Thomas Hobbes stands at the threshold of modern political thought, offering a vision of human relations that is neither Machiavellian nor Clausewitzian, yet essential for understanding both. His work forms the missing element in the axis that runs from Machiavelli’s political modulation, through Clausewitz’s dynamic field of conflict, to Schmitt’s metaphysics of sovereignty. Hobbes does […]

Carl Schmitt occupies a peculiar position in the landscape of political thought. His work is powerful, influential, and rhetorically compelling, yet it stands in direct opposition to any ontology grounded in relationality. Schmitt’s political theology is built upon absolutes: the sovereign who decides, the exception that defines the norm, and the friend-enemy distinction that reduces […]

Machiavelli, Clausewitz, and Schmitt represent three distinct ways of understanding political action under tension. When placed side by side, their differences illuminate the conceptual terrain upon which relational monism stands. Each thinker offers a lens onto the behaviour of political fields, but only two of them – Machiavelli and Clausewitz – speak a language that […]

(and Why He Is Not Compatible) Carl Schmitt’s political theology is built upon a search for absolutes: the sovereign who decides, the exception that defines the norm, and the friend–enemy distinction that structures political identity. His work does not describe the dynamics of political fields; it sacralises decision, elevating it to a metaphysical act. In […]