The profanation of Jerusalem by the Saracens, the conclusive victory over the Tatars in the Russian territory and the fall of Constantinople , all probably contributed to root this idea, in the Russian thinking, of the translation of the new Jerusalem to Moscow. Hence, it can be understood that Moscow can be comprehended on two different reality planes: on the one hand, as a spiritual centre and on the other hand, as a political centre.
Coming back to present time, it seems clear to us that the direction followed by Moscow, in politics, is heading to a multi-polar world. Rather, that which conveys the impression of such willpower is the political stance of the modern overseas-based parody of the Roman Empire.
On the contrary, considering the vigor and the vitality of the post-Soviet Russian orthodoxy and the well-grounded religious tolerance on the vast and multiethnic territory of the Federation, we feel that Moscow should be viewed as a prospective spiritual centre of worldwide influence in the future. By this, we are referring to a translatio exclusively of place, specifically of place of spiritual influence, with its own peculiar genius loci , and not to a central see of one or more religions.
See a Problem?
Therefore, we are making a reference to a strictly metaphysical and esoteric vision and not to a religious and exoteric one. Unfortunately, the relevance of essentially metaphysical ideas such as Fas and Ius and the spiritual significance of the mos maiorum, in the ancient Rome, are often underestimated by scholars. This can be explained by a lack of an appropriate understanding of the traditional metaphysics which goes way beyond each single religious manifestation in time and space.
Anyway, it must be said that the movements supporting the resurgence of monarchy are far from being defunct in the Russian territory.
Recently, one of the most prominent representatives of the Russian orthodoxy after Patriarch Kirill, Vsevolod Chaplin, pleaded in favour of the restoration of monarchy, claiming that Putin or one of the heirs of the Romanov royal family would be the most suited to become Tsar. The concept of caesaropapism refers back to the traditional king-priest exemplified by the figures of Melchizedek in Jerusalem and of Augustus in Rome.
In this perspective, we can better understand the attempt being made to reconcile the Orthodox and the Catholic Christian Churches. A similar attempt of reconciliation took place during the Council of Florence, in , and the related papal bull of Eugene IV, Laetentur Coeli , which reported the impending reconciliation between the Western and the Eastern Christian Churches. Except for those millions of Ukrainians and Belarussians who joined the Catholic Church through the Union of Brest-Litovsk , the above-mentioned Council was of no real consequence. This latter tribe apparently moved also to Ireland and to Scandinavia during the pre-Christian period.
Lo sguardo di Giano: Saggi su Carl Schmitt by Carlo Galli
The same theory was resumed by the Council of Russian bishops in even though it was already renowned in the Muscovite area at the time. Nevertheless, at the time it was actually more of a dominion of the tsarist power over the religious one than an actual symphony. Perrie, reminds us of the importance of the year , in this regard. Sito web. Avvertimi via email in caso di risposte al mio commento.
Have an Access Token? Enter your access token to activate and access content online. Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token. Have Institutional Access? Forgot your password? Get Permissions. Abstract This article discusses the well-known verdict of Vattel's legal positivism in relation to concepts of modernity and the European State System Schmitt, Remec and aims at a re-interpretation of Vattel's understanding of the modern state, just war and the international order.
Sections Abstract. If the Prince must on occasion act as a scoundrel, well, it can be forgiven if it is done for the sake of a lasting national constitution without tyranny.
The solitude of the Prince is then compensated, at a second or later moment, by the Prince becoming the people. This is the politics of the day-after, in other words, not the politics of the act of political irruption, not the politics of the aleatory encounter that might enable a change in the coordinates of the situation, even an impossible change a change that only becomes possible after it happens, but could not have been predicted.
fhimmfp.tk Ebooks and Manuals
One supposes the Party must follow a similar course, since the Party is the new Prince. The Party must become the people, even if only after power has been taken, that is, starting the day after. This might be the task prospectively self-assigned to Marxist-Leninist philosophy and his agents, Althusser and his friends. Beasley-Murray is right, in his blog entry mentioned above, that what follows is a fundamental endorsement of hegemony theory through the analysis of the Machiavellian popular army, the function of base ideologies religion and secondary ideologies, and particularly of the Prince as state individual.
And it is in the analysis of the latter that a curious contradiction comes up. The Prince is before all, through his or her very virtue, a master of what Kant would have called radical evil, that is, a master at making political appearances look like righteous behavior. It is always a matter of fooling the people, then, either with the truth, that is, by conforming to the ideology that supports the state religion, laws , or with a falsity meant to appear as a truth.
Because the people, il volgo, want to be content, the Prince must do everything he or she can to keep them ideologically content—and this is of course the limit of the hegemonic model Althusser establishes Machiavelli proposes, and Althusser seems to sanction. The fakely-becoming-people of the Prince is never addressed as such except as a political necessity.
When we transpose this situation to the actions of the Party, either before or after it takes power, we can see how unsatisfactory the theory becomes. Just as unsatisfactory as the history we know. Bad friendship, which may be all hegemony can offer at best. Critics have become accustomed to accepting something like two Althussers that can find no common ground.