| Abstract [eng] |
Is There an Alternative to Ateistic Contemporary Politics? (A)theistic Political Cosiderations of Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt The aim of this Master Thesis is to fulfill the ambition expressed in A. Kojève's manuscript "Atheism" to compare the manifestations of theism and atheism in the field of politics, based on C. Schmitt's perspective of political and political theology, while the theistic political alternative to atheism has not been developed in A. Kojève's political works. Objectives: 1. To release A. Kojève's concept of atheism in the context of the Western thought; 2. To show the significance of the issue of atheism in Western political thought; 3. Justify why the political should be considered not in the context of nature but in the context of the antinomy between atheism and theism; 4. To analyze the relationship between antinomy of theism and atheism and the political. Thesis: A. Kojève’s antinomy of theism and atheism is a necessary element in the perception and interpretation of the political and politics. In his study of the phenomenon of atheism, Kojève systematically develops what Pascal began to examine in early modernity as a problem of soul immortality, linked not to speculative philosophical and theological arguments but to reflection on human existence and mortality, which leads to the question of God's existence, but cannot be unequivocally resolved by the efforts of the human mind. A. Kojève describes atheism as a polemical concept. As long as man is mortal, the controversy between atheism and theism is an inevitable antinomy that cannot be resolved by rational consideration, and coexistence between theist and atheists can only be based on inevitable coercion because synthesis is impossible. In Western political thought, the rise of the phenomenon of democracy as atheism can be seen in the dispute between Alexis de Tocqueville and Hegel, which raises the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the concept of a transcendent God with democracy. The connection of the transcendent God's overcoming with democracy raises the controversy of theism and atheism as a political problem which cannot be solved by the efforts of the mind, but only by means of violence. Although Leo Strauss in his commentary on Carl Schmitt interprets the political as a controversy with liberal political philosophy on the status of the natural state, the real controversy over politics takes place not from the perspective of political philosophy but from the perspective of theological thinking. We find the atheistic concept of politics by examining A. Kojève's theory of politics, in which the political is perceived as a historical and finite phenomenon. According to A. Kojève, history and the political end when a person is freed from the fear of eternal death and begins to perceive himself as an absolutely free and mortal individual, thus overcoming the absolute Master - God. Although Schmitt's relationship with the concept of political as historicity is ambiguous, Schmitt's concept of the political is based on the assumption that the difference between friend and enemy is as inevitable as it is impossible to reject the concept of a mystical, miraculous God. However, the political as divinity is only a hypothesis, but its possibility means that A. Kojève failed to prove the completeness of the political. Moreover, the antinomy of atheism and theism bases existentially the inevitable possibility of political. Therefore, we can understand Schmitt's political theology and the political not as critique of liberalism but of atheist (e.g. M. Bakunin) who are seeking to attain the world state and abolish the political. |
