Comparing Schmitt 's And Arendt 's Theory Of The Political

1260 Words6 Pages
Ruling a society has taken many forms, be it the the cruel hand of dictator or the frantic shared thoughts of democracy; an organized state can arguably be ruled by only one end of the spectrum. To conceptualize this view, philosophers Schmitt and Arendt present their interpretations on the political. The central thesis to my paper is then, to present both Schmitt’s and Arendt’s concept of the political and discern which is the most viable from of governing. Schmitt’s structure of the political rest in the friend-enemy distinction dictated by the sovereign. Opposite his view is Arendt, who perceives the political existing with the masses so as to ensure happiness exist. In today’s political climate the oscillation between these two views is the masses believe in Arendt’s theory, while in actual practice of power, Schmitt’s view is currently exercised. The political is then argued as either an autocratic regime or a democratic government. Where Arendt agues for the later, it’s feasibility is highly improbable. Schmitt’s concept of the former, though practiced today, is not completely correct but, presents the best form of rule. The order of a state is best ruled by a sovereign so as to allow the country to realize it’s full capabilities. For Schmitt the political exist where a sovereign dictates the polity, recognizing the moral distinction of a group form others and reconciling extreme differences through violence; thus a friend-enemy distinction exists that acts as a

More about Comparing Schmitt 's And Arendt 's Theory Of The Political

Open Document