On the quote associated with note 22, is the concept of ‘martyr’ completely that of the author interposed on Schmitt’s analysis, or does Schmitt himself employ the concept of the ‘martyr’? If it is in Schmitt does the essay you reference point to where that is in Schmitt? Thanks for any guidance you can offer. The martyr vis a vis the state of exception is an interesting idea.
Quite the opposite, actually. Neoh is holding the Schmittian interpretation of Kierkegaard (the sovereign in the state of exception) in contradistinction with Kierkegaard’s later writings (the martyr invoking the state of exception against unjust authority, i.e., “the world”).
While Schmitt is (in)famous for his political theology, Neoh says that the idea (rooted in Fear and Trembling, coming to fruition in the Attack Upon “Christendom”) is misunderstood by Schmitt - wilfully or otherwise - due to his heterodox Catholicism. While Kierkegaard sees the martyr’s refusal to negotiate even an inch on Truth, Schmitt (and Catholicism in general, due Kierkegaard’s Pietist perspective) is just another attempt to steal authority from God. His late anti-papal commentary, in particular, shows that Kierkegaard could never have meant what Schmitt presented.
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t aware of Schmitt employing the concept of the martyr (though Junger does), so wanted to track that down if he did.
On the quote associated with note 22, is the concept of ‘martyr’ completely that of the author interposed on Schmitt’s analysis, or does Schmitt himself employ the concept of the ‘martyr’? If it is in Schmitt does the essay you reference point to where that is in Schmitt? Thanks for any guidance you can offer. The martyr vis a vis the state of exception is an interesting idea.
Quite the opposite, actually. Neoh is holding the Schmittian interpretation of Kierkegaard (the sovereign in the state of exception) in contradistinction with Kierkegaard’s later writings (the martyr invoking the state of exception against unjust authority, i.e., “the world”).
While Schmitt is (in)famous for his political theology, Neoh says that the idea (rooted in Fear and Trembling, coming to fruition in the Attack Upon “Christendom”) is misunderstood by Schmitt - wilfully or otherwise - due to his heterodox Catholicism. While Kierkegaard sees the martyr’s refusal to negotiate even an inch on Truth, Schmitt (and Catholicism in general, due Kierkegaard’s Pietist perspective) is just another attempt to steal authority from God. His late anti-papal commentary, in particular, shows that Kierkegaard could never have meant what Schmitt presented.
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t aware of Schmitt employing the concept of the martyr (though Junger does), so wanted to track that down if he did.