Tell me about Hannah Arendt
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Tell me about Hannah Arendt
-----
In case some folks don't know about her, my impression is that she is something of an anti-philosopher. She seems concerned with thinking in general, challenging each new idea independently rather than establishing a system of thought and viewing everything through that lens. She seems to be warning us that even philosophers (perhaps especially philosophers?) are likely to develop narratives and preconceptions about the world and examine ideas only in the light of their paradigm.
The obvious example is her idea of the "banality of evil". In covering the trial of Eichmann, she found him not to be evil, as most others would have supposed. Rather, she saw him as incapable of independent thought. He was able to execute whatever tasks were put to him, but unwilling or unable to form an opinion of his own about the moral correctness of the action. She went on to describe one of the tactics of the totalitarian as trying to develop this mindset in the people he wished to control. Rather than trying to convince the people that a lie was the truth, they tended to try to push a narrative that essentially everything put forth in public was a lie (sound familiar, fellow Americans?). In such an environment, the penalty for lying in public was effectively removed, and the leaders were only judged on their ability to accomplish their stated goals and give the people that 'mattered' what they wanted (despite the consequences for others). She seemed to think that a society of Eichmanns was like a desert in which the sandstorm of the totalitarian was free to operate as he pleased.
She seemed to be able to get everyone at least a little bit upset at her as she challenged every idea presented to her independent of the fable that went along with it. For one more example, she raised objections to integrating schools. She wasn't a racist, but thought that we should start with the grown-ups, and especially with those willing to integrate. In other words, she wanted to legalize mixed marriages before busing students around. Further, she saw a problem with forced integration as opposed to outlawing forced segregation, in that it violated peoples' right to freely associate. It's one thing to say nobody can deny you access based on your race, but quite another to say that you can't choose your own child's school in the name of "ending" racism. She thought forced integration would be ineffective whether it was morally correct or not, and years later it's hard to say she was wrong.
I hope my vague impressions don't skew the results, and I am anxious to see what other think of her, but mostly to get some recommendations on what books are worth checking out.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Tell me about Hannah Arendt
Her notion was that AE was little more than a pen pusher doing his job. Nothing more than a functionary.
It was less a defence of Eichmann but more of a reflection about the absurdity of a state that did not even exist at the time of the trial holding a man to account for legal activities "committed" without the legal jurisdiction in which he lived, and far from being an architect of evil was only doing a job in a bureaucratic machine.
AE was not "evil" but banal, ordinary.
The trail was a show trial used for political capital of the politicians of 1960; and paraded a list of survivors and witnesses to the destruction of their fellow Jews in Germany.
My reading is around 20 years ago, so I'm not quotable but seem to remember that she considered the trail as part of the holocaust, adding to the evil concluding that morally it is better to have evil done to one that be the one doing the evil, especially the shameful collaboration of Jewish leaders to comply and aid the killing.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Tell me about Hannah Arendt
That adds a bit that I did not know before, but it all seems consistent with what I have seen. This is more impressive (or shocking or whatever description you prefer) in light of the fact that she was Jewish. Further, she was interred in one of the camps from which Eichmann sent many to their deaths (though I believe she was allowed to go to America just before the worst of the holocaust).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 2:01 pm I read her account of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, years ago.
Her notion was that AE was little more than a pen pusher doing his job. Nothing more than a functionary.
It was less a defence of Eichmann but more of a reflection about the absurdity of a state that did not even exist at the time of the trial holding a man to account for legal activities "committed" without the legal jurisdiction in which he lived, and far from being an architect of evil was only doing a job in a bureaucratic machine.
AE was not "evil" but banal, ordinary.
The trail was a show trial used for political capital of the politicians of 1960; and paraded a list of survivors and witnesses to the destruction of their fellow Jews in Germany.
My reading is around 20 years ago, so I'm not quotable but seem to remember that she considered the trail as part of the holocaust, adding to the evil concluding that morally it is better to have evil done to one that be the one doing the evil, especially the shameful collaboration of Jewish leaders to comply and aid the killing.
All that shows her level of commitment to trying to view every event from a position of objectivity without accepting any story that is supposed to go along with the facts. Even non-Jews, atheists and such were certainly jumping on the bandwagon to go after Eichmann and willing to assume he was evil without really looking at the man or considering the merits of the whole circus apart from ideas of revenge and such.
You would not expect that "think for yourself" would be such a compelling idea within philosophy, but actually it seems so to me, and I am interested enough to want to learn more about her ideas. Maybe "think for yourself" pretty much covers it, but I suspect not.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Tell me about Hannah Arendt
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Tell me about Hannah Arendt
From my way of thinking, you cannot fight racism by being racist yourself.chewybrian wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 6:20 pmThat adds a bit that I did not know before, but it all seems consistent with what I have seen. This is more impressive (or shocking or whatever description you prefer) in light of the fact that she was Jewish. Further, she was interred in one of the camps from which Eichmann sent many to their deaths (though I believe she was allowed to go to America just before the worst of the holocaust).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 2:01 pm I read her account of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, years ago.
Her notion was that AE was little more than a pen pusher doing his job. Nothing more than a functionary.
It was less a defence of Eichmann but more of a reflection about the absurdity of a state that did not even exist at the time of the trial holding a man to account for legal activities "committed" without the legal jurisdiction in which he lived, and far from being an architect of evil was only doing a job in a bureaucratic machine.
AE was not "evil" but banal, ordinary.
The trail was a show trial used for political capital of the politicians of 1960; and paraded a list of survivors and witnesses to the destruction of their fellow Jews in Germany.
My reading is around 20 years ago, so I'm not quotable but seem to remember that she considered the trail as part of the holocaust, adding to the evil concluding that morally it is better to have evil done to one that be the one doing the evil, especially the shameful collaboration of Jewish leaders to comply and aid the killing.
All that shows her level of commitment to trying to view every event from a position of objectivity without accepting any story that is supposed to go along with the facts. Even non-Jews, atheists and such were certainly jumping on the bandwagon to go after Eichmann and willing to assume he was evil without really looking at the man or considering the merits of the whole circus apart from ideas of revenge and such.
You would not expect that "think for yourself" would be such a compelling idea within philosophy, but actually it seems so to me, and I am interested enough to want to learn more about her ideas. Maybe "think for yourself" pretty much covers it, but I suspect not.
Israel is a country founded on racist principles and is in my view on the same plane as Nazi Germany. It seems their obsession over the years to punish people who worked at the camps and ordered the destruction of many categories of persons, does not make things right, and places them in the same realm of thinking.
Adolf Eichmann broke no laws; certainly no Israeli ones.
What he did was inexcusable, but not illegal.
BY all means have Internationally agreed laws and sanctions, but one of the greatest principles of law is that a law should not be enforced retrospectively.
Some of the people that were convicted decades later were no more than teenagers at the time of their offences, following orders to preserve their own skins, including many high profile Jews.
I find it hard to understand how this process, which excludes on the basis of race helps
Identity is a ball and chain of prejudice, but can help some whilst others suffer.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Tell me about Hannah Arendt
Well, it doesn't seem we can evoke much from the forum. Here, though:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 8:02 am I know only the name of Hannah Arendt, so far. I look forward to learning more from this topic...
^That discussion was far and away the best of many Youtube videos or podcasts that I found discussing her ideas. I don't know how you could listen along and not have your own ideas challenged and feel an earthquake shaking away all the assumptions you and others once held as fact. Her ideas do seem to boil down to "think for yourself" as I suggested (at least so far). Yet, thinking for yourself outside the traditions of society and even the framework of rationality presented to us by philosophy is really a new world for all of us.
She seems to say that only the political (which she defines narrowly as authentic interaction between individuals) can help us to approach truth. She declines Plato's idea of escaping the cave and understanding objective, irrefutable truth. Truth is at least partly defined by our own existence and shared experience. It is thus both precious and somewhat temporary and always in need of re-fueling, re-discovery and re-telling. As soon as we decide that we have discovered an objective truth that we place above ourselves and others, we have lost our appreciation of the dire need to think for ourselves and with each other. By declining the need to think for ourselves, we are at risk of latching onto almost anything that promises to be some sort of perfect truth. The dictator sees the need people have for something that is greater than their own experience, and knows that they will accept the inevitable consequences of these "truths" if he can just get them to buy into the concepts. But, the real truth is their own experience and the experience of others, and they need to learn to fight to speak that truth. When you are willing to challenge everything, you can see little bits of manipulation all over the place, like defining a natural disaster in terms of aggregate dollars in damage rather than in lost lives and disrupted lives, for example. People are dehumanized when they are turned into units of production and the slippery slope to totalitarianism is only a short step away all the time.
I still hope we will get some others weighing in about her, especially with reading recommendations. But, I highly recommend that video (lecture without moving pictures) as a place to begin to understand her ideas. I just can't imagine anyone with an interest in philosophy not being moved by that presentation to want to know more. At the very least, they should be offended, and if they are, maybe they should listen once more to be sure her accusations are not hitting too close to home.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023