Schedule & Background

[Thomas]

Hannah Arendt led an eventful life and a lot has been written about her life as well as her thought. A few years ago there was even a Hollywood-style bio-pic, which is a little unusual for any philosopher. As a young woman she was in a romantic relationship with Martin Heidegger, and unfortunately much of the popular material written about her focuses on this sensation (and especially on Heidegger's role in the Nazi party and the troubling implications for those who associated with him, including a number of Jewish intellectuals like Arendt, ) I say unfortunately because it's a missed opportunity to talk about Arendt's work, which is deserving of more attention.

Here is the spot to discuss background material -- biographical or critical. I'd like to keep those things confined to this thread, as much as possible, so that they don't become a distraction to our discussion of the Human Condition itself.

Schedule

June 15 - Prologue and Chapter I, "Vita Activa and the Human Condition"
June 22 - Chapter II, The Public and Private Realm
June 29 - Chapter III, Labor
July 6 - Chapter IV, Work
July 13 - Chapter V, Action, Sections 24-29
July 20 - Chapter V, Action, Sections 30-34
July 27 - Chapter VI, The Vita Activa and the Modern Age, Sections 35-39
Aug 3 - Chapter VI, The Vita Activa and the Modern Age, Sections 40-45, and the book as a whole

[Borum]

I don't know much about her history with Heidegger or Heidegger's own philosophy but I know she wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem and can't fathom how she could have been involved in that. I've heard that both Nietzsche and Arendt have been misinterpreted on their attitude toward the Nazis.

I'm reading Nietzsche's Zarathustra at this moment and although she might have some influences of Heidegger or Nietzsche, I think it's better to first acknowledge what's hers as her own and not automatically connect it with them.

[Jassmine]

@Borum: From what I know (which is quite limited), Nazis used Nietzsche's philosophy in their propaganda without his consent. I don't really know what Nietzche's opinion on the matter was, when his philosophy is taken out of context it sounds pretty bad and I never studied him. It definitely stigmatizes him though.
From what I know about Arendt, the issue was a bit different there and I think it was tied to Eichman in Jerusalem, because a lot of people took it as her excusing Nazism. Which was shocking to them especially since she was Jewish.
Heidegger actually wrote a pro-Nazi texts there are debates if that was an excusable behaviour and if he really meant it, but... I can't say I like that man.


From what I read and learn, I don't really think Heidegger's and Arendt's philosophies are that similar - Heidegger is very abstract where Arendt is much more down to Earth. But Heidegger was her teacher, so I guess some influences will be there. But yes, I absolutely agree that her philosophy deserves to be looked at on its own merit and not through a lenses of their relationship.


Also, I read The Three Escapes of Hannah Arendt: A Tyranny of Truth last year and I would really recommend it, if you want to learn more about her in approachable manner. It's a comic, but really well researched, I learned a lot and it was also a funny read.
If you want to know a bit more, I wrote a review for it: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Thomas]

Jassmine wrote: "From what I read and learn, I don't really think Heidegger's and Arendt's philosophies are that similar - Heidegger is very abstract where Arendt is much more down to Earth. But Heidegger was her teacher, so I guess some influences will be there."

I'm not sure what Arendt's philosophy is yet, but from what I've read so far I can say that she is much easier to understand. Heidegger utilized an unfamiliar vocabulary to investigate ontology in general and human being (Dasein) in particular, and he is very difficult to understand. Arendt's interest is not ontology, or human *being* for that matter, but human society, and I agree that it is much more down to earth. It's still philosophy built on a Western philosophical foundation, and she refers to that pretty much constantly, but at least she's not making up her own terminology.

[Jassmine]

Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure what Arendt's philosophy is yet, but from what I've read so far I can say that she is much easier to understand. Heidegger utilized an unfamiliar vocabulary to investigate ontology..."

I completely agree. From what I read, I would say that Arendt uses concepts that are already here, but builds them together in a fashion that is unique.

[[deleted user]]

When I read Eichmann in Jerusalem, I never perceived it as excusing the Nazis, but it has been a long time. What I took away from the book was the truth that most humans are capable of horrific evil. I was so struck--in my 20s when I read it in college--by the image of the small aged man who had committed horrific evil. I'm looking forward to the discussion on this Arendt book which I've not read.

[Jassmine]

Sam wrote: "When I read Eichmann in Jerusalem, I never perceived it as excusing the Nazis, but it has been a long time. What I took away from the book was the truth that most humans are capable of horrific evi..."

Yes, I didn't read Eichmann (yet), so I can't really judge it for myself, but I definitely don't think that she excused Nazis. But I know that her work was misinterpreted and that a lot of people... had opinions.

The controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt's reportage on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem and the subsequent book cannot be underestimated. For Arendt personally, the trial was the decisive event in the second half of her life and amounted to nothing less than a second exile.

I found an article that focuses on this issue, I didn't read the whole thing, so I can't vouch for it, but it seems to be very thorough.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24273627...

[Xan]

For those of you who are like me and need an assist in understanding what Arendt is up to in this book, here is a short essay by Sayla Benhabib (Political science, political philosophy) "How to Read Hannah Aredt's The Human Condiition," which I found slightly helpful.


First, let me note that Arendt’s concept of action which weaves together acting and speaking -deeds and words- is path-breaking not just in political philosophy but in philosophy as such.
https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/critiq...

Loved the 'Polis envy" comment.