Correspondence on Schmitt and the political

Abstract

Discussion of the Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political takes the form of a dialogue. Anatoly Akhutin, a philosopher, raises three questions in a letter to Alexander Filippov, a sociologist. These questions are: (1) On Sovereignty. Sovereign, according to Schmitt, is the one who can introduce a state of emergency. Does it mean that the state of emergency can be a way to the approval and support of dictatorial powers? (2) The concepts Entschlossenheit (resoluteness) in Heidegger’s work and Entscheidung (decision) in Schmitt’s writings are dangerous. The totalitarian bias is apparent here. (3) On speech and democracy. What is political being of humans? Are “friend”, “enemy”, “struggle” the proper concepts to understand and describe it? Alexander Filippov answers these questions. (1) Correct understanding of Schmitt’s point of view is only possible if the distinction made in his book "Dictatorship" (1921) between the commissar and the sovereign dictatorships is taken into account. (2) Schmitt and Heidegger were strongly influenced by the German philosophical anthropology. That is why we should better take into consideration the lectures on the Basic Concepts of Metaphysics instead of Being and Time. One of the most important answers Heidegger has given to his opponents in these lectures concerning the concept “resoluteness” was that Entschlossenheit is not a property of individuals and does not belong to the nature of human existence. (3) At this point, there is no discrepancy between Akhutin and Filippov. Schmitt wrote mainly about the political opposition of one nation to another people and the internal politics in times of crisis.