在西方思想史上，瓦尔特·本雅明是影响最大的激进左翼知识人之一，卡尔·施米特则堪称二十世纪最为“反动”的思想家。他们之间“隐匿的对话”因此成为当代西方思想史上尤为引人注目的“公案”之一。随着本雅明在二十世纪三十年代致施米特的书信公诸于世，关于两人之间思想关联的讨论也日渐增多。本雅明与施米特之间的思想关联是从“作为方法的例外”开始的。施米特关于现代国家起源于例外状态的学说启发了本雅明的悲苦剧研究。尽管本雅明和施米特的研究领域不同，但是借助“例外”这一极端主义方法两者共同揭示了现代的真正起源。与此同时，“例外”作为现代性的起源也成为两位思想家分道扬镳的起点。在勘明现代的例外状态本质后，施米特选择以主权决断来填补意义真空，以便为现代政治重建神圣依据。本雅明则通过对巴洛克悲苦剧中三种不同政治类型的分析向施米特表明，主权决断在一个已经脱节的时代不仅不会带来秩序还会造成灾难。二战结束之后，施米特写了《哈姆雷特或赫卡柏》一书，一则提醒战后德国思想界自由主义隐藏的危险后果，一则为了回应本雅明对自己的批评。对于施米特而言，哈姆雷特这个无法行动的复仇者形象并不像本雅明所说的那样是一个悲苦剧君主形象，恰恰相反，这个人物背后所蕴含的“历史现实”正印证了莎士比亚作为现代英国立法诗人的地位，他将哈姆雷特从历史事件提升到了具有凝聚民族共同体作用的神话高度。对施米特而言，神话是维系现代政治共同体的重要力量，神话必须具备的“同属性”特征使其成为抵制物质-经济思维的重要力量。在本雅明看来，这种“同属性”的神话最终还是基督教一神论政治传统的现代翻版 ，因此问题不是要哪一种神话，而是要从根本上破除神话，才能实现人类最终的救赎。

In western intellectual history, Walter Benjamin is one of the most influential leftist intellectuals, while Carl Schmitt the most "reactionary" thinker in the twentieth century. The "hidden dialogue" between them has thus become one of the most striking case in contemporary western intellectual history. With the publication of Benjamin’s letter to Schmidt in the 1930s, there has been an increasing discussion of the intellectual relationship between them. The intellectual connection between Benjamin and Schmidt begins with “exceptions as a method”. Schmitt's theory that modern state origins from state of exception inspires Benjamin's study of Trauerspiel. Although their fields are different, both of two with the extremist approach of "exception" reveals the true origin of modernity. At the same time, the "exception" as the origin of modernity has also become the point of departure for their parting ways. After identifying the nature of the modernity exceptional state, Schmitt chooses sovereign decision to fill the vacuum of meaning and to reconstruct the transcendental basis for modern politics. Through an analysis of three different political types in Baroque Trauerspiel, Benjamin shows that Schmittian sovereignty decisions will lead to disaster instead of order in an era of out of joint. After the end of World War II, Schmitt writes Hamlet or Hecuba, as a warning of the dangerous consequences of the post-war liberalism on one hand, a response to Benjamin’s criticism of himself on the other hand. For Schmitt, Hamlet, the avenger who cannot take any action, is not the indecisive sovereign in Trauerspiel. On the contrary, the “historical reality” behind this character shows that Shakespeare’s status of the modern British legislative poet, who elevates Hamlet from historical events to the myth with function of uniting the nation. For Schmitt, myth is an important force for maintaining the modern political community. Myth whose character is Zusammengeh?rigkeiten make it an important force to resist material-economic thoughts. In Benjamin's view, this myth of Zusammengeh?rigkeiten turned out to be a modern version of the Christian monotheistic political tradition. Therefore, the question is not what kind of myth we need, but to break the myth, in order to achieve the ultimate redemption.