid und Volksbegehren. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Weimarer Verfassung und zur Lehre von der unmittelbaren Demokratie'', 1927.
* ''Verfassungslehre'', 1928.
* ''Hugo Preuß. Sein Staatsbegriff und seine Stellung in der dt. Rechtslehre'', 1930.
* ''Der Völkerbund und das politische Problem der Friedenssicherung'', 1930, 2. erw. Aufl. 1934.
* ''Der Hüter der Verfassung'', 1931.
* ''Der Begriff des Politischen'', 1932 (Erweiterung des Aufsatzes von 1927).
* ''Legalität und Legitimität'', 1932.
* ''Staat, Bewegung, Volk. Die Dreigliederung der politischen Einheit'', 1933.
* ''Das Reichsstatthaltergesetz'', 1933.
* ''Staatsgefüge und Zusammenbruch des Zweiten Reiches. Der Sieg des Bürgers über den Soldaten'', 1934.
* ''Über die drei Arten des rechtswissenschaftlichen Denkens'', 1934.
* ''Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes'', 1938.
* ''Die Wendung zum diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff'', 1938.
* ''Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung und Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht'', 1939.
* ''Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar – Genf – Versailles 1923 – 1939'', 1940 (Aufsatzsammlung).
* ''Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung'', 1942.
* ''Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum'', 1950.
* ''Donoso Cortes in gesamteuropäischer Interpretation'', 1950.
* ''Ex captivitate salus. Erinnerungen der Zeit 1945/47'', 1950.
* ''Die Lage der europäischen Rechtswissenschaft'', 1950.
* ''Das Gespräch über die Macht und den Zugang zum Machthaber'', 1954.
* ''Hamlet oder Hekuba. Der Einbruch der Zeit in das Spiel'', 1956.
* ''Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1924 – 1954'', 1958 (Aufsatzsammlung).
* ''Theorie des Partisanen. Zwischenbemerkung zum Begriff des Politischen'', 1963.
* ''Politische Theologie II. Die Legende von der Erledigung jeder Politischen Theologie'', 1970.
* ''Glossarium. Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951, hrsg.v. Eberhard Freiherr von Medem'', 1991 (posthum).
* ''Das internationale Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges, hrsg.v. Helmut Quaritsch'', 1993 (posthum).
* ''Staat – Großraum – Nomos, hrsg. von Günter Maschke'', 1995 (posthum).
* ''Frieden oder Pazifismus?, hrsg. von Günter Maschke'', 2005 (posthum).
* ''Carl Schmitt: Tagebücher, hrsg. von Ernst Hüsmert'', 2003 ff. (posthum).


===Secondary literature===
The development of predicate logic is usually attributed to [[Gottlob Frege]], who is also credited as one of the founders of [[analytical philosophy]], but the formulation of predicate logic most often used today is the [[first-order logic]] presented in [[Principles of Theoretical Logic]] by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Wilhelm Ackermann]] in 1928. The analytical generality of the predicate logic allowed the formalisation of mathematics, and drove the investigation of [[set theory]], allowed the development of [[Alfred Tarski]]'s approach to [[model theory]]; it is no exaggeration to say that it is the foundation of modern [[mathematical logic]].
* [[Giorgio Agamben]], ''[[Homo Sacer]]: Sovereign Power and Bare Life'' (1998).
* [[Giorgio Agamben]], ''State of Exception'' (2005).
* Gopal Balakrishnan, ''The Enemy'' (2000). Reviewed [http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.5/br_150.html here].
* Eckard Bolsinger, The Autonomy of the Political: Carl Schmitt's and Lenin's Political Realism (2001)
* [[Jacques Derrida]], "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority'," in ''Acts of Religion'' (2002).
* [[Jacques Derrida]], ''Politics of Friendship'' (1997).
* [[Michael Hardt]] & [[Antonio Negri]], ''[[Empire (book)|Empire]]'' (2000).
* [[Chantal Mouffe]] (ed.), ''The Challenge of Carl Schmitt'' (1999).
* Ingo Müller (Deborah Lucas Schneider trans.) (1991). ''Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich'' (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) ISBN 067440419X
* Ojakangas Mika, ''A Philosophy of Concrete Life: Carl Schmitt and the political thought of late modernity'' (2nd ed Peter Lang, 2006), ISBN 3039109634
* Ignaz Zangerle, "Zur Situation der Kirche," ''Der Brenner'' 14 (1933/34): 52 ff.


== See also ==
Frege's original system of predicate logic was not first-, but second-order. [[Second-order logic]] is most prominently defended (against the criticism of [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] and others) by [[George Boolos]] and [[Stewart Shapiro]].
* [[Streitbare Demokratie]]


===Modal logic===
== References ==
{{main|Modal logic}}

In languages, [[modality]] deals with the phenomenon that sub-parts of a sentence may have their semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For example, "''We go to the games''" can be modified to give "''We should go to the games''", and "''We can go to the games''"" and perhaps "''We will go to the games''". More abstractly, we might say that modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be satisfied.

The logical study of modality dates back to [[Aristotle]], who was concerned with the [[alethic modalities]] of necessity and possibility, which he observed to be dual in the sense of [[De Morgan duality]]. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} While the study of necessity and possibility remained important to philosophers, little logical innovation happened until the landmark investigations of [[Clarence Irving Lewis]] in 1918, who formulated a family of rival axiomatizations of the alethic modalities. His work unleashed a torrent of new work on the topic, expanding the kinds of modality treated to include [[deontic logic]] and [[epistemic logic]]. The seminal work of [[Arthur Prior]] applied the same formal language to treat [[temporal logic]] and paved the way for the marriage of the two subjects. [[Saul Kripke]] discovered (contemporaneously with rivals) his theory of [[frame semantics]] which revolutionised the formal technology available to modal logicians and gave a new [[graph theory|graph-theoretic]] way of looking at modality that has driven many applications in [[computational linguistics]] and [[computer science]], such as [[dynamic logic]].

===Deduction and reasoning===
{{main|Deductive reasoning}}

The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear: it is so that one may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments, and so become more effective in argument and oratory, and perhaps also, to become a better person.

This motivation is still alive, although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic; typically [[dialectic]]al logic will form the heart of a course in [[critical thinking]], a compulsory course at many universities, especially those that follow the American model.

===Mathematical logic===
{{main|Mathematical logic}}

Mathematical logic really refers to two distinct areas of research: the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic. {{Fact|date=October 2008}}

The earliest use of mathematics and [[geometry]] in relation to logic and philosophy goes back to the ancient Greeks such as [[Euclid]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]]. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} Many other ancient and medieval philosophers applied mathematical ideas and methods to their philosophical claims. {{Fact|date=October 2008}}

The boldest attempt to apply logic to mathematics was undoubtedly the [[logicism]] pioneered by philosopher-logicians such as [[Gottlob Frege]] and [[Bertrand Russell]]: the idea was that mathematical theories were logical tautologies, and the programme was to show this by means to a reduction of mathematics to logic.<ref name="Principia">Whitehead & Russell, "Chapter I: Preliminary Explanations of Ideas and Notation"</ref> The various attempts to carry this out met with a series of failures, from the crippling of Frege's project in his ''Grundgesetze'' by [[Russell's paradox]], to the defeat of [[Hilbert's program]] by [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]]s.

Both the statement of Hilbert's program and its refutation by Gödel depended upon their work establishing the second area of mathematical logic, the application of mathematics to logic in the form of [[proof theory]].<ref>Mendelson, "Formal Number Theory: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem"</ref> Despite the negative nature of the incompleteness theorems, [[Gödel's completeness theorem]], a result in [[model theory]] and another application of mathematics to logic, can be understood as showing how close logicism came to being true: every rigorously defined mathematical theory can be exactly captured by a first-order logical theory; Frege's [[proof calculus]] is enough to ''describe'' the whole of mathematics, though not ''equivalent'' to it. Thus we see how complementary the two areas of mathematical logic have been.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

If [[proof theory]] and [[model theory]] have been the foundation of mathematical logic, they have been but two of the four pillars of the subject. [[Set theory]] originated in the study of the infinite by [[Georg Cantor]], and it has been the source of many of the most challenging and important issues in mathematical logic, from [[Cantor's theorem]], through the status of the [[Axiom of Choice]] and the question of the independence of the [[continuum hypothesis]], to the modern debate on [[large cardinal]] axioms.

[[Recursion theory]] captures the idea of computation in logical and [[arithmetic]] terms; its most classical achievements are the undecidability of the [[Entscheidungsproblem]] by [[Alan Turing]], and his presentation of the [[Church-Turing thesis]].<ref>Brookshear, "Computability: Foundations of Recursive Function Theory"</ref> Today recursion theory is mostly concerned with the more refined problem of [[complexity class]]es — when is a problem efficiently solvable? — and the classification of [[Turing degree|degrees of unsolvability]].<ref>Brookshear, "Complexity"</ref>

===Philosophical logic===
{{main|Philosophical logic}}

[[Philosophical logic]] deals with formal descriptions of natural language. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic. Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before the invention of mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard logics (e.g., [[free logic]]s, [[tense logic]]s) as well as various extensions of [[classical logic]] (e.g., [[modal logic]]s), and non-standard semantics for such logics (e.g., [[Kripke]]'s technique of supervaluations in the semantics of logic).

Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study. Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help a person better structure their own arguments and critique the arguments of others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people are untrained in logic and unaware of how to correctly formulate an argument.

===Logic and computation===
{{main|Logic in computer science}}

Logic cut to the heart of computer science as it emerged as a discipline: [[Alan Turing]]'s work on the [[Entscheidungsproblem]] followed from [[Kurt Gödel]]'s work on the [[incompleteness theorems]], and the notion of general purpose computers that came from this work was of fundamental importance to the designers of the computer machinery in the 1940s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers predicted that when human knowledge could be expressed using logic with [[mathematical notation]], it would be possible to create a machine that reasons, or artificial intelligence. This turned out to be more difficult than expected because of the complexity of human reasoning. In [[logic programming]], a program consists of a set of axioms and rules. Logic programming systems such as [[Prolog]] compute the consequences of the axioms and rules in order to answer a query.

Today, logic is extensively applied in the fields of [[artificial intelligence]], and [[computer science]], and these fields provide a rich source of problems in formal and informal logic. [[Argumentation theory]] is one good example of how logic is being applied to artificial intelligence. The [[ACM Computing Classification System]] in particular regards:
* Section F.3 on [[Logics and meanings of programs]] and F. 4 on [[Mathematical logic and formal languages]] as part of the theory of computer science: this work covers [[formal semantics of programming languages]], as well as work of [[formal methods]] such as [[Hoare logic]]
* [[Boolean logic]] as fundamental to computer hardware: particularly, the system's section B.2 on [[Arithmetic and logic structures]], relating to operatives AND, NOT, and OR;
* Many fundamental logical formalisms are essential to section I.2 on artificial intelligence, for example [[modal logic]] and [[default logic]] in [[Knowledge representation formalisms and methods]], [[Horn clause]]s in [[logic programming]], and [[description logic]].

Furthermore, computers can be used as tools for logicians. For example, in symbolic logic and mathematical logic, proofs by humans can be computer-assisted. Using [[automated theorem proving]] the machines can find and check proofs, as well as work with proofs too lengthy to be written out by hand.

===Argumentation theory===

[[Argumentation theory]] is the study and research of informal logic, fallacies, and critical questions as they relate to every day and practical situations. Specific types of dialogue can be analyzed and questioned to reveal premises, conclusions, and fallacies. Argumentation theory is now applied in [[artificial intelligence]] and [[law]].

==Criticisms of logic==

A number of philosophers have made major criticisms of logic in general, but most especially, perhaps, of [[formal logic]]: [[Nietzsche]]: "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world." <ref>Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, trans Kaufmann “On First and Last Things,” section 11 (1878).</ref>

Half a century before Nietzsche, [[Hegel]] was deeply critical of any simplified notion of the [[Law of Non-Contradiction]]. It was based on [[Leibniz]]'s idea that this law of logic also requires a sufficient ground in order to specify from what point of view (or time) one says that something cannot contradict itself, a building for example both moves and does not move, the ground for the first is our solar system for the second the earth. In Hegelian dialectic the law of non-contradiction, of identity, itself relies upon difference and so is not independently assertable.

Hegel developed his own [[Hegelian dialectic|dialectic logic]] that extended [[Kant]]'s transcendental logic but also brought it back to ground by assuring us that "neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either--or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself"<ref>Hegel's Philosophy of Mind: Being Part Three of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, trans. William Wallace, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) p. 174 </ref>

==Controversies in logic==

Just as we have seen there is disagreement over what logic is about, so there is disagreement about what logical truths there are.

===Bivalence and the law of the excluded middle===
{{main|Classical logic}}
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2006}}

The logics discussed above are all "[[Principle of bivalence|bivalent]]" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into the true and the false propositions. Systems which reject bivalence are known as [[non-classical logic]]s.

In 1910 [[Nicolai A. Vasiliev]] rejected the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction and proposed the law of excluded fourth and logic tolerant to contradiction. {{Fact|date=October 2008}} In the early 20th century [[Jan Łukasiewicz]] investigated the extension of the traditional true/false values to include a third value, "possible", so inventing [[ternary logic]], the first [[multi-valued logic]]. {{Fact|date=October 2008}}

Logics such as [[fuzzy logic]] have since been devised with an infinite number of "degrees of truth", represented by a [[real number]] between 0 and 1.

[[Intuitionistic logic]] was proposed by [[L.E.J. Brouwer]] as the correct logic for reasoning about mathematics, based upon his rejection of the [[law of the excluded middle]] as part of his [[intuitionism]]. Brouwer rejected formalisation in mathematics, but his student [[Arend Heyting]] studied intuitionistic logic formally, as did [[Gerhard Gentzen]]. Intuitionistic logic has come to be of great interest to computer scientists, as it is a [[constructive logic]], and is hence a logic of what computers can do.

[[Modal logic]] is not truth conditional, and so it has often been proposed as a non-classical logic. However, modal logic is normally formalised with the principle of the excluded middle, and its [[relational semantics]] is bivalent, so this inclusion is disputable. On the other hand, modal logic can be used to encode non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic logic.

[[Bayesian probability]] can be interpreted as a system of logic where probability is the subjective truth value.

===Implication: strict or material?===
{{main|Paradox of entailment}}

It is obvious that the notion of implication formalised in classical logic does not comfortably translate into natural language by means of "if… then…", due to a number of
problems called the ''paradoxes of material implication''.

The first class of paradoxes involves counterfactuals, such as "If the moon is made of green cheese, then 2+2=5", which are puzzling because natural language does not support the [[principle of explosion]]. Eliminating this class of paradoxes was the reason for [[C. I. Lewis]]'s formulation of [[strict implication]], which eventually led to more radically revisionist logics such as [[relevance logic]].

The second class of paradoxes involves redundant premises, falsely suggesting that we know the succedent because of the antecedent: thus "if that man gets elected, granny will die" is materially true if granny happens to be in the last stages of a terminal illness, regardless of the man's election prospects. Such sentences violate the [[Gricean maxim]] of relevance, and can be modelled by logics that reject the principle of [[monotonicity of entailment]], such as relevance logic.

===Tolerating the impossible===
{{main|Paraconsistent logic}}

Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the radical suggestion that logic ought to tolerate [[inconsistency]]. [[Relevance logic]] and [[paraconsistent logic]] are the most important approaches here, though the concerns are different: a key consequence of [[classical logic]] and some of its rivals, such as [[intuitionistic logic]], is that they respect the [[principle of explosion]], which means that the logic collapses if it is capable of deriving a contradiction. [[Graham Priest]], the main proponent of [[dialetheism]], has argued for paraconsistency on the grounds that there are in fact, true contradictions.<ref>[[Graham Priest|Priest, Graham]] (2004), "Dialetheism", ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism.</ref>

===Is logic empirical?===
{{main|Is logic empirical?}}
What is the [[Epistemology|epistemological]] status of the [[laws of logic]]? What sort of argument is appropriate for criticising purported principles of logic? In an influential paper entitled "Is logic empirical?"<ref>Putnam, H. (1969), "Is Logic Empirical?", ''Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science''. 5.
</ref> [[Hilary Putnam]], building on a suggestion of [[W.V. Quine]], argued that in general the facts of propositional logic have a similar epistemological status as facts about the physical universe, for example as the laws of [[mechanics]] or of [[general relativity]], and in particular that what physicists have learned about quantum mechanics provides a compelling case for abandoning certain familiar principles of classical logic: if we want to be [[philosophical realism|realists]] about the physical phenomena described by quantum theory, then we should abandon the [[principle of distributivity]], substituting for classical logic the [[quantum logic]] proposed by [[Garrett Birkhoff]] and [[John von Neumann]].<ref>Birkhoff, G., and von Neumann, J. (1936), "The Logic of Quantum Mechanics", ''[[Annals of Mathematics]]'' 37, 823–843.</ref>

Another paper by the same name by [[Sir Michael Dummett]] argues that Putnam's desire for realism mandates the law of distributivity.<ref>Dummett, M. (1978), "Is Logic Empirical?", ''Truth and Other Enigmas''. ISBN 0-674-91076-1
</ref> Distributivity of logic is essential for the realist's understanding of how propositions are true of the world in just the same way as he has argued the principle of bivalence is. In this way, the question, "Is logic empirical?" can be seen to lead naturally into the fundamental controversy in [[metaphysics]] on [[realism versus anti-realism]].

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


== External links ==
==References==
{{wikiquote}}
* Brookshear, J. Glenn (1989), ''Theory of computation : formal languages, automata, and complexity'', Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., Redwood City, Calif. ISBN 0805301437
* {{PND|11860922X}}
* [[Robert S. Cohen|Cohen, R.S]], and [[Marx W. Wartofsky|Wartofsky, M.W.]] (1974), ''Logical and Epistemological Studies in Contemporary Physics'', Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Netherlands. ISBN 90-277-0377-9.
* [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html The Return of Carl Schmitt] by Scott Horton ''Balkinization'' 7 November 2005 — discusses the continuing influence of Schmitt's legal theories in modern American politics
* Finkelstein, D. (1969), "Matter, Space, and Logic", in R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky (eds. 1974).
* Focus on the [http://www.ljil.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=187 International Theory of Carl Schmitt] in the [http://www.ljil.leidenuniv.nl/ ''Leiden Journal of International Law'' (LJIL)]. Contributions by Louiza Odysseos and Fabio Petito, Robert Howse, Jörg Friedrichs, Christoph Burchard and Thalin Zarmanian.
* Gabbay, D.M., and Guenthner, F. (eds., 2001–2005), ''Handbook of Philosophical Logic'', 13 vols., 2nd edition, Kluwer Publishers, Dordrecht.
* [[TELOS (journal)|TELOS]], a journal of politics and critical theory, has published numerous articles both by and about Carl Schmitt, including special sections on Schmitt in issues 72 (Summer 1987), 109 (Fall 1996), 125 (Fall 2002), 132 (Fall 2005), and 142 (Spring 2008). Telos Press has also published English translations of Schmitt's ''The ''Nomos'' of the Earth'' (2003) and ''Theory of the Partisan'' (2007).
* [[Vincent F. Hendricks]], ''Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression'', New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8.
* "World Orders: Confronting Carl Schmitt's ''The'' Nomos ''of the Earth''." A special issue of ''[http://www.dukeupress.edu/saq SAQ: South Atlantic Quarterly]'', volume 104, number 2. William Rasch, special issue editor.
* [[David Hilbert|Hilbert, D.]], and [[Wilhelm Ackermann|Ackermann, W]]. (1928), ''Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik'' (''[[Principles of Theoretical Logic]]''), Springer-Verlag. [http://worldcat.org/oclc/2085765 OCLC 2085765]
* " [http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i30/30b01601.htm A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics]" by [[Alan Wolfe]]. ''Chronicle of Higher Education'', April 2, 2004
* Hodges, W. (2001), ''Logic. An introduction to Elementary Logic'', Penguin Books.
* [http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=191 "Carl Schmitt and Nuremberg"] by Joseph W. Bendersky, [[TELOS (journal)|Telos Press]], July 19, 2007.
* Hofweber, T. (2004), "Logic and Ontology", ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', [[Edward N. Zalta]] (ed.), [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/ Eprint].
* Hughes, R.I.G. (ed., 1993), ''A Philosophical Companion to First-Order Logic'', Hackett Publishing.
* [[William Kneale|Kneale, William]], and [[Martha Kneale|Kneale, Martha]], (1962), ''The Development of Logic'', Oxford University Press, London, UK.
* Mendelson, Elliott (1964), ''Introduction to Mathematical Logic'', Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Monterey, Calif. [http://worldcat.org/oclc/13580200 OCLC 13580200]
* [[Barry Smith|Smith, B.]] (1989), "Logic and the Sachverhalt", ''The Monist'' 72(1), 52–69.
* [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead, Alfred North]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] (1910), [[Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], The University Press, Cambridge, England. [http://worldcat.org/oclc/1041146 OCLC 1041146]
* Raymond m. Smullyan, ''First-order logic''

== Further reading ==
* The [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/ London Philosophy Study Guide] offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject:
**[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/L&M.htm Logic & Metaphysics]
**[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/SetTheory.htm Set Theory and Further Logic]
**[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/MathLogic.htm Mathematical Logic]
*[[Lewis Carroll|Carroll, Lewis]]
**[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4763 "The Game of Logic"], 1886. [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/LewisCarroll/index.shtml]
**[http://durendal.org:8080/lcsl/ "Symbolic Logic"], 1896.
*Samuel D. Guttenplan, Samuel D., Tamny, Martin, "Logic, a Comprehensive Introduction", Basic Books, 1971.
*[[Michael Scriven|Scriven, Michael]], "Reasoning", McGraw-Hill, 1976, ISBN 0-07-055882-5
*[[Susan Haack]]. (1996).'' Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism'', University of Chicago Press.
*Nicolas [[Rescher]]. (1964). ''Introduction to Logic'', St. Martin's Press.

==See also==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Aristotle]]
* [[Artificial intelligence]]
* [[Deductive reasoning]]
* [[Digital electronics]] (also known as ''digital logic'')
* [[Indian Logic]]
* [[Inductive reasoning]]
* [[Logic puzzle]]
* [[Logical consequence]]
* [[Mathematical logic]]
* [[Mathematics]]
** [[List of basic mathematics topics]]
** [[List of mathematics articles]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Philosophy]]
** [[List of basic philosophy topics]]
** [[List of philosophy topics]]
* [[Probabilistic logic]]
* [[Propositional logic]]
* [[Reason]]
* [[Straight and Crooked Thinking]] (book)
* [[Table of logic symbols]]
* [[Term logic]]
* [[Truth]]
** [[Truth theory]]
{{col-end}}


<!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] -->
==External links==
{{Sisterlinks|Logic}}
* {{wikia|logic|LogicWiki}}
* [http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43782 An Introduction to Philosophical Logic], by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
* [http://www.fecundity.com/logic/ forall x: an introduction to formal logic], by P.D. Magnus, covers sentential and quantified logic.
* [http://www.filozofia.uw.edu.pl/kpaprzycka/Publ/xLogicSelfTaught.html Logic Self-Taught: A Workbook] (originally prepared for on-line logic instruction).
* [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/DicHist/analytic/anaVII.html Math & Logic: The history of formal mathematical, logical, linguistic and methodological ideas.] In ''The Dictionary of the History of Ideas.''
* [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm Translation Tips], by Peter Suber, for translating from English into logical notation.


{{Logic}}
{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Philosophy topics}}


{{Persondata
[[Category:Philosophy of mathematics]]
|NAME= Schmitt, Carl
[[Category:Logic| ]]
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=
[[Category:Branches of philosophy]]
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=[[Germany|German]] jurist, [[political theorist]], and professor of law
[[Category:Abstraction]]
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[July 11]] [[1888]]
[[Category:Interdisciplinary fields]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Plettenberg]], [[Westphalia]]
[[Category:Formal sciences]]
|DATE OF DEATH=[[April 7]] [[1985]]
[[Category:Greek loanwords]]
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schmitt, Carl}}
[[Category:1888 births]]
[[Category:1985 deaths]]
[[Category:Political theorists]]
[[Category:German political scientists]]
[[Category:German jurists]]
[[Category:Geopoliticians]]
[[Category:People from the Province of Westphalia]]
[[Category:University of Bonn faculty]]
[[Category:University of Greifswald faculty]]
[[Category:Philosophers of law]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]


{{Link FA|ro}}
[[af:Logika]]
<!--Other languages-->
[[ar:منطق]]
[[an:Lochica]]
[[cs:Carl Schmitt]]
[[az:Məntiq]]
[[de:Carl Schmitt]]
[[et:Carl Schmitt]]
[[bn:যুক্তি]]
[[es:Carl Schmitt]]
[[be-x-old:Лёгіка]]
[[bs:Logika]]
[[fr:Carl Schmitt]]
[[bg:Логика]]
[[ko:카를 슈미트]]
[[ca:Lògica]]
[[it:Carl Schmitt]]
[[cv:Логика]]
[[he:קרל שמיט]]
[[cs:Logika]]
[[nl:Carl Schmitt]]
[[ja:カール・シュミット]]
[[co:Logica]]
[[da:Logik]]
[[no:Carl Schmitt]]
[[de:Logik]]
[[pl:Carl Schmitt]]
[[et:Loogika]]
[[pt:Carl Schmitt]]
[[es:Lógica]]
[[ro:Carl Schmitt]]
[[ru:Шмитт, Карл]]
[[eo:Logiko]]
[[eu:Logika]]
[[fi:Carl Schmitt]]
[[fa:منطق]]
[[sv:Carl Schmitt]]
[[fr:Logique]]
[[zh:卡尔·施米特]]
[[fy:Logika]]
[[gl:Lóxica]]
[[zh-classical:理則]]
[[ko:논리학]]
[[hi:तर्क]]
[[hr:Logika]]
[[io:Logiko]]
[[id:Logika]]
[[ia:Logica]]
[[ie:Logica]]
[[is:Rökfræði]]
[[it:Logica]]
[[he:לוגיקה]]
[[ka:ლოგიკა]]
[[la:Logica]]
[[lv:Loģika]]
[[lb:Logik]]
[[lt:Logika]]
[[hu:Logika]]
[[mk:Логика]]
[[ms:Logik]]
[[nl:Logica]]
[[ja:論理学]]
[[no:Logikk]]
[[nov:Logike]]
[[oc:Logica]]
[[uz:Mantiq]]
[[nds:Logik]]
[[pl:Logika]]
[[pt:Lógica]]
[[ro:Logică]]
[[ru:Логика]]
[[scn:Lòggica]]
[[simple:Logic]]
[[sk:Logika]]
[[sl:Logika]]
[[sr:Логика]]
[[sh:Logika]]
[[su:Logika]]
[[fi:Logiikka]]
[[sv:Logik]]
[[tl:Lohika]]
[[th:ตรรกศาสตร์]]
[[vi:Logic]]
[[tg:Мантиқ]]
[[tpi:Lajik]]
[[tr:Mantık]]
[[tk:Logika]]
[[uk:Логіка]]
[[fiu-vro:Loogiga]]
[[wa:Lodjike]]
[[yi:לאגיק]]
[[zh:逻辑]]

Revision as of 21:37, 10 October 2008

Carl Schmitt (July 11 1888– April 7 1985) was a German jurist, political theorist, and professor of law.

Schmitt published several essays, influential in the 20th century and beyond, on the mentalities that surround the effective wielding of political power. His ideas have attracted the attention of numerous philosophers and political theorists, including Walter Benjamin, Leo Strauss, Jacques Derrida, Etienne Balibar, Giorgio Agamben, Paolo Virno, Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou, Jacob Taubes, Chantal Mouffe, and Paul Gottfried. Much of his work remains controversial today, in part due to his involvement with Nazism.

Biography

Early years

Schmitt was born the son of a small businessman in Plettenberg, Westphalia on July 11, 1888; he studied law in Berlin, Munich and Strasbourg and took his graduation and state exams in the then-German Strasbourg in 1915. In 1916 he married his first wife, Pawla Dorotić, a Serbian woman. They were divorced in 1924. In 1925 he married his second wife, Duška Todorović, also Serbian—they had one daughter, called Anima.
Schmitt had earned his habilitation in 1916 in Strasbourg. He taught at various business schools and universities - in Munich, Greifswald, Bonn, Berlin, and Cologne.

Nazi period

Carl Schmitt, who became a professor at the University of Berlin in 1933 (a position he held until the end of World War II) joined the NSDAP on May 1, 1933; he quickly was appointed "Preußischer Staatsrat" by Hermann Göring and became the president of the "Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen" ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He thought his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the "Führer" state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of auctoritas.

Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt became editor in chief for the professional newspaper "Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung" ("German Jurists' Newspaper"); in July 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives as the "highest form of administrative law" ("höchste Form administrativer Justiz"). [citation needed] Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("jüdischem Geist"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.

Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, a Hegelian state thinker and basically a Catholic, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticised the Nazi's racial theories. After this, Schmitt lost most of his prominent offices, and retreated from his position as a leading Nazi jurist, although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin thanks to Göring. [citation needed]

Post-World War II

In 1945, Schmitt was captured by the American forces; after spending more than a year in an internment camp, he returned to his home town of Plettenberg following his release in 1946, and later to the house of his housekeeper Anni Stand in Plettenberg-Pasel. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and political community, he continued his studies especially of international law from the 1950s on, and he received a never-ending stream of visitors, both colleagues and younger intellectuals, until well into his old age. Among these visitors, important are Ernst Jünger, Jacob Taubes, and Alexandre Kojève.

In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of them giving rise to the publication, the following year, of Theory of the Partisan (Telos Press, 2007), in which he qualified the Spanish civil war as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism." Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.

Schmitt died on April 7, 1985 and is buried in Plettenberg.

Work

On Dictatorship

In 1921, Schmitt became a professor at the University of Greifswald, where he published his essay "Die Diktatur" ("On Dictatorship"), in which he discussed the foundations of the newly-established Weimar Republic, emphasising the office of the Reichspräsident. In this essay, Schmitt compared and contrasted what he saw as the effective and ineffective elements of the new constitution of his country. To him, the office of the president could be characterized as a comparatively effective element within the new constitution, because of the power granted to the president to declare a state of emergency. This power, which Schmitt discussed and implicitly praised as dictatorial, was seen as more effective, more in line with the underlying mentality of political power, than the comparatively slow and ineffective processes of legislative political power reached through parliamentary discussion and compromise.

Schmitt was at pains to remove what he saw as a squeamish taboo surrounding the concept of "dictatorship" and to show that, in his eyes, the concept is implicit whenever power is wielded through pathways outside the slow and rusty processes of parliamentary politics:

“If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship.”[citation needed]

For Schmitt, every government capable of decisive action must include a dictatorial element within its constitution. Although the German concept of Ausnahmezustand is best translated as "state of emergency", it literally means state of exception which,according to Schmitt, frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply. The use of the term "exceptional" has to be underlined here: Schmitt defines sovereignty as the power to decide the instauration of state of exception, as Giorgio Agamben has noted. According to Agamben[1], Schmitt's conceptualization of the "state of exception" as belonging to the core-concept of sovereignty was a response to Walter Benjamin's concept of a "pure" or "revolutionary" violence, which didn't enter into any relationship whatsoever with right. Through the state of exception, Carl Schmitt included all types of violence under right. According to Giorgio Agamben, this kind of violence, which necessarily bears a juridical value, is another example of the fusion of right to "bare life" (It. vita nuda, Grk. zoe) that transforms the juridical system into a "death machine," able to perform acts of pure violence as needed for self-legitimation, creating Homo sacer, a being that cannot be "murdered" or "sacrificed" but only killed.

Schmitt opposed what he called "chief constable dictature", or the declaration of a state of emergency in order to save the legal order (a temporary suspension of law, defined itself by moral or legal right): the state of emergency is limited (even if a posteriori, by law), to "sovereign dictature", in which law was suspended, as in the classical state of exception, not to "save the Constitution", but rather to create another Constitution. This is how he theorized Hitler's continual suspension of the legal constitutional order during the Third Reich (the Weimar Republic's Constitution was never abrogated, underlined Giorgio Agamben; [citation needed] rather, it was "suspended" for four years, first at February 28, 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, with the suspension renewed every four years, implyng a -- continual -- state of emergency).

The direction all this leads, and the reason why Schmitt has been taken so seriously by political theory, is to the theorisation of the crisis and state of emergency as not exceptional moments in political life opposed to some stable normality, but themselves the predominant form of the life of modern nations (according to generation online.org).

Political Theology

This was followed by another essay in 1922, titled "Politische Theologie" ("Political Theology"); in it, Schmitt, who at the time was working as a professor at the University of Bonn, gave further substance to his authoritarian theories, effectively denying free will based on a Catholic world view. The book begins with Schmitt's famous, or notorious, definition: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." By "exception," Schmitt means the appropriate moment for stepping outside the rule of law in the public interest. (See discussion of "On Dictatorship," above.) Schmitt opposes this definition to those offered by contemporary theorists of sovereignty, particularly Hans Kelsen, whose work is criticized at several points in the essay.

The book's title derives from Schmitt's assertion (in chapter 3) that "all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts" —in other words, that political theory addresses the state (and sovereignty) in much the same manner as theology does God.

A year later, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper "Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus" (roughly: "The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today's Parliamentarianism", translated as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary party politics, in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Schmitt also posits an essential division between the liberal doctrine of separation of powers and what he holds to be the nature of democracy itself, the identity of the rulers and the ruled. Although many critics [who?] of Schmitt today take exception to his fundamentally authoritarian outlook, the idea of incompatibility between liberalism and democracy is one reason for the continued interest in his political philosophy[citation needed].

The Concept of the Political

Schmitt changed universities in 1926, when he became professor for law at the Handelshochschule in Berlin, and again in 1932, when he accepted a position in Cologne. It was in Cologne, too, that he wrote his most famous paper, "Der Begriff des Politischen" ("The Concept of the Political"), in which he developed his theory of "the political". Distinct from party politics, "the political" is the essence of the political. While churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceased to be merely theological when Protestants and Catholics killed one another, becoming instead political). The political is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the most essential to identity. Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined "existentially," which is to say that the enemy is whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible." (Schmitt, 1996, p. 27) Such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything. Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning this work, there is broad agreement that "The Concept of the Political" is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the "other" (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests.) In addition, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force over potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to reach the level of the political, lest civil war result.

The case "Preussen contra Reich"

Apart from his academic functions, in 1932 Schmitt was counsel for the Reich government in the case "Preussen contra Reich" wherein the SPD-led government of the state of Prussia disputed its dismissal by the right-wing von Papen government. Papen was motivated to make this move because Prussia, by far the largest state in Germany, served as a powerful base upon which the political left could draw, and also provided them with institutional power, particularly in the form of the Prussian Police. One of the counsel for the Prussian government was Hermann Heller. In German history, this struggle leading to the de facto destruction of federalism in the Weimar republic is known as the "Preußenschlag."

Influence

Through Giorgio Agamben, Chantal Mouffe and other writers, Carl Schmitt has become a common reference in recent writings of the intellectual left as well as the right. This debate concerns not only the interpretation of Schmitt’s own positions, but also matters relevant to contemporary politics: the idea that laws of the state cannot strictly limit actions of its sovereign; the problem of a "state of exception", etc.

Schmitt’s influence has also recently been seen as consequential for those interested in contemporary political theology, which is much influenced by Schmitt's argument that political concepts are secularized theological concepts. The German-Jewish philosopher Jacob Taubes, for example, engaged Schmitt widely in his study of Saint Paul, The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford Univ. Press, 2004). Taubes' understanding of political theology is, however, very different from Schmitt's, and emphasizes the political aspect of theological claims, rather than the religious derivation of political claims.

Neoconservatism

Further information: Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism, based on Leo Strauss's teachings,[2] has been accused by critics of being influenced by Schmitt.[3] Most notably the legal opinions offered by John Yoo et al. justifying controversial policies -such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions,[4] enhanced interrogation techniques, NSA electronic surveillance program, unitary executive theory- in the war on terror mimic his writings.[3]

Bibliography

English translations of Carl Schmitt

Note: a complete bibliography of all English translations of Schmitt's books, articles, essays, and correspondence is available here.

  • The Concept of the Political. George D. Schwab, trans. (University of Chicago Press, 1996; Expanded edition 2006, with an Introduction by Tracy B. Strong). Original publication: 1927, 2nd edn. 1932.
  • Constitutional Theory. Jeffrey Seitzer, trans. (Duke University Press, 2007). Original publication: 1928.
  • The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Ellen Kennedy, trans. (MIT Press, 1988). Original publication: 1923, 2nd edn. 1926.
  • Four Articles, 1931 – 1938. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1999). Originally published as part of Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar — Genf — Versailles, 1923 – 1939 (1940).
  • The Idea of Representation: A Discussion. E. M. Codd, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1988), reprint of The Necessity of Politics (1931). Original publication: 1923.
  • Land and Sea. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1997). Original publication: 1954.
  • Legality and Legitimacy. Jeffrey Seitzer, trans. (Duke University Press, 2004). Original publication: 1932.
  • The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. George D. Schwab & Erna Hilfstein, trans. (Greenwood Press, 1996). Original publication: 1938.
  • The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. G.L. Ulmen, trans. (Telos Press, 2003). Original publication: 1950.
  • On the Three Types of Juristic Thought. Joseph Bendersky, trans. (Praegar, 2004). Original publication: 1934.
  • Political Romanticism. Guy Oakes, trans. (MIT Press, 1986). Original publication: 1919, 2nd edn. 1925.
  • Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. George D. Schwab, trans. (MIT Press, 1985)(University of Chicago Press; University of Chicago edition, 2004 with an Introduction by Tracy B. Strong. Original publication: 1922, 2nd edn. 1934.
  • Roman Catholicism and Political Form. G. L. Ulmen, trans. (Greenwood Press, 1996). Original publication: 1923.
  • State, Movement, People (includes The Question of Legality). Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 2001). Original publication: Staat, Bewegung, Volk (1933); Das Problem der Legalität (1950).
  • Theory of the Partisan. G. L. Ulmen, trans. (Telos Press, 2007). Original publication: 1963; 2nd ed. 1975.
  • The Tyranny of Values. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 1996). Original publication: 1979.
  • War/Non-War: A Dilemma. Simona Draghici, trans. (Plutarch Press, 2004). Original publication: 1937.

Works in German

  • Über Schuld und Schuldarten. Eine terminologische Untersuchung, 1910.
  • Gesetz und Urteil. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Rechtspraxis, 1912.
  • Schattenrisse (veröffentlicht unter dem Pseudonym ‚Johannes Negelinus, mox Doctor‘, in Zusammenarbeit mit Dr. Fritz Eisler), 1913.
  • Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen, 1914.
  • Theodor Däublers ‚Nordlicht‘: Drei Studien über die Elemente, den Geist und die Aktualität des Werkes, 1916.
  • Die Buribunken, in: Summa 1/1917/18, 89 ff.
  • Politische Romantik, 1919.
  • Die Diktatur. Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveränitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf, 1921.
  • Politische Theologie. Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität, 1922.
  • Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus, 1923.
  • Römischer Katholizismus und politische Form, 1923.
  • Die Rheinlande als Objekt internationaler Politik, 1925.
  • Die Kernfrage des Völkerbundes, 1926.
  • Der Begriff des Politischen, in: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik 58/1927, 1 ff.
  • Volksentscheid und Volksbegehren. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Weimarer Verfassung und zur Lehre von der unmittelbaren Demokratie, 1927.
  • Verfassungslehre, 1928.
  • Hugo Preuß. Sein Staatsbegriff und seine Stellung in der dt. Rechtslehre, 1930.
  • Der Völkerbund und das politische Problem der Friedenssicherung, 1930, 2. erw. Aufl. 1934.
  • Der Hüter der Verfassung, 1931.
  • Der Begriff des Politischen, 1932 (Erweiterung des Aufsatzes von 1927).
  • Legalität und Legitimität, 1932.
  • Staat, Bewegung, Volk. Die Dreigliederung der politischen Einheit, 1933.
  • Das Reichsstatthaltergesetz, 1933.
  • Staatsgefüge und Zusammenbruch des Zweiten Reiches. Der Sieg des Bürgers über den Soldaten, 1934.
  • Über die drei Arten des rechtswissenschaftlichen Denkens, 1934.
  • Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes, 1938.
  • Die Wendung zum diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff, 1938.
  • Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung und Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht, 1939.
  • Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar – Genf – Versailles 1923 – 1939, 1940 (Aufsatzsammlung).
  • Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung, 1942.
  • Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum, 1950.
  • Donoso Cortes in gesamteuropäischer Interpretation, 1950.
  • Ex captivitate salus. Erinnerungen der Zeit 1945/47, 1950.
  • Die Lage der europäischen Rechtswissenschaft, 1950.
  • Das Gespräch über die Macht und den Zugang zum Machthaber, 1954.
  • Hamlet oder Hekuba. Der Einbruch der Zeit in das Spiel, 1956.
  • Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1924 – 1954, 1958 (Aufsatzsammlung).
  • Theorie des Partisanen. Zwischenbemerkung zum Begriff des Politischen, 1963.
  • Politische Theologie II. Die Legende von der Erledigung jeder Politischen Theologie, 1970.
  • Glossarium. Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951, hrsg.v. Eberhard Freiherr von Medem, 1991 (posthum).
  • Das internationale Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges, hrsg.v. Helmut Quaritsch, 1993 (posthum).
  • Staat – Großraum – Nomos, hrsg. von Günter Maschke, 1995 (posthum).
  • Frieden oder Pazifismus?, hrsg. von Günter Maschke, 2005 (posthum).
  • Carl Schmitt: Tagebücher, hrsg. von Ernst Hüsmert, 2003 ff. (posthum).

Secondary literature

  • Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998).
  • Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (2005).
  • Gopal Balakrishnan, The Enemy (2000). Reviewed here.
  • Eckard Bolsinger, The Autonomy of the Political: Carl Schmitt's and Lenin's Political Realism (2001)
  • Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority'," in Acts of Religion (2002).
  • Jacques Derrida, Politics of Friendship (1997).
  • Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Empire (2000).
  • Chantal Mouffe (ed.), The Challenge of Carl Schmitt (1999).
  • Ingo Müller (Deborah Lucas Schneider trans.) (1991). Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) ISBN 067440419X
  • Ojakangas Mika, A Philosophy of Concrete Life: Carl Schmitt and the political thought of late modernity (2nd ed Peter Lang, 2006), ISBN 3039109634
  • Ignaz Zangerle, "Zur Situation der Kirche," Der Brenner 14 (1933/34): 52 ff.

See also

References

  1. ^ State of Exception (2005), pp. 52-55.
  2. ^ No More Heroes by Edward Skidelsky, Prospect Magazine, March 2006
  3. ^ a b Legal justification
  4. ^ War crimes warning

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Carl Schmitt.


Template:Persondata

Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic&oldid=244451416"