Terminological Consistency vs Context in Carl Schmitt (erkennen/Erkenntnis) Victor Chorny July 14, 2021 Carl Schmitt indulges in polemics with the well-known neo-Kantian law theorist on the nature of juridical cognition, while the English translation neglects the historical background of the concept.
What a Misinterpretation of a Verb Form May Lead to Ivan Ivashchenko June 28, 2021 I tackle the misinterpretation of the syntactical role of the verb “schöpft” in the fourth paragraph of the Introduction. Surprisingly enough, this misinterpretation is common to all translations of Hegel’s book into English.
Syntax as Terminology in Schmitt (4) Victor Chorny June 13, 2021 Carl Schmitt demonstrates the arbitrariness of the central concept of sovereignty as employed in the German theory of state, while the English translation claims this concept was derived from another principle.
Syntax as Terminology in Schmitt (3) Victor Chorny June 03, 2021 Carl Schmitt describes a futile tendency in the jurisprudence of his time to strive for scientific objectivity, while the English translation actually attributes it to them.
Syntax as Terminology in Schmitt (2) Victor Chorny May 10, 2021 Carl Schmitt draws our attention to the inherent limitations of practical jurisprudence when it comes to thinking the extreme, while the English translation turns his argument upside down.
Syntax as Terminology in Schmitt Victor Chorny May 03, 2021 Carl Schmitt explicitly discards the traditional definition of sovereignty as an empty formalism, and this characterization is lost in the English translation.