The Confusions of Carl Schmitt

[@chrisyoung2179]

Where I see Schmittian politics operative is every person who has the yard sign that says “in this house we believe in science…” and so on. They have the friend/enemy distinction embedded within

[@anonymous-cq7wj]

not really, they're just private individuals setting clear boundaries

[@chrisyoung2179]

@@anonymous-cq7wj boundaries of who is friend and who is enemy

[@anonymous-cq7wj]

@@chrisyoung2179 private friend/enemy, Schmitt only emphasizes the distinction between friends and enemies as it pertains to the *public* interest because that's what is politically important

[@chrisyoung2179]

@@anonymous-cq7wj that is a public sign designed to symbolize which side you are on within the socio-political narrative. Friend/Enemy distinction

[@anonymous-cq7wj]

@@chrisyoung2179 aaahhh it is an individual person displaying the sign! Not a political body

[@Bruh-el9js]

He's not entirely breaking from Plato, since you can find similar thought in Polemarchus (even Socrates' opponents spawned their own philosophical traditions through Plato's books). Furthermore, polar Forms aren't in unison in-themselves, they are in unison in-another, i.e., in the greater Form in which both participate. It's entirely possible to read Schmitt in compatibility with Plato.

[@willmwinters]

This was a good watch!