The juxtaposition of these two names is not intended to suggest the task of identifying and expounding upon dependencies and autonomies, similarities or differences, an originality or independence of one vis-à-vis the other. What one most needs to learn from both, if one is to understand them - the dialectical method - applies, as with all genuine thinkers, first and foremost to them themselves, and their relation. Dichotomies such as ‘dependent’ or ‘non-dependent’ are particularly inappropriate in this case. It is dialectically self-evident that oppositions given special emphasis, such as (historical) materialism vs. idealism, economics vs. ideology, or even sharp polemical negations, merely demonstrate a particularly intense type of dialectical connection.
Great piece. In Hegelian terms then, the question is what the content of the "contemporaneity of objective spirit" is (today) - i.e. what is the historical-political situation today?. For it seems to me a valid description of our epoch what Schmitt anticipates; this new class which Marx championed did "allow itself to be ensnared by the immense power and wealth of the capitalist world" and did end in basically what he writes in this paragraph (immiseration, lethargy and stupitidy).
Great piece. In Hegelian terms then, the question is what the content of the "contemporaneity of objective spirit" is (today) - i.e. what is the historical-political situation today?. For it seems to me a valid description of our epoch what Schmitt anticipates; this new class which Marx championed did "allow itself to be ensnared by the immense power and wealth of the capitalist world" and did end in basically what he writes in this paragraph (immiseration, lethargy and stupitidy).