Talk:Carl Schmitt

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carl Schmitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010094915/http://www.theoria.ca/research/files/SchmittEnglish.pdf to http://www.theoria.ca/research/files/SchmittEnglish.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526061246/http://www.ljil.leidenuniv.nl:80/index.php3?c=187 to http://www.ljil.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=187
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am adding Alexander Dugin to the list of people Schmitt influenced. 
Dugin himself states he
" came to the Theory of a Multipolar World, which I eventually developed myself, precisely through superimposing geopolitical dualism, Carl Schmitt’s theory of the Grossraum, and John Hobson’s critique of Western racism and the euro-centrism of IR."
http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html
Of course, the list should not become overpopulated with everyone of note that happened to be influenced by him, but considering Mr. Dugin's relevance both in Russian internal politics and reaching out to his global audience/readership, I posit that he be included.
68.192.161.211 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dugin 

message: Hi, I have access to the sources on Eliade and Schmitt, I don't find what could justify the so-called influence. Please give here the sentences involved. Thank you. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: from the Portugal Journal: "We  talked  a  long  time.  He  has  just  come  from  Paris.  ... He  believes  René  Guénon  is  the  most  interesting  person  of  our  time.  (I  don’t  believe  this  always,  but  often  I  do.  Although  I  consider Aurobindo Ghose more “perfected.”)" --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I said previously. I know perfectly both references, I used them for my Master. There is absolutely nothing in these refs that states of an influence. Only that Schmitt was "interested", and the author acknowledges himself of a "personnal hypothesis". There is no possibility of an intellectual derivation of ideologies from these sources. This is WP:OR. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry my short answer above, I have not much time this week. Both sources can be found online, and they show an influence on Schmitt. I don't think that you have fully read them.  --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on Eliade and Schmitt 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carl Schmitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115145447/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.5/br_150.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F107.5%2Fbr_150.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, 
Two sources are given by Dekacarandaebonelm (another sprout of indef banned user Hkelkar by the way): Grottanelli Cristiano and  Mircea Eliade’s The Portugal Journal. They are easily accessible: the first one is on the internet: see here. The first develops on the relations between Schmitt, Jünger and Eliade: Guénon is presented as representative for Eliade, not for Schmitt (section 2.3). Nowhere throughout the text is written an "influence". Same for the second one, (also accessible through digital librairies). 82.98.7.229 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm afaid that I really don;t understand your comment.  Can you explain it again with more detail?  It would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken. These two references were introduced to show a so-called Guénon influence on Schmitt. But none of these refs say it. Even worse, the first of these references has been misinterpreted: page 330, the text reads: "Ernst Jünger écrivait  le 15 novembre 1942 que Carl Schmitt lui avait donné des « informations détaillées » sur Eliade et « son maître René Guenon » which translates into "Ernst Jünger wrote on November 15 1942 that Carl Schmitt has given to him "detailed information" on Eliade and his "master René Guénon"". But in french this refers to Eliade's master, not Schmitt's !! Nowhere in the text it is mentioned of an "influence". This adds to what I have written before. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need more explanations. Best, 82.98.7.229 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thank you, that was very clear.  My appreciation for taking the time to explain to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schmitt and Eliade again 

message: Two of the sources recommended here (that I know of) are by far right authors—Alain de benoist and Paul gottfried.  OK, maybe they belong here given the subject, but it seems sketchy to me.  It’s not mainstream scholarship. 72.95.130.125 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: I cite "but its value and significance are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism".
If Schmitt's value is indeed controversial, I don't see how his significance could be controversial, it's factual and Schmitt's relations with Nazism don't change the significance of his thought. 62.211.90.151 (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are getting at here.  If Schmitt's work has value, it is presumably significant.  If it doesn't have value, it might be significant anyway, or it might not.  E.g. the flat earth theory is scientifically wrong and maybe of not much value, but one can say it is historically significant.  So the sentence you quote seems ok to me. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6CE6 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  significance 

message: I've just witnessed a conversation between people who were discussing something Carl Schmitt said and one of them hadn't heard of him before. That person looked up his name and the first thing they saw was "Carl Schmitt... was a German jurist, political theorist, geopolitician and prominent member of the Nazi Party." After this, they stopped reading and discredited everything the other person was saying.
I worry that for people who are just looking at this article in a relatively brief glance, referring to Schmitt as simply "a prominent member of the Nazi Party" within the first sentence sells him short and doesn't take note of the fact that he was disgraced from the party later on, as further elaborated elsewhere in the article. It also does not take into account that many historians across the political spectrum value his analysis far more than they would some bog standard raving antisemite. I think this sentence should be rewritten with less strong language so laymen aren't prone to respond the way that person did. 47.36.253.211 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean but it's hard to say that the lede should be changed.  If someone mentally shuts down when they see the word "Nazi" (or any other word), they are going to miss some stuff.  Do you have a proposed rewrite?  The SEP quote at the end of the lede section seems suitably nuanced to me.  It says basically that Schmitt made some interesting points even though his conclusion (Naziism) was quite bad.  I heard of Schmitt through the Boston Review article linked below, which I could interpret in about the same way. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6CE6 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially misleading introductory sentence? 

message: This was interesting so I'm posting the link here in case anyone wants to use it in the article.  It's way outside my area so I won't attempt this myself, at least for now. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6CE6 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Review article 

message: Katechon overlaps and is not wp:notable. Proposing merger to here. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge