OPPAI ORACLE

Hans Sepp wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:01 am

Thricegreat wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2026 9:49 am

my position is that symbols are as real as living human beings. But I think this is not a thread for that

Could be worth discussing. Are you going to make a separate thread for that?

Maybe tomorrow or something? Right now I'm quite tired. Honestly I want to eat something now.

Both frameworks share the same problem: identifying a figure who could stand outside the corrupting influences of power and make decisions that transcend mere legal form or political expediency. Schmitt's sovereign must be capable of deciding the exception, the moment when all law and precedent are suspended in favor of a pure act of will.

I'm not super familiar with Schmitt but I would like to add that this idea of a pure uncorrupted sovereign figure reminds me a little bit of Rawls' veil of ignorance. From what I understand of his method, he wants us to view just political states as being created by a congress of self interested people who know nothing about themselves. For example, there are women in the congress but they don't know they are women, meaning if they act out of rational self interest, they can't decide that women should earn twice as much as men. If they are successful in operating under the veil of ignorance, and if they are completely self interested, they will be using Kant's categorical imperative and will make only just decisions.

This method seems to circumvent the need for a sovereign that decides the exception. It does not, as far as i understand, require a strong constitution or democracy. It seems just as fine (and just as impossible) to me to have a congress of people under the veil of ignorance deciding the exception or to have a uncorrupted sovereign.

I'm not super familiar with political philosophy so I'm sorry if i misunderstood something or said something stupid.

AsaFromNasa wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:38 pm

if they are completely self interested, they will be using Kant's categorical imperative and will make only just decisions.

The Schmittian Sovereign does not concern herself with "self-interest," "morality" or "justice." Schmitt's whole deal is a lot more existential than that - what happens when those break down entirely? - The sovereign's power is absolute precisely because it exists beyond these categories.

AsaFromNasa wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:38 pm

This method seems to circumvent the need for a sovereign that decides the exception. It does not, as far as i understand, require a strong constitution or democracy. It seems just as fine (and just as impossible) to me to have a congress of people under the veil of ignorance deciding the exception or to have a uncorrupted sovereign.

That is still a group decision made within the framework of rational deliberation and consensus. This is fundamentally different from the Schmittian sovereign, who is a single individual with absolute and unconditional power to decide outside the normal rules and procedures.

AsaFromNasa wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:38 pm

I'm not super familiar with political philosophy so I'm sorry if i misunderstood something or said something stupid.

There's no shame in not being an expert in every area of philosophy or political theory.