Supervisors info:
Βασίλειος Βουτσάκης, Λέκτορας Ιστορίας και Θεωρίας του Δικαίου, Νομική Σχολή, ΕΚΠΑ
Summary:
Benjamin seeks the way in which criticism of violence can be possible, within the law and justice itself. So, he tries some discriminations between violence whichestablishes the law and violence which maintains it, between mythical and divine violence, and between justice, as the principle of every divine placement, and power, as the beginning of every mythical righteousness. Benjamin's aim is to ensure the existence of pure violence outside and beyond the law, which he will call divine violence, as well as to highlight the relationship between violence and law and the realization of the latter's existence as a human action. On the other hand, Arend highlights the instrumental nature of violence, concluding that violence can not have purely political goals but only indirectly can serve politics. This rejection of violence as means of establishing a new political treaty leads Arent to distinguish violence from power and seek the solution within the ancient greek city and the roman res publica. Both Benjamin and Arend seek a political principle capable of crushing the "fatal" and endless cyrcle of violence. They both seek a way that will break the historic continuum in a revolutionary moment, will begin a new period without violence, and will rupture the bond between violence and law. How could we eventually judge violence, whether within the law or out of it?
Keywords:
violence, law, Benjamin, Arendt