Schmitt, Rawls, and Sri Aurobindo

 Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra

Sri Aurobindo's theories counter Carl Schmitt's by replacing the central political principle of the friend-enemy antagonism with an ideal of spiritual human unity based on a shared evolutionary destiny. While Schmitt posits inevitable, existential conflict as the essence of the political, Aurobindo envisions a future where an inner transformation of consciousness leads to a harmonious and diverse world order that transcends the limitations of the nation-state and power-driven governance. 

Countering Schmitt's Core Concepts

Schmitt's Theory	Sri Aurobindo's Counter-Theory
The "Political" as Friend-Enemy Distinction	Spiritual Unity and "Unity in Diversity"
Schmitt argues that the fundamental criterion of the political is the distinction between friend and enemy, and the potential for intense, existential conflict. Politics is about defining an "other, the stranger" against whom one's own group can unite and potentially wage war for survival.	Aurobindo's philosophy is rooted in the "oneness" of all humanity, an "inner reality" or spirit that is shared by everyone. He advocates for a "spiritual unity" that respects and preserves individual and national diversity, a "multiple unity" where antipathies and hostilities eventually die out.
Anthropological Pessimism	Anthropological Optimism (Human Evolution)
Schmitt is known for his "anthropological pessimism," the view that human nature is inherently conflict-ridden and requires strong, decisive sovereign power to maintain internal order and manage external threats.	Aurobindo operates from an optimistic belief in human evolution, specifically the potential for a collective spiritual evolution. He posits that humanity is on a progressive path toward a higher consciousness (the "Supermind") that will naturally transcend egoism and conflict, making a united existence possible.
Sovereignty and the State of Exception	Integral Transformation (Beyond the State)
For Schmitt, the sovereign is the ultimate decision-maker who can declare a "state of exception" (emergency) to suspend the rule of law and preserve the state's existence and homogeneity. This power is absolute and vital for political order.	Aurobindo sees the nation-state as a "transitional form" in human development, not the final political arrangement. He looks beyond mechanical political or legal systems, arguing that true, lasting unity requires an inner transformation of consciousness that aligns human actions with a "higher truth" of unity, rendering the concepts of emergency rule and power-driven governance obsolete.
Critique of Liberal Universalism/Humanity	Universal Consciousness and a World Union
Schmitt critiques liberal universalism and the "League of Nations" concept, arguing that appealing to "humanity" in general is a false, moralizing tactic often used to wage absolute, "inhuman" war against an enemy deemed a "monster". For him, humanity as a whole cannot have an enemy.	Aurobindo advocates for an "enlightened awareness of the spiritual unity" of human existence as the only answer to global crises. His goal is a world union that fosters "a fairer, brighter and nobler life for all mankind," grounded in shared spiritual principles rather than economic or political coercion.

In essence, Aurobindo offers a spiritual and evolutionary roadmap to a unified world order that attempts to reconcile the individual and the community, liberty and equality, thereby providing a fundamental alternative to Schmitt's conflict-based, decisionist political philosophy. 

- GoogleAI 

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+Schmitt%27s+theories+can+be+countered+by+Sri+Aurobindo%27s

Carl Schmitt and John Rawls represent two opposing views on liberalism: Schmitt was a critic who emphasized the importance of the "political" as an existential conflict between friend and enemy, while Rawls was a liberal theorist who sought to provide a secular and reasonable foundation for liberal democracy. Their debate centers on how a political order can be justified, with Schmitt arguing that a liberal, neutral stance is a façade that can't resolve fundamental conflicts, whereas Rawls's "political liberalism" attempts to create a framework for a just society based on public reason despite pluralism. 

Carl Schmitt: The critique of liberalism

• The friend/enemy distinction: Schmitt argued that the core of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, a conflict that liberalism tries to ignore or neutralize.
• The sovereign exception: For Schmitt, a sovereign's power is defined by the ability to decide on the "exception," suspending the law to protect the order itself.
• Critique of neutrality: He viewed liberal neutrality as a "soft" ideology that lacks substantive values and struggles to justify itself in the face of irreconcilable conflicts. 

John Rawls: The liberal defense

• Political liberalism: Rawls developed a theory of "political liberalism" to provide a foundation for a just society that can accommodate pluralism.
• Public reason: He argued that public reason is the basis of a liberal democracy, with arguments and principles derived from a shared public culture.
• Justice as fairness: Rawls's theory of justice is based on principles that would be chosen by rational individuals in an "original position," behind a "veil of ignorance". 

Key areas of conflict

• Justification of political order: Schmitt sees political order as based on the decision to exclude or confront the enemy, while Rawls seeks a justification based on rational consensus and public reason.
• The nature of "the political": For Schmitt, the political is an irreducible conflict, while Rawls attempts to limit the political to a framework that can manage disagreement.
• The role of the sovereign: Rawls argues for a constitutional order where laws are consistently applied, whereas Schmitt insists on the sovereign's power to make an exception to the law in a crisis.
• Toleration: Rawls embraces multicultural toleration, while Schmitt sees such toleration as a liberal weakness that cannot contain deep-seated conflicts, making the state's ability to make exceptions to preserve itself necessary. 

- GoogleAI

https://www.google.com/search?q=carl+schmitt+vs.+john+rawls

The philosophies of John Rawls and Sri Aurobindo generally diverge significantly due to their differing foundational approaches to justice and human existence. Rawls is primarily a Western political philosopher focused on institutional justice and fairness within a social contract framework, while Aurobindo is an Indian philosopher and yogi focused on spiritual evolution and human transformation. 

Key areas of difference:

• Focus and Scope:
  • Rawls is concerned with the basic structure of society, seeking to establish principles of justice ("justice as fairness") for political and social institutions. His theory aims to achieve a fair distribution of liberties, opportunities, and wealth within a secular, democratic state.
  • Aurobindo's philosophy, particularly his "Integral Yoga" and "The Life Divine," aims for a radical spiritual transformation of human consciousness and the evolution of the human being into a "supramental" existence. His vision extends beyond political structures to the spiritual destiny of humanity.
• View of Justice:
  • Rawls defines justice through rational principles chosen behind a "veil of ignorance," leading to principles like the "difference principle" which permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. This is a normative, rational, and institutional approach to justice.
  • Aurobindo's view of justice is part of a broader, transcendental and spiritual worldview. He links Indian nationalism to Sanatan Dharma and sees social progress in terms of a spiritual mission, rather than a set of rationally derived institutional rules.
• Methodology:
  • Rawls uses an analytical and rational approach, building on the social contract tradition of Western thought.
  • Aurobindo's method relies on yogic insight, intuition, and a "logic of the infinite," which he believed could reconcile apparent opposites that finite reason could not. 

In essence, Rawls sought an ideal, perfectly just society, while Aurobindo envisioned the potential for a new, divinely conscious humanity. Their foundational premises and ultimate goals are rooted in entirely different philosophical traditions (Western political theory vs. Indian spiritual philosophy) and thus there is little direct agreement between them. 

- GoogleAI

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+John+Rawls+agrees+with+Sri+Aurobindo