Jump to content

Talk:Carl Schmitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boston Review article

[edit]

[1] 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)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, on the grounds that there is indepedent notability and the topics are distinct. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katechon overlaps and is not wp:notable. Proposing merger to here. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, both because the article has sufficient references to establish notability, and this page isn't an appropriate target given that other groups have studied the topic. Klbrain (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Theological aspects provide additional (independent) notability. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Nazi Party"

[edit]

Can we please stop to communicate this in low brow language? The name of the party was NSDAP.... Only intellectually challenged folks would call it "Nazi Party". 105.12.6.190 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

[edit]

"His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism."

Citation(s) needed for this statement. You cannot just say "many scholars argue [x]" without providing evidence. Who are these "many scholars?" A citation to a specific scholar or scholars who make this claim would greatly benefit the article -- as it stands now it is merely anecdotal.

Thank you. 2601:CF:0:BEB0:28C8:551C:907C:C296 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed

[edit]

The statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it and requires a discussion of the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy surrounding Schmidt’s ideas. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example Fukuyama’s “End of History” theory. Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is The Statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it with out discussing the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, “Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example his his end of History theory.” Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is not entirely true. Either way, there is no consensus and needs a citation. entirely true. Either way, there is no academic consensus and needs a citation. 2600:8806:3402:3E00:3D4B:979C:57DA:1CB3 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]