Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law
In this article I review Schmitt's references to Sorel, trying to demonstrate that where Schmitt pretends to agree with Sorel (mostly in the criticism of the Rule of Law), significant philosophical differences nevertheless persist. To this end, I disaggregate decisionism into three analytical d...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Grupo Prohistoria
2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848 |
| Aporte de: |
| id |
I15-R238-article-1848 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
I15-R238-article-18482023-12-28T17:19:50Z Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law Decisión para la intuición y decisión para la representación: Georges Sorel y Carl Schmitt frente a la crisis del Estado de Derecho Decisão pela intuição e decisão pela representação: Georges Sorel e Carl Schmitt enfrentando a crise do Estado de Direito Chaia De Bellis, Jonás Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionismo vitalismo Estado de Derecho George Sorel Carlos Schmitt Decisionismo Vitalismo Estado de Direito Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionism vitalism Rule of Law In this article I review Schmitt's references to Sorel, trying to demonstrate that where Schmitt pretends to agree with Sorel (mostly in the criticism of the Rule of Law), significant philosophical differences nevertheless persist. To this end, I disaggregate decisionism into three analytical dimensions (juridical, gnoseological and theologico-political), finding opposite positions in each of them: (a) while for Schmitt “State proves that to produce law it need not be based on law”, for Sorel law rise spontaneously and outside the State; (b) while for Schmitt decisionism means "decision for representation", for Sorel it expresses "decision for intuition"; and (c) while for Schmitt this decision is analogous to a miracle, for Sorel it only goes along with the providential cycles of the rise and decline of culture. En este artículo revisaremos las referencias de Schmitt a Sorel, intentando demostrar que allí donde Schmitt pretende coincidir con Sorel (particularmente en la crítica al Estado de Derecho) persisten, no obstante, diferencias filosóficas sustanciales. Para esto, desagregaremos el decisionismo en tres dimensiones analíticas (jurídica, gnoseológica y teológico-política) encontrando posiciones polares en cada una de ellas: a) si para Schmitt “el Estado no necesita tener derecho para crear derecho”, para Sorel el derecho se forma espontáneamente y al margen del Estado; b) si para Schmitt el decisionismo expresa una “decisión para la representación”, para Sorel expresa una “decisión para la intuición”; y c) si para Schmitt esa decisión es análoga al milagro, para Sorel esta sólo acompaña los ciclos providenciales de auge y decadencia de la cultura. Neste artigo iremos rever as referências de Schmitt a Sorel, tentando demonstrar que onde Schmitt afirma concordar com Sorel (particularmente na crítica ao Estado de Direito) persistem diferenças filosóficas substanciais. Para isso, desagregaremos o Decisionismo em três dimensões analíticas (jurídica, epistemológica e teológico-política) encontrando posições polares em cada uma delas: a) se para Schmitt “o Estado não precisa ter direito para criar o direito”, para Sorel o o direito é espontâneo e fora do Estado; b) se para Schmitt o Decisionismo exprime uma “decisão pela representação”, para Sorel exprime uma “decisão pela intuição”; ec) se para Schmitt esta decisão é análoga ao milagre, para Sorel ela apenas acompanha os ciclos providenciais de ascensão e declínio da cultura. Grupo Prohistoria 2023-12-28 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf text/html application/zip https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848 10.35305/prohistoria.vi40.1848 Prohistoria. Historia, políticas de la historia; No. 40 (2023); 1-30 Prohistoria. Historia, políticas de la historia; Núm. 40 (2023); 1-30 Prohistoria. Historia, políticas de la historia; n. 40 (2023); 1-30 1851-9504 1514-0032 spa https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848/2853 https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848/2854 https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848/2855 Derechos de autor 2023 Jonás Chaia De Bellis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 |
| institution |
Universidad Nacional de Rosario |
| institution_str |
I-15 |
| repository_str |
R-238 |
| container_title_str |
Prohistoria. Historia, políticas de la historia (CONICET) |
| language |
Español |
| format |
Artículo revista |
| topic |
Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionismo vitalismo Estado de Derecho George Sorel Carlos Schmitt Decisionismo Vitalismo Estado de Direito Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionism vitalism Rule of Law |
| spellingShingle |
Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionismo vitalismo Estado de Derecho George Sorel Carlos Schmitt Decisionismo Vitalismo Estado de Direito Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionism vitalism Rule of Law Chaia De Bellis, Jonás Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| topic_facet |
Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionismo vitalismo Estado de Derecho George Sorel Carlos Schmitt Decisionismo Vitalismo Estado de Direito Georges Sorel Carl Schmitt decisionism vitalism Rule of Law |
| author |
Chaia De Bellis, Jonás |
| author_facet |
Chaia De Bellis, Jonás |
| author_sort |
Chaia De Bellis, Jonás |
| title |
Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| title_short |
Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| title_full |
Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| title_fullStr |
Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Decision for intuition and decision for representation: Georges Sorel and Carl Schmitt facing the crisis of Rule of Law |
| title_sort |
decision for intuition and decision for representation: georges sorel and carl schmitt facing the crisis of rule of law |
| description |
In this article I review Schmitt's references to Sorel, trying to demonstrate that where Schmitt pretends to agree with Sorel (mostly in the criticism of the Rule of Law), significant philosophical differences nevertheless persist. To this end, I disaggregate decisionism into three analytical dimensions (juridical, gnoseological and theologico-political), finding opposite positions in each of them: (a) while for Schmitt “State proves that to produce law it need not be based on law”, for Sorel law rise spontaneously and outside the State; (b) while for Schmitt decisionism means "decision for representation", for Sorel it expresses "decision for intuition"; and (c) while for Schmitt this decision is analogous to a miracle, for Sorel it only goes along with the providential cycles of the rise and decline of culture. |
| publisher |
Grupo Prohistoria |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| url |
https://ojs.rosario-conicet.gov.ar/index.php/prohistoria/article/view/1848 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT chaiadebellisjonas decisionforintuitionanddecisionforrepresentationgeorgessorelandcarlschmittfacingthecrisisofruleoflaw AT chaiadebellisjonas decisionparalaintuicionydecisionparalarepresentaciongeorgessorelycarlschmittfrentealacrisisdelestadodederecho AT chaiadebellisjonas decisaopelaintuicaoedecisaopelarepresentacaogeorgessorelecarlschmittenfrentandoacrisedoestadodedireito |
| first_indexed |
2024-08-12T21:47:49Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-08-12T21:47:49Z |
| _version_ |
1807219970078146560 |