What do you think?
Rate this book
Insurrections: Critical Studies in Religion, Politics, and Culture
Ad Carl Schmitt, gegenstrebige Fügung (Internationaler Merve Diskurs)
German
- GenresPhilosophy
80 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
1 person is currently reading
128 people want to read
About the author
Jacob Taubes
17 books22 followersJacob Taubes (25 February 1923 – 21 March 1987) was a sociologist of religion, philosopher, and scholar of Judaism.
Taubes was born into an old rabbinical family. He was married to the writer Susan Taubes. He obtained his doctorate in 1947 for a thesis on "Occidental Eschatology" and initially taught religious studies and Jewish studies in the United States at Harvard, Columbia and Princeton University.
From 1965 he was professor of Jewish studies and hermeneutics at the Free University of Berlin. He has influenced many contemporary thinkers such as Giorgio Agamben, Susan Sontag, Avital Ronell, Marshall Berman, Babette Babich, Alaida and Jan Assman, Amos Funkenstein and Peter Sloterdijk.
Taubes was born into an old rabbinical family. He was married to the writer Susan Taubes. He obtained his doctorate in 1947 for a thesis on "Occidental Eschatology" and initially taught religious studies and Jewish studies in the United States at Harvard, Columbia and Princeton University.
From 1965 he was professor of Jewish studies and hermeneutics at the Free University of Berlin. He has influenced many contemporary thinkers such as Giorgio Agamben, Susan Sontag, Avital Ronell, Marshall Berman, Babette Babich, Alaida and Jan Assman, Amos Funkenstein and Peter Sloterdijk.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 17, 2013
A fascinating little book, very informal, gossipy and fun, except for the introduciton by Mike Grimshaw, who is not such a fool as his constant allusions to academic a-holes at first suggest.
Taubes, who remained his whole life a professional bad-boy, both profound and an eternally youthful bit of a faker (see Hans Jonas memories of him), made a career out of incidents such as this book retells. Taubes, as the son of the chief rabbi of Vienna and protege of every cool political philosopher in the postwar era (I first heard of him as ahe student of Kojeve, man!), had a "scandalous" and "secret" relationship with the German conservative jurist Carl Schmitt, who had turned Nazi. Hew and antisemite - shocker! The funny part is that everyone knew the secret, and he couldn't stop talking about the scandal. The levels of complication make it all more amusing, but there is something substantial here - the fact that Taubes (from the left) and Schmitt (from the right) saw something true, and nasty, about liberalism, and were able to communicate this to one another, both of them in a highly self-conscious manner, which in Taubes' case, can almost seem like strutting. In the records of talks he gives to university departments, you will be on his side. and against the stuffed shirts he addresses.
Schmitt is becoming fashionable again, although he will never be forgiven or defended as the much worse Heidegger has been, because Schmitt committed the sin of having been a conservative and an anti-Communist before Hitler (he proposed invoking the Weimar constitution to ban both the Communist and National Socialist parties - a missed chance). And Schmitt didn't have the foresight to seduce Hannah Arendt. In any case, the snippets here are attractive (he who makes war a crime ensures that war will be much more savage and brutal, the political concept of friend/enemy). And Taubes central defense of Schmitt's behavior is also interesting: Schmitt was a jurist, for whom there is never not law. Lawyers can never be nihilists, good (Nietzsch) or bad (Heidegger) - they must work with the state of law that even a tyrant leaves standing.
--Taubes makes an interesting but faulty observation - that both Heidegger and Schmitt - as well as Hitler himself - were lapsed Catholics living in a Weimar Republic that was in nature "Protestant, with a slight Jewish tinge"(quoting from memory). The point is that they all had some sort of ressentiment, or outsider feeling, which propelled them. The observation is interesting, but it may be typical of Taubes that having made it, he doesn't spend a second minute reflecting on it. For one thing, although Germany may have had a Protestant soul, it did so as much in the Wilhelmine period as in Weimar - in fact, much more so before 1914. Weimar demoted the church from its semi-established status, and the Protestant brass were the first, loudest, and most constant voices raised in denial of Weimar's legitimacy; and the first to fall into line with Nazi rule. Then there are the individual cases: I don't know much about the religious history of Schmitt and Hitler, but Hitler grew up in Austria as a member of the majority faith; and Heidegger kicked away the Catholics who were his first teachers as soon as they were of no further use to him professionally - not a statement of religious or social preference, but just his way of dealing with people and institutions from first to last, adhering to them while it suited him, crushing them when convenenient. He betrayed his faith, his scholarly vocation, his teacher Husserl, his wife, his whore, his students, his fellow WWI veterans (except that he was never in the trenches, as he claimed to be starting during the war itself - except for the National Socialists, to whom he remained loyal and for which he never had to answer, thanks to the loyalty of so many he had betrayed - students, wife, whore, etc.
Taubes, who remained his whole life a professional bad-boy, both profound and an eternally youthful bit of a faker (see Hans Jonas memories of him), made a career out of incidents such as this book retells. Taubes, as the son of the chief rabbi of Vienna and protege of every cool political philosopher in the postwar era (I first heard of him as ahe student of Kojeve, man!), had a "scandalous" and "secret" relationship with the German conservative jurist Carl Schmitt, who had turned Nazi. Hew and antisemite - shocker! The funny part is that everyone knew the secret, and he couldn't stop talking about the scandal. The levels of complication make it all more amusing, but there is something substantial here - the fact that Taubes (from the left) and Schmitt (from the right) saw something true, and nasty, about liberalism, and were able to communicate this to one another, both of them in a highly self-conscious manner, which in Taubes' case, can almost seem like strutting. In the records of talks he gives to university departments, you will be on his side. and against the stuffed shirts he addresses.
Schmitt is becoming fashionable again, although he will never be forgiven or defended as the much worse Heidegger has been, because Schmitt committed the sin of having been a conservative and an anti-Communist before Hitler (he proposed invoking the Weimar constitution to ban both the Communist and National Socialist parties - a missed chance). And Schmitt didn't have the foresight to seduce Hannah Arendt. In any case, the snippets here are attractive (he who makes war a crime ensures that war will be much more savage and brutal, the political concept of friend/enemy). And Taubes central defense of Schmitt's behavior is also interesting: Schmitt was a jurist, for whom there is never not law. Lawyers can never be nihilists, good (Nietzsch) or bad (Heidegger) - they must work with the state of law that even a tyrant leaves standing.
--Taubes makes an interesting but faulty observation - that both Heidegger and Schmitt - as well as Hitler himself - were lapsed Catholics living in a Weimar Republic that was in nature "Protestant, with a slight Jewish tinge"(quoting from memory). The point is that they all had some sort of ressentiment, or outsider feeling, which propelled them. The observation is interesting, but it may be typical of Taubes that having made it, he doesn't spend a second minute reflecting on it. For one thing, although Germany may have had a Protestant soul, it did so as much in the Wilhelmine period as in Weimar - in fact, much more so before 1914. Weimar demoted the church from its semi-established status, and the Protestant brass were the first, loudest, and most constant voices raised in denial of Weimar's legitimacy; and the first to fall into line with Nazi rule. Then there are the individual cases: I don't know much about the religious history of Schmitt and Hitler, but Hitler grew up in Austria as a member of the majority faith; and Heidegger kicked away the Catholics who were his first teachers as soon as they were of no further use to him professionally - not a statement of religious or social preference, but just his way of dealing with people and institutions from first to last, adhering to them while it suited him, crushing them when convenenient. He betrayed his faith, his scholarly vocation, his teacher Husserl, his wife, his whore, his students, his fellow WWI veterans (except that he was never in the trenches, as he claimed to be starting during the war itself - except for the National Socialists, to whom he remained loyal and for which he never had to answer, thanks to the loyalty of so many he had betrayed - students, wife, whore, etc.
May 2, 2013
An extraordinarily pleasant and engaging read. Jacob Taubes explains his frenemy-relationship with Carl Schmitt. This book sheds new light upon the problematics of the (Hegelian-Kojèvean) End of History, of political theology vis-a-vis an occidental eschatology of counter-revolution latent in Schmitt's work and thought. Taubes recounts several profoundly fascinating anecdotes which shed new light on figures such as Alexandre Kojève, Walter Benjamin & Heidegger; Taubes' recollections also bring to light certain connections between Schmitt, Orthodox Judaism and the Rise of the American Academic right - and on the constitution of the Israeli state.
Taubes, the Radical Arch-Jew, and Schmitt, the Reactionary Anti-Semite: BFFs in a silent dialogue.
Taubes, the Radical Arch-Jew, and Schmitt, the Reactionary Anti-Semite: BFFs in a silent dialogue.
September 28, 2023
Breathes a little bit of life into the figure of Schmitt as a cordial anti-Semite. Apart from that, fairly forgettable.
January 10, 2023
An interesting episode in intellectual history, the only fault of this book is that it is short on the actual details of the disputed reading of Romans.
What is the dispute about? Basically, it reduces to a reading of Paul's portrayal of Jews as Enemies of Christianity. Carl Schmitt thought Paul had initiated a parting of the ways, and that fidelity to the Christian event required a break with the Jewish juridical frame. This ends up looking an awful lot like a Christian apology for literal Nazism. Jacob Taubes held a different view.
Taubes was one of the founders of what we today call the New Perspective on Paul. In his version, Paul was a Jew radically critical of his own culture. Taubes clearly identified with him, and saw his own work as a translation of the Pauline gesture in contemporary conditions. The full story belongs to a review of his Paul book. The short version is that he thought Schmitt didn't understand the meaning of Paul's letter. The Jews are Enemies *for the sake of the Gospel.* They are Beloved and Elected *for the sake of the Fathers.* Paul didn't want to exterminate Jews, and would have been horrified at any such suggestion; he wanted them to live up to their principles, that he thought they had turned into a disgusting and odious spectacle.
Taubes had previously looked up to Schmitt, and earnestly believed that Schmitt had simply made a small mistake that could be easily corrected. It broke his heart when he discovered that Schmitt had no substantive response, and was merely rationalizing his blood and soil bigotry.
What can we learn from this episode? The flippant response would be to say "don't read literally." I think that's nonsense. We must read literally in order to interpret. P'shat comes before drash. The real lesson is that sometimes we write our most furious letters to the people we most love.
What is the dispute about? Basically, it reduces to a reading of Paul's portrayal of Jews as Enemies of Christianity. Carl Schmitt thought Paul had initiated a parting of the ways, and that fidelity to the Christian event required a break with the Jewish juridical frame. This ends up looking an awful lot like a Christian apology for literal Nazism. Jacob Taubes held a different view.
Taubes was one of the founders of what we today call the New Perspective on Paul. In his version, Paul was a Jew radically critical of his own culture. Taubes clearly identified with him, and saw his own work as a translation of the Pauline gesture in contemporary conditions. The full story belongs to a review of his Paul book. The short version is that he thought Schmitt didn't understand the meaning of Paul's letter. The Jews are Enemies *for the sake of the Gospel.* They are Beloved and Elected *for the sake of the Fathers.* Paul didn't want to exterminate Jews, and would have been horrified at any such suggestion; he wanted them to live up to their principles, that he thought they had turned into a disgusting and odious spectacle.
Taubes had previously looked up to Schmitt, and earnestly believed that Schmitt had simply made a small mistake that could be easily corrected. It broke his heart when he discovered that Schmitt had no substantive response, and was merely rationalizing his blood and soil bigotry.
What can we learn from this episode? The flippant response would be to say "don't read literally." I think that's nonsense. We must read literally in order to interpret. P'shat comes before drash. The real lesson is that sometimes we write our most furious letters to the people we most love.
December 17, 2024
Jacob Taubes’ To Carl Schmitt is a concise yet powerful volume that illuminates one of the most enigmatic intellectual exchanges of the 20th century. Drawing together Taubes’ correspondence and reflections addressed to Carl Schmitt, this book offers both a philosophical engagement with Schmitt’s thought and a testament to Taubes’ enduring fascination with the “crown jurist of the Third Reich.” While seemingly modest in length, this text engages deeply with questions of law, theology, and political sovereignty, casting new light on the complex relationship between two towering thinkers of political theology.
At its core, To Carl Schmitt is not simply an act of intellectual correspondence but a meditation on the implications of Schmitt’s legacy, one that Taubes both wrestles with and reinterprets. Schmitt, whose work on sovereignty and the state of exception remains highly influential and controversial, finds in Taubes an interlocutor willing to confront the theological and philosophical stakes of his arguments. The book proceeds in the form of letters and fragments, blending the personal and the theoretical in a way that reveals Taubes’ dialectical approach: an appreciation for Schmitt’s insights coupled with sharp critical awareness of their moral and historical context.
The volume opens with Taubes’ letters to Schmitt, written with a candid yet deferential tone. These letters are significant not only as documents of intellectual history but also as articulations of Taubes’ unique philosophical position. While acknowledging Schmitt’s profound influence on the study of political theology, Taubes positions himself as a radical interlocutor, emphasizing the apocalyptic undertones of Schmitt’s work. Taubes’ focus on the Pauline notion of “katechon” (the restrainer) in Schmitt’s thought serves as a pivotal theme throughout the book. Schmitt famously drew on this concept to explore the limits of political order and the forces holding back chaos. Taubes, however, subverts Schmitt’s reading, embracing the apocalyptic potential of its eschatological implications. In doing so, he reveals his own commitment to messianic thinking, which stands in stark contrast to Schmitt’s conservative desire to preserve order.
Taubes’ reflections are marked by a characteristic blend of erudition and provocation. He does not shy away from acknowledging Schmitt’s proximity to Nazism, nor does he offer simplistic moral condemnation. Instead, Taubes engages Schmitt as a thinker whose insights into political theology remain indispensable, even as they are tainted by historical complicity. This nuanced approach distinguishes To Carl Schmitt from many contemporary critiques of Schmitt, which often focus solely on the political dangers of his thought. Taubes, by contrast, insists on grappling with Schmitt on his own terms, recognizing the enduring importance of his work for understanding the intersections of theology and politics.
The book’s translation by Keith Tribe is a notable achievement. Tribe preserves the stylistic cadence of Taubes’ prose, which oscillates between the personal and the polemical. The translation captures the intensity of Taubes’ engagement with Schmitt while ensuring accessibility for contemporary readers. This is no small feat, given the dense and sometimes elliptical nature of Taubes’ writing.
One of the book’s most striking features is its exploration of the role of theology in modern political thought. Taubes’ reflections underscore the extent to which Schmitt’s work reveals the persistence of theological categories in ostensibly secular political systems. At the same time, Taubes’ own perspective – shaped by his engagement with Jewish thought, particularly the messianism of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem – provides a critical counterpoint to Schmitt’s Catholic-inflected conservatism. The result is a dialogue that transcends its immediate historical context, offering profound insights into the relationship between faith, politics, and history.
However, the book is not without its challenges. Readers unfamiliar with Schmitt’s thought may find themselves at a disadvantage, as Taubes assumes a certain level of familiarity with Schmitt’s key concepts, such as sovereignty, the state of exception, and the katechon. Additionally, the fragmentary nature of the text, while reflective of Taubes’ dialectical method, can at times feel disjointed. Yet these challenges do not detract from the book’s overall significance. On the contrary, they invite readers to engage actively with the ideas at stake, mirroring Taubes’ own restless engagement with Schmitt.
In conclusion, To Carl Schmitt is a remarkable contribution to the study of political theology and intellectual history. Taubes’ reflections are as provocative as they are insightful, offering a critical yet sympathetic engagement with Schmitt’s work that resists easy categorization. For scholars of political thought, theology, and modern intellectual history, this volume provides an indispensable resource for understanding the enduring relevance of Schmitt’s ideas and the challenges they pose for contemporary thought. Taubes’ willingness to engage with Schmitt’s legacy – both its brilliance and its dangers – is a testament to his intellectual courage and his commitment to confronting the darkest corners of political modernity.
GPT
At its core, To Carl Schmitt is not simply an act of intellectual correspondence but a meditation on the implications of Schmitt’s legacy, one that Taubes both wrestles with and reinterprets. Schmitt, whose work on sovereignty and the state of exception remains highly influential and controversial, finds in Taubes an interlocutor willing to confront the theological and philosophical stakes of his arguments. The book proceeds in the form of letters and fragments, blending the personal and the theoretical in a way that reveals Taubes’ dialectical approach: an appreciation for Schmitt’s insights coupled with sharp critical awareness of their moral and historical context.
The volume opens with Taubes’ letters to Schmitt, written with a candid yet deferential tone. These letters are significant not only as documents of intellectual history but also as articulations of Taubes’ unique philosophical position. While acknowledging Schmitt’s profound influence on the study of political theology, Taubes positions himself as a radical interlocutor, emphasizing the apocalyptic undertones of Schmitt’s work. Taubes’ focus on the Pauline notion of “katechon” (the restrainer) in Schmitt’s thought serves as a pivotal theme throughout the book. Schmitt famously drew on this concept to explore the limits of political order and the forces holding back chaos. Taubes, however, subverts Schmitt’s reading, embracing the apocalyptic potential of its eschatological implications. In doing so, he reveals his own commitment to messianic thinking, which stands in stark contrast to Schmitt’s conservative desire to preserve order.
Taubes’ reflections are marked by a characteristic blend of erudition and provocation. He does not shy away from acknowledging Schmitt’s proximity to Nazism, nor does he offer simplistic moral condemnation. Instead, Taubes engages Schmitt as a thinker whose insights into political theology remain indispensable, even as they are tainted by historical complicity. This nuanced approach distinguishes To Carl Schmitt from many contemporary critiques of Schmitt, which often focus solely on the political dangers of his thought. Taubes, by contrast, insists on grappling with Schmitt on his own terms, recognizing the enduring importance of his work for understanding the intersections of theology and politics.
The book’s translation by Keith Tribe is a notable achievement. Tribe preserves the stylistic cadence of Taubes’ prose, which oscillates between the personal and the polemical. The translation captures the intensity of Taubes’ engagement with Schmitt while ensuring accessibility for contemporary readers. This is no small feat, given the dense and sometimes elliptical nature of Taubes’ writing.
One of the book’s most striking features is its exploration of the role of theology in modern political thought. Taubes’ reflections underscore the extent to which Schmitt’s work reveals the persistence of theological categories in ostensibly secular political systems. At the same time, Taubes’ own perspective – shaped by his engagement with Jewish thought, particularly the messianism of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem – provides a critical counterpoint to Schmitt’s Catholic-inflected conservatism. The result is a dialogue that transcends its immediate historical context, offering profound insights into the relationship between faith, politics, and history.
However, the book is not without its challenges. Readers unfamiliar with Schmitt’s thought may find themselves at a disadvantage, as Taubes assumes a certain level of familiarity with Schmitt’s key concepts, such as sovereignty, the state of exception, and the katechon. Additionally, the fragmentary nature of the text, while reflective of Taubes’ dialectical method, can at times feel disjointed. Yet these challenges do not detract from the book’s overall significance. On the contrary, they invite readers to engage actively with the ideas at stake, mirroring Taubes’ own restless engagement with Schmitt.
In conclusion, To Carl Schmitt is a remarkable contribution to the study of political theology and intellectual history. Taubes’ reflections are as provocative as they are insightful, offering a critical yet sympathetic engagement with Schmitt’s work that resists easy categorization. For scholars of political thought, theology, and modern intellectual history, this volume provides an indispensable resource for understanding the enduring relevance of Schmitt’s ideas and the challenges they pose for contemporary thought. Taubes’ willingness to engage with Schmitt’s legacy – both its brilliance and its dangers – is a testament to his intellectual courage and his commitment to confronting the darkest corners of political modernity.
GPT
January 11, 2021
The only reason to read this is for the analysis in the introduction. The material from Taubes himself can be gleaned from the current translation of his book on St. Paul. The additional excerpts of Taubesiana doesn't add much.
December 23, 2025
An informal dive into the Taubes-W. Benjamin-Kojeve-C. Schmitt etc. nightmare blunt rotation with special guest appearances from the unexpected likes of Kissinger and others. "Les extrêmes se touchent."
January 19, 2023
Almost completely worthless from any perspective you look at it. Just metadata, no content.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews