Of all the wonderful episodes you have done. this is my favorite! Arendt's work is a timeless warning of what happens when we stop thinking and acting. There can be no worse a fate for a human than to be nothing more than a thoughtless laboring animal.
Mr. West I truly want to thank you for the great service you are providing by offering your insight/interpretation for creating these episodes. You allow the average person like myself to understand and appreciate these great thinkers from different eras.
Thanks for saying that on behalf of all us, Alfred, while I admire your humility further to your self-descriptor of "average". If more people thought of themselves in that way further to Blaise Pascal's great remark concerning most personages "inability to sit quietly in a room" - and this too despite Hannah Arendt's complaint about the contemplative philosophical life! - the world would be a much happier place.
I was just dancing around the kitchen, holding the poor cat high above my head like some offering to an alien god or to my upstairs neighbors, while cheering this on. Thank you.
I have to say this was quite the treat. Perfect way to end the day... a good Ol philosophize this podcast. Don’t want to sound ungrateful but Mr. West it would mean a lot to me and I’m sure countless others if you could keep the content coming more often. I hope all is well sir; because you were putting out episodes way more often. Thank you 🙏 for all the awesome philosophers you have touched on.
He produces such great shows. My guess is that won't record or release a show until he feels it is good enough (for his standard). And while I would also like them to come more often, I feel that the content level and professionalism is well worth the wait.
@@jwbland8375 I would say not only limited to America, and that is why this is universal. But yes, I am very sorry to see what is going on in the USA today.
It gives me chills how prescient she was/is. The same thing is happening right now with identity politics and there's a lot of hate, a lot of chaos, a lot of emptiness.
This is one of the best podcast that I have ever experienced. I also feel it came as a self reflection to me. It’s interesting to see How one mistakenly denies searching for his identity and gives it in the hands of groups who are invisible. Well I relate to these groups as big tech giants who throw money as a totem to fill intellectual lubrications in their giant economic cogs.
I love the way this podcast talks about authors: so good to hear, thanks for your job. I want to leave a thought as a brazilian researcher on anthropology. Quote: "This was not a man motivated to do what he did because of a racist ideology. This was a man motivated because he was trying to get a promotion" - end quote about the concept of banality of evil. Well, I want to ask why not someone motivated by a racist ideology AND someone trying to get a promotion? Why we have to think it's just one of those two things and not embrace peoples as a complex phenomena? I'm asking this because if we are trying to think with Arendt that neither capitalism and marxist can leave behing the ilummination as an ontological base (with economics as a thing in common about those two types of system), I think we need to go deeper to comprehend what we call modernity and what deep roots it has (and racism is one of them as could say Frantz Fanon). Even if some person lives as an avarege person, living his/her life trying to get a job and a family, he/she is located as a person and almost always we are talking about white people that lived on "developed contries". Even if someone don't want to be a racist person, it could be living as a racist person because he is inside a system that promotes colonialism, consumism, natural disasters and so on. What I think is good about Arendt is that she puts modernity as a complex problem to discuss and put nazism as a result of this type of living and thinking. But it is still a local thought because I think we need to go even deeper as Gilbert Durand tries to do, putting europe (more deeper than just modernity) as a result of a long process that started in the 13th century ("science de l'homme et tradition" is a very good book for this). So it's not just about the notion of politics, but about the ontological existence that promotes destruction and, in times of exacerbation, nazism and total war. So we have to think about our distance of the west, of indigenous people, of Africa, of religious thought (not catolic) and how we perpetuate this distance with ordinaire things like eating, bathing, clothing, seeking health, education, etc. Thanks for reading even if you desagree!
Yes I hear you. Reality is infinitely messier than some neat little box. I’ve heard others state that Arendts deeper point was that when we direct human relation through bureaucratic systems (defined aseptically by job title, protocol etc.) that there is a danger of damaging a persons ability to have a reflexive conversation (a two-in-one inner dialogue) with themselves about their values/ethics. That if we structure relation around hard systems, that people can become one-dimensional products of that world. That being said, I tend to think that the monstrosity of Eichmann wasn’t his inner-banality (looking singularly at promotion/service and disavowing his larger role) but rather that he was an unconscious monster which could hide even from himself beneath a skin of banality.
I think that Arendt fundamentally agrees that humans are complicated and pluralistic beings, that we can be motivated by racism and promotion at the same time, but that modernity - and especially totalitarian movements - denies all complexities for the modern man. In The Human Condition she positions plurality as the fundamental requirement for a political community. It's individual subjective distinctions and diversity that allows us to have meaningful and worthwhile inter-personal meetings - and be political. What modernity does is to deny this plurality, we become economic scientific beings that are all alike with the same biological and psychological processes. Science and economy, in this way, denies politics for it denies plurality. West didn't have the time to dig into it, but what totalitarian movements are according to Arendt, is simply large collectives of people who can't be individual humans anymore. All humans must fit into a specific ideological fold despite the reality that we're all extremely different. This is why totalitarianism must dig into peoples mind and control all aspects of each humans, *to deny our plurality*. A model Nazi, like Eichmann, is the product of that ideology. He's a person whose mind is colonized by the Nazi ideology and conditioned to only think within the parameters set out by Hitler. And since he is surrounded by the same kind of mentally colonized people there is no plurality, the evil that Eichmann and his colleagues committed was banal for it was obvious and a truism. Eichmann defended himself in Jerusalem by claiming that the Holocaust was a historical necessity (1) and that he lacked an "outside voice" (2). It really summarizes Arendt's thesis. 1. The holocaust had to be done due to the ideological colonization of Eichmann mind 2. There was no one there to challenge the norms and ideas that RSHA simply lived by, without the ability to think critically about them. Their evil was banal because they couldn't understand what they were doing.
@@nightoftheworld this is exactly an issue I have with the modern world. Everything is done asynchronously and through digital intermediaries, so there are misunderstandings and resentment abound. Try talking to someone who can actually help at any company you call anymore. You either get a labyrinth of menus, or a minimum wage worker with no power that is hired to get yelled at and given no power to help. Everything is done at such a distance, many people are literally becoming unsocialized, including myself.
Thank you very much...I have started the imperialism chapter...from her book ` the origin of totalitarianism ' . So rich and full of information...connects lot of things from her time and before and very much relevant today...the world we live in...
This is fantastic but I also have to add that Nazis did in some ways obtain power. A portion of their group was elected, but Hitler was seen as the most vital leader of the conservative right in Congress, and from there they started to implement significant policies and techniques to create the new state. At least that is my understanding. Either way, this is a brilliant episode.
Thank you so much Steve, what is the jargon that you used that Arendt used to criticize Marx, i tried to get it but i think I’m hearing it incorrectly 😅
My problem with postmodern philosophy is the vitriol its defended with. Modern philosophy, like Arendt, is that it acknowledges the flaws it has. What we have now, this so-called post modern "philosophy" is children crying into the void, demanding satasfaction from a grievance that they dont even know of.
For me, it depends on the system the individual is embedded in. Unethical systems are almost unavoidable, but they can be minimized. Changing the structure of neighborhoods would go a long way towards giving power back to the small group, and this could be seen as going back to our evolutionary roots for brain development...small groups are better. There's trust as well as economic efficiency. There's another thing that happens here that adds to the problem: the perception of fake power in the group. Power (money, machines and group) allows one to DO more and inspires the unknowing to feel like they ARE more. My group is more powerful, so I'm more powerful. The question is how much does one engage in a unethical system, for gain. I agree with Arendt in that philosophers should engage, in order to avoid coercive systems, and I disagree with the idea that the contemplative life isn't sufficient. Thinking is a form of movement. The right sort of physical activity (light repetitive hand work) abets philosophy and strikes a good balance, and should enable one to avoid coercive systems. The group needs to be deliberately kept small though.
Great as always. And the idea of the banality of evil and how fascism truly comes into power when dumb people are given something to cheer for and be part of, couldn't be more relevant than in post Trump America. Personally I enjoy these more cerebral and existential episodes best. Missed you Stephen. And btw your voice sounds sexy again 😍
Hello to you, too. Hey man, I started your podcast from ep 1 and I absolutely love it! I wanted to leave a review on iTunes (first time this ever crossed my mind) and I guess I need to have Apple to do that.. I don't know. But thank you, I'm having so much fun with this. I wanted to ask you, are you gonna do an episode about the "psychedelic philosopher" Terence mckenna?
This was so eye opening! Thank YOU! Hopefully you can address one question. Is the root cause of needing to "engage or take action in the political realm" a result of untrustworthy, psychopathic types in leadership positions? OR did these "types" emerge as a result of a lack of participation and engagement (in politics) of common folk - which would have acted as a sort of "checks and balance" or a type of immune defense against totalitarianism (which in my opinion is political psychopathy). Seems in any case, the root cause is psychopathy, and what is the cause of psychopathy but the lack of connection to your heart, to love, to nature, to the planet - to the archeytpe of the Mother, but also the good Father too. Thats my take of course - it would be interesting to get your take on it.
I wonder if that's really true of enlightenment. Reading Casanova for example would give you a different idea of what was going on during the time. I don't think there was ever that much public engagement at any time, maybe ancient Athens and that's it? You can't just say it used to be different without backing that up with real examples.
You make an outstanding point. What we have as written evidence of the past, i.e. pre-enlightenment, is just a few, often randomly surviving, writings, not representing any group, except possibly past philosophers. If we rely only on the writings of philosophers to tell us what life was like for people of the past, then that is likely to give a limited, un-representative view. Why should we believe that people generally were more politically engaged in the past, when the fact is that a larger percentage of the population were involved in creating food? I am immediately suspicious of any argument that starts by extolling the virtues of the past. Any such lines of thought start with highly selective remembering.
12:12: That's half of the truth, but I'd point out it goes entirely down to prove this point: the person is just as often likely to tell you about how their 'labour' is their identity, in Arendt's terminology. They'll say 'I eat healthy food', 'I like to travel', 'I like fitness' which are all homeostatic performances that are qualified as 'Labour' under this school of thought. Edit: NVM this is mentioned seconds later in the video... at least the travel part. There's no such thing as an original idea!
If everybody was vegan, there'd be a lot less animals! All industrial livestock would be killed off, similar to the pit of burning pigs we recently saw because of the pandemic, and only hobby farmers would remain with much fewer animals. (Their individual freedom/space might increase though because of their lowered population density)
This was very informative! Thank you! I worry for the future of the US democracy. Barely half of the eligible voting population votes in our presidential elections. If less and less people vote, we might turn into a totalitarian dictatorship.
Great episode! I'll work Arendt's idea of animal laborans along with the text by Adorno, Education after Auschwitz , in order to introduce the idea of technicist reason as a product of Enlightment.
11:54 *economic man* what, generally, would you reply to someone if they asked you: _”who are you?”_ Honestly, in everyday life to break from the formulaic reply of _“oh I’m X and I do Y”_ and automatically jump into deeper aspects of oneself with someone new without first going through a bit of formulaic mannerisms is usually received awkwardly, as though you’re autistic or something. In truth I prefer those who like to descend respectfully into more meaningful discussion, but even though I enjoy it I still do feel a surge of skepticism when the usual X/Y response is not given. I think many perceive such approaches almost as something threatening/unhinged (and justifiably so)-by not following protocol their mental state is flagged as culturally aberrant.. could be good, could be bad. Similarly though, plenty of sharp manipulators stick convincingly to convention specifically to avoid such flags.. truly a torture house of language.
I think the pendulum swings both ways and so should any deep thinker. Living a full life is both solitude and engagement. Polarity is the mother of enlightenment. The middle way is nature, you as the seasons. The weather, the sea. It is dynamic and vibrant. Thus it brings truth to light.
As to A. Eichmann, people act with many emotions at play. Arguably many can be traced to a form of tribalism/belonging and the fear of being ostracized which at one point of our evolution meant essentially being sent away from the safety of the tribe and left to die. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland [Christopher R. Browning]
Would people be moved towards criminal acts out of fear to be ostracized from a group they know is evil and immoral? Does being a member of a group become more important than the ability to think for themselves and follow morality?
@@dm5129 yes in spades and history is sadly ripe with examples. I gave reference to "Ordinary Men" as a prime example - how police officers slowly [de]evolved to brutal murders, killing pregnant women and children in Poland in WWII.
They might have had a reason behind this. I've read somewhere that Socrates" believed that writing was not an effective means of communicating knowledge. To him, face-to-face communication was the only way one person could transmit knowledge to another. [...] If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
This is very good. But I don't understand how active participation in society as a philosopher will stop people from coopting your ideas in the future?
I've just started following this podcast and the link to the transcript of your first episode is broken. I find it much easier to remember things if I can read them. Please, can you fix this? thanks. (This is the link that is supposed to work www.philosophizethis.org/episode-1-ionian-philosophy-full-transcript/)
I definitely feel there is less action in US democracy. Especially this year. Less people voted in our election than 2020. Now we have Trump again. Ugh. I want to see more action in voting and less corruption.
This wisdom has been around for sometime but most people are ignorant of it. And we live in a world where Trump became president and totalitarian regimes are on the rise. If in general the mass of humanity is ignorant of these ideas maybe its relevant to ask how we overcome that.
Political end not as mean to and end (politics not for life liberty but life and liberty for politics) -culture of narcissism. John locke vs ancient philosophy Englithement - historicism and relativity only as ways of identifying self. Therefore stuck at value and work (culture) whereas action (values and identity) are missing - economic man (transactions, what u own and job Social media mediates narcism so individual is cog in a machine (arendt goes further than the book) Because we're stuck at work/job level we become alienated to the world To be alone is too difficult so we become focussed on job(narccissm) but it exists within a culture. Not evil but not thinking Narcism leads you to be alienated and be a pawn in another games. U don't control culture but want to be a part of it's prevailing sphere
Arendt was a bright, exceptional person. How do we respond to the death of God, Truth and Meaning? Create our own meaning, or let someone else do it for us? This is a recipe for disaster, because any demagogue can take advantage of a nihilistic, pessimistic worldview. Come up with some views of your own and start participating in the discussion, and by the end of it you may change into a really interesting person.
Thinking to yourself and arguing with yourself allows you to come to your most unbiased outcome and not just taking the side or other side of someone else to double down.
@@Diescenesterdie lol I didnt personally mean you. And I think you make a great point. I actually thought the same thing. When thinking to yourself youre creating limitations that cant exceed beyond your own thought and intelligence or experiences. But the things we choose or the things that choose us to think about are what we are fully desired and capable of thinking.
I don't want seclusion. I just need my freedom and privacy. If living in seclusion is the only way to attain that then so be it. It's not the same as not wanting to be under corrupting influence of society. I'm perfectly fine with society the way it is. And i'm not gonna be sitting around thinking without doing anything. I'm gonna be doing my own research. I have experienced all that status quo has to offer, so there's no need to waste any more time when there's serious work to do.
What i am trying to say is that it's the only path for me. All else has been done to death. I'm not asocial although i used to believe that until recently. I can't describe my views. They are far too nuanced and complex. I'm in the process of trying to simplify them. Everything is converging to point of clarity and simplicity as i do my work. That's why i need privacy. I can't work under pressure or when i feel insecure. I'm not a soldier. I would like to be a scholar.
I aim to fix everything i can. How i would go about doing it, i don't know. I will know when my work is finished. I'm looking for absolute perfection in my solutions. The philosophers i like are UG, JK and Buddha. No one else in this world gets them really. It's a delicate balance to understand and embody what they have said. All our current day buddhists are doing it wrong. I would never categorize myself as a buddhist. I am glad i have no self-knowledge. There are no people like me. No one else understands the things i do. I am completely alone. And that's why i have to do this. I am not on anyone's side and i never will be. There's a deeper meaning to what i said in the previous sentence. Most won't get it. It takes courage to understand deeper truths of life. I hate to talk. All i have just said here in my comments will be redundant once it's said and done. Don't follow me.
But, if you can't shake this feeling or doubt that something's wrong then i ask you to have faith in humanity and if you can allow yourself to be generous enough, also to have faith in me.
But neither Carl Schmitt nor Martin Heidegger--two of the most astute and profound thinkers of their day--resigned themselves from public life. So engagement per se (the vita activa) cannot be what is necessary to obviate totalitarian regimes. One can be complicit as active participant and political philosopher (Carl Schmitt) in aiding and abetting such regimes. Though it is naive to think that such engagement actually matters one way or another. The Nazi's did not need theoretical types to justify their policies. This seems so obvious. Perhaps this is why Strauss did not think very highly of Arendt as a philosopher. He accepted that the political uselessness of the philosopher is the price he pays for his attempt to be impartial/disinterested, that is to say, to give the best possible arguments for all positions. Theoretical life is the life of possible positions, not actual position-taking. Anyone can vote--butcher, baker, candlestick-maker. It doesn't really matter what philosophy lies behind the check you make--every ballot counts the same. Behind Arendt's chastisement of theoretical types seems to be an inflated idea of the consequentiality of thinking, which, in the real political world--as opposed to the classroom--comes down to no more than having an opinion--one among many. A critique of Nationalist Socialism must also be a critique of the democratic process that enabled it to assume power. For what was Hitler if not a demagogue? Such a critique is as old as democracy itself (viz., Plato's Republic).
I hope people start thinking for themselves and stop identifying in groups real soon. The average person doesn’t read or listen to any philosophical writings. We are in a time where either political party can interpret this in order to take action upon the opposing party. Only discourse will save modern society. Hopefully big tech won’t stop that.
Say Planet one more time.... is that banality enough philosopher? Violence is power that's what she said and it's also the reason why people prefer to act stupid and philosophers stay silent or become cynical.
Holy toledo ... If Arendt had a TH-cam channel today, she'd be cancelled by the "woken" copy/paster/"fact"-checkers. Could not be more relevant than in 2020-2023+ ... bravo for posting!
I think you like all the americans and i think very few with some kind of creation. I ask you what you hate so much the period call Enlightment? And the way you read Marx througth her, have you read any book of his directly. Stop the bull....
Is not '..what makes us human.. ( thereby distinguishing us from other biological organisms) the ethical faculty of conscience. i.e. evolution ain't no done deal. Try not to get sta££€d in the $imian $tratum.
The first three minutes of this is completely false-from the allegory of the cave, to how philosophy is actually conducted. Philosophy is NOT what happens to occur to one who becomes a hermit. Plato did not believe that Philosophy was advanced through seclusion... The allegory of the cave is about a mind without wisdom (the slaves in the cave) to the pursuit of wisdom( the journey out of the cave and to knowledge). Plato would have undermined the entire philosophical process of his teacher, Socrates, and disgraced his legacy if he did not engage in Socratic dialog. This first three minutes was enough to have me turn off this video-for if you lie about something as simple as the allegory of the cave and the Socratic Method- I want to hear nothing else you have to say about ANY Philosophy. Sincerely, A Philosopher.
This hits really hard. We need more modernity Philosophy on this show.
Of all the wonderful episodes you have done. this is my favorite! Arendt's work is a timeless warning of what happens when we stop thinking and acting. There can be no worse a fate for a human than to be nothing more than a thoughtless laboring animal.
Mr. West I truly want to thank you for the great service you are providing by offering your insight/interpretation for creating these episodes. You allow the average person like myself to understand and appreciate these great thinkers from different eras.
Thanks for saying that on behalf of all us, Alfred, while I admire your humility further to your self-descriptor of "average". If more people thought of themselves in that way further to Blaise Pascal's great remark concerning most personages "inability to sit quietly in a room" - and this too despite Hannah Arendt's complaint about the contemplative philosophical life! - the world would be a much happier place.
Still re-listening to this
I was just dancing around the kitchen, holding the poor cat high above my head like some offering to an alien god or to my upstairs neighbors, while cheering this on. Thank you.
Succinct and concise. A great service to citizens and storytellers seeking their themes.
I have to say this was quite the treat. Perfect way to end the day... a good
Ol philosophize this podcast. Don’t want to sound ungrateful but Mr. West it would mean a lot to me and I’m sure countless others if you could keep the content coming more often. I hope all is well sir; because you were putting out episodes way more often. Thank you 🙏 for all the awesome philosophers you have touched on.
He produces such great shows. My guess is that won't record or release a show until he feels it is good enough (for his standard). And while I would also like them to come more often, I feel that the content level and professionalism is well worth the wait.
Wow! I have been exploring Hannah's ideas and this video is the most accessible content on the topic I found so far.
Thank you so much.
I just finished reading Eichmann in Jeruralem. This podcast was a great way to complete the picture. Thank you.
Hannah Arendt seems particularly relevant to politics in America today...and not just America
Yes but mostly in America
@@jwbland8375 I would say not only limited to America, and that is why this is universal. But yes, I am very sorry to see what is going on in the USA today.
@@jwbland8375 America isn't the center of the world
@@treytrapani9813 yes they are, like it or not.
@@littlebird3495 yep the biggest nastiest bullies in the playground.
Halfway through and loving it, Steven! Will be starting on "The Human Condition" shortly. Will continue to support the show.
this just provided me with 5 pages of notes, thank you, i have severe cramp in my fingers and it is now about 4 in the morning, but thank you
It gives me chills how prescient she was/is. The same thing is happening right now with identity politics and there's a lot of hate, a lot of chaos, a lot of emptiness.
I really love the episode. I learn so many things from here. Thank you very much.
The best introduction to Hannah Arendt (or actually the best intro in general) I've ever heard. Many thanks!
Thank you for sharing this. I found it amusing, engaging and profound! Great discourse I will definitely share this
This is one of the best podcast that I have ever experienced. I also feel it came as a self reflection to me. It’s interesting to see How one mistakenly denies searching for his identity and gives it in the hands of groups who are invisible. Well I relate to these groups as big tech giants who throw money as a totem to fill intellectual lubrications in their giant economic cogs.
Read Erich Fromm's Be or Have. You will like it, I think.
I love the way this podcast talks about authors: so good to hear, thanks for your job. I want to leave a thought as a brazilian researcher on anthropology.
Quote: "This was not a man motivated to do what he did because of a racist ideology. This was a man motivated because he was trying to get a promotion" - end quote about the concept of banality of evil.
Well, I want to ask why not someone motivated by a racist ideology AND someone trying to get a promotion? Why we have to think it's just one of those two things and not embrace peoples as a complex phenomena? I'm asking this because if we are trying to think with Arendt that neither capitalism and marxist can leave behing the ilummination as an ontological base (with economics as a thing in common about those two types of system), I think we need to go deeper to comprehend what we call modernity and what deep roots it has (and racism is one of them as could say Frantz Fanon). Even if some person lives as an avarege person, living his/her life trying to get a job and a family, he/she is located as a person and almost always we are talking about white people that lived on "developed contries". Even if someone don't want to be a racist person, it could be living as a racist person because he is inside a system that promotes colonialism, consumism, natural disasters and so on. What I think is good about Arendt is that she puts modernity as a complex problem to discuss and put nazism as a result of this type of living and thinking. But it is still a local thought because I think we need to go even deeper as Gilbert Durand tries to do, putting europe (more deeper than just modernity) as a result of a long process that started in the 13th century ("science de l'homme et tradition" is a very good book for this). So it's not just about the notion of politics, but about the ontological existence that promotes destruction and, in times of exacerbation, nazism and total war. So we have to think about our distance of the west, of indigenous people, of Africa, of religious thought (not catolic) and how we perpetuate this distance with ordinaire things like eating, bathing, clothing, seeking health, education, etc.
Thanks for reading even if you desagree!
Yes I hear you. Reality is infinitely messier than some neat little box. I’ve heard others state that Arendts deeper point was that when we direct human relation through bureaucratic systems (defined aseptically by job title, protocol etc.) that there is a danger of damaging a persons ability to have a reflexive conversation (a two-in-one inner dialogue) with themselves about their values/ethics. That if we structure relation around hard systems, that people can become one-dimensional products of that world.
That being said, I tend to think that the monstrosity of Eichmann wasn’t his inner-banality (looking singularly at promotion/service and disavowing his larger role) but rather that he was an unconscious monster which could hide even from himself beneath a skin of banality.
I think that Arendt fundamentally agrees that humans are complicated and pluralistic beings, that we can be motivated by racism and promotion at the same time, but that modernity - and especially totalitarian movements - denies all complexities for the modern man.
In The Human Condition she positions plurality as the fundamental requirement for a political community. It's individual subjective distinctions and diversity that allows us to have meaningful and worthwhile inter-personal meetings - and be political. What modernity does is to deny this plurality, we become economic scientific beings that are all alike with the same biological and psychological processes. Science and economy, in this way, denies politics for it denies plurality.
West didn't have the time to dig into it, but what totalitarian movements are according to Arendt, is simply large collectives of people who can't be individual humans anymore. All humans must fit into a specific ideological fold despite the reality that we're all extremely different. This is why totalitarianism must dig into peoples mind and control all aspects of each humans, *to deny our plurality*.
A model Nazi, like Eichmann, is the product of that ideology. He's a person whose mind is colonized by the Nazi ideology and conditioned to only think within the parameters set out by Hitler. And since he is surrounded by the same kind of mentally colonized people there is no plurality, the evil that Eichmann and his colleagues committed was banal for it was obvious and a truism.
Eichmann defended himself in Jerusalem by claiming that the Holocaust was a historical necessity (1) and that he lacked an "outside voice" (2). It really summarizes Arendt's thesis.
1. The holocaust had to be done due to the ideological colonization of Eichmann mind
2. There was no one there to challenge the norms and ideas that RSHA simply lived by, without the ability to think critically about them. Their evil was banal because they couldn't understand what they were doing.
@@nightoftheworld this is exactly an issue I have with the modern world. Everything is done asynchronously and through digital intermediaries, so there are misunderstandings and resentment abound. Try talking to someone who can actually help at any company you call anymore. You either get a labyrinth of menus, or a minimum wage worker with no power that is hired to get yelled at and given no power to help.
Everything is done at such a distance, many people are literally becoming unsocialized, including myself.
This was a absolutely awesome podcast! I fell on it almost by accident and was totally hooked ! Thank you so much
Goddamn I was looking for a video that actually had read Hanna Arendt and this is miles above anything else I could find. Big thanks!
Sounds very relevant today.
this was an really good inspiration for the day .. the next week
Binging this podcast on Spotify and then catching up to the present time has been a great and now depressing experience lol
I love this episode, thank you for all you do. I’ve listened almost every night on and off for a year or so.
Thank you very much...I have started the imperialism chapter...from her book ` the origin of totalitarianism ' . So rich and full of information...connects lot of things from her time and before and very much relevant today...the world we live in...
I just found your channel ... I like it!
Bravo for your brevity, clarity, and enthusiasm. (We like to "think about stuff.")
Absolutely excellent, thank you!
Wonderful podcast, Steve. Thank you very much! Hannah Arendt “on the human condition” is on its way from thrift books.
Amazing podcast. Great voice too. Easy to follow
This was an incredible explanation.
Best one I have seen on her as of yet!
Brilliant. Thank you so much.
This is fantastic but I also have to add that Nazis did in some ways obtain power. A portion of their group was elected, but Hitler was seen as the most vital leader of the conservative right in Congress, and from there they started to implement significant policies and techniques to create the new state. At least that is my understanding. Either way, this is a brilliant episode.
aged like fine wine in February 2022
Thanks for this video... This is really well explained...
I love your work. If not for you i wouldnt know about hannah thank you so much.
This was great! Well done!
Thank you so much for the work you do! I always love listening to this! It sure helps getting me trough a terrible desktop job ;p
What does the job involve? Are you looking for a promotion
@@curiouschokra7077 Different job ;) teaching kids it is now ^^ Though I still listen to the podcasts at least weekly
Thank you so much Steve, what is the jargon that you used that Arendt used to criticize Marx, i tried to get it but i think I’m hearing it incorrectly 😅
My problem with postmodern philosophy is the vitriol its defended with. Modern philosophy, like Arendt, is that it acknowledges the flaws it has. What we have now, this so-called post modern "philosophy" is children crying into the void, demanding satasfaction from a grievance that they dont even know of.
Thank you!
Great delivery
Best podcast. Ever!
Excellent lecture. Thanks.
you're a fantastic teacher
How about a good balance between the active and contemplative life. As in good writing it is dialogue, action, reflection, and revelation.
For me, it depends on the system the individual is embedded in. Unethical systems are almost unavoidable, but they can be minimized. Changing the structure of neighborhoods would go a long way towards giving power back to the small group, and this could be seen as going back to our evolutionary roots for brain development...small groups are better. There's trust as well as economic efficiency.
There's another thing that happens here that adds to the problem: the perception of fake power in the group. Power (money, machines and group) allows one to DO more and inspires the unknowing to feel like they ARE more. My group is more powerful, so I'm more powerful.
The question is how much does one engage in a unethical system, for gain. I agree with Arendt in that philosophers should engage, in order to avoid coercive systems, and I disagree with the idea that the contemplative life isn't sufficient. Thinking is a form of movement. The right sort of physical activity (light repetitive hand work) abets philosophy and strikes a good balance, and should enable one to avoid coercive systems. The group needs to be deliberately kept small though.
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing.
Great as always. And the idea of the banality of evil and how fascism truly comes into power when dumb people are given something to cheer for and be part of, couldn't be more relevant than in post Trump America. Personally I enjoy these more cerebral and existential episodes best. Missed you Stephen. And btw your voice sounds sexy again 😍
Stephen turns you on?
@@RedWinterHero LOL 😂 Steves sexy. Why not? Intelligence and depth can be very enticing.
@@xlipstessx nothing wrong, you're not wrong 😜
Hello to you, too. Hey man, I started your podcast from ep 1 and I absolutely love it! I wanted to leave a review on iTunes (first time this ever crossed my mind) and I guess I need to have Apple to do that.. I don't know. But thank you, I'm having so much fun with this. I wanted to ask you, are you gonna do an episode about the "psychedelic philosopher" Terence mckenna?
As we say in yugioh when we open a good hand, this guy is the nuts
love your channel! Request please! Can you do an episode on object oriented ontology? Thanks again for the awesome work!
12:38 spot on. 👌
Crazy to hear the final phrase and to think of the gigantic absentism in western elections
This was so eye opening! Thank YOU! Hopefully you can address one question. Is the root cause of needing to "engage or take action in the political realm" a result of untrustworthy, psychopathic types in leadership positions? OR did these "types" emerge as a result of a lack of participation and engagement (in politics) of common folk - which would have acted as a sort of "checks and balance" or a type of immune defense against totalitarianism (which in my opinion is political psychopathy). Seems in any case, the root cause is psychopathy, and what is the cause of psychopathy but the lack of connection to your heart, to love, to nature, to the planet - to the archeytpe of the Mother, but also the good Father too. Thats my take of course - it would be interesting to get your take on it.
Arendt sees the life of action as the natural constitution of each human being
I wonder if that's really true of enlightenment. Reading Casanova for example would give you a different idea of what was going on during the time.
I don't think there was ever that much public engagement at any time, maybe ancient Athens and that's it?
You can't just say it used to be different without backing that up with real examples.
You make an outstanding point. What we have as written evidence of the past, i.e. pre-enlightenment, is just a few, often randomly surviving, writings, not representing any group, except possibly past philosophers. If we rely only on the writings of philosophers to tell us what life was like for people of the past, then that is likely to give a limited, un-representative view.
Why should we believe that people generally were more politically engaged in the past, when the fact is that a larger percentage of the population were involved in creating food? I am immediately suspicious of any argument that starts by extolling the virtues of the past. Any such lines of thought start with highly selective remembering.
please do Arendt's "the human condition"
12:12: That's half of the truth, but I'd point out it goes entirely down to prove this point: the person is just as often likely to tell you about how their 'labour' is their identity, in Arendt's terminology. They'll say 'I eat healthy food', 'I like to travel', 'I like fitness' which are all homeostatic performances that are qualified as 'Labour' under this school of thought.
Edit: NVM this is mentioned seconds later in the video... at least the travel part.
There's no such thing as an original idea!
This hits close to home. As a vegan i have to see the adolf eichman everywhere around me everyday...
Moritz ArE YOu COmPariNG FaRm AnImaLs tO HoLoCauST VicTiMs!?!??? HoW iNSenSiTiVE.
If everybody was vegan, there'd be a lot less animals! All industrial livestock would be killed off, similar to the pit of burning pigs we recently saw because of the pandemic, and only hobby farmers would remain with much fewer animals. (Their individual freedom/space might increase though because of their lowered population density)
Ironically you are more Eichman than most.
This was very informative! Thank you! I worry for the future of the US democracy. Barely half of the eligible voting population votes in our presidential elections. If less and less people vote, we might turn into a totalitarian dictatorship.
Great episode! I'll work Arendt's idea of animal laborans along with the text by Adorno, Education after Auschwitz , in order to introduce the idea of technicist reason as a product of Enlightment.
11:54 *economic man* what, generally, would you reply to someone if they asked you: _”who are you?”_
Honestly, in everyday life to break from the formulaic reply of _“oh I’m X and I do Y”_ and automatically jump into deeper aspects of oneself with someone new without first going through a bit of formulaic mannerisms is usually received awkwardly, as though you’re autistic or something.
In truth I prefer those who like to descend respectfully into more meaningful discussion, but even though I enjoy it I still do feel a surge of skepticism when the usual X/Y response is not given. I think many perceive such approaches almost as something threatening/unhinged (and justifiably so)-by not following protocol their mental state is flagged as culturally aberrant.. could be good, could be bad. Similarly though, plenty of sharp manipulators stick convincingly to convention specifically to avoid such flags.. truly a torture house of language.
U know the Philippines and Brazil is a good example of that rn
I think the pendulum swings both ways and so should any deep thinker. Living a full life is both solitude and engagement. Polarity is the mother of enlightenment. The middle way is nature, you as the seasons. The weather, the sea. It is dynamic and vibrant. Thus it brings truth to light.
As to A. Eichmann, people act with many emotions at play. Arguably many can be traced to a form of tribalism/belonging and the fear of being ostracized which at one point of our evolution meant essentially being sent away from the safety of the tribe and left to die.
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland [Christopher R. Browning]
Would people be moved towards criminal acts out of fear to be ostracized from a group they know is evil and immoral? Does being a member of a group become more important than the ability to think for themselves and follow morality?
@@dm5129 yes in spades and history is sadly ripe with examples. I gave reference to "Ordinary Men" as a prime example - how police officers slowly [de]evolved to brutal murders, killing pregnant women and children in Poland in WWII.
To participate and you know what you are? Good luck!
I hate that Plato and Socrates didn't write anything down...
They might have had a reason behind this. I've read somewhere that Socrates" believed that writing was not an effective means of communicating knowledge. To him, face-to-face communication was the only way one person could transmit knowledge to another. [...] If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
This is very good.
But I don't understand how active participation in society as a philosopher will stop people from coopting your ideas in the future?
Wow.
2:50 🤨
I've just started following this podcast and the link to the transcript of your first episode is broken. I find it much easier to remember things if I can read them. Please, can you fix this? thanks.
(This is the link that is supposed to work www.philosophizethis.org/episode-1-ionian-philosophy-full-transcript/)
behold the banality of dichotomy
In other words, people need economic well-being and a meaningful purpose. If both are out of reach, totalitarianism moves in.
Very prescient.
I definitely feel there is less action in US democracy. Especially this year. Less people voted in our election than 2020. Now we have Trump again. Ugh. I want to see more action in voting and less corruption.
This wisdom has been around for sometime but most people are ignorant of it. And we live in a world where Trump became president and totalitarian regimes are on the rise. If in general the mass of humanity is ignorant of these ideas maybe its relevant to ask how we overcome that.
dayuuuuuum
Schelling?
Any being who went into solitude thinking about things and re emerge amplifies their gifts. My perfect examples were The Beatles and Led Zeppelin.
Talk slower or longer breaks, my brain is slow, I am, hence the economic man.
So work rly is creating simulacra
Wasn't eichmann later found out to be an anti-semite because of his scribblings in his diary or something?
Political end not as mean to and end (politics not for life liberty but life and liberty for politics) -culture of narcissism. John locke vs ancient philosophy
Englithement - historicism and relativity only as ways of identifying self. Therefore stuck at value and work (culture) whereas action (values and identity) are missing - economic man (transactions, what u own and job
Social media mediates narcism so individual is cog in a machine (arendt goes further than the book)
Because we're stuck at work/job level we become alienated to the world
To be alone is too difficult so we become focussed on job(narccissm) but it exists within a culture. Not evil but not thinking
Narcism leads you to be alienated and be a pawn in another games. U don't control culture but want to be a part of it's prevailing sphere
Arendt was a bright, exceptional person. How do we respond to the death of God, Truth and Meaning? Create our own meaning, or let someone else do it for us? This is a recipe for disaster, because any demagogue can take advantage of a nihilistic, pessimistic worldview. Come up with some views of your own and start participating in the discussion, and by the end of it you may change into a really interesting person.
Thinking to yourself and arguing with yourself allows you to come to your most unbiased outcome and not just taking the side or other side of someone else to double down.
What if your personal bias doesn't allow you to see the blind spots or implications of your thoughts?
@@Diescenesterdie then perhaps you arent a great thinker.
@@whatdupdoh Probably not. Though, I am more concerned with the ideas than my status in relation to them.
@@Diescenesterdie lol I didnt personally mean you. And I think you make a great point. I actually thought the same thing. When thinking to yourself youre creating limitations that cant exceed beyond your own thought and intelligence or experiences. But the things we choose or the things that choose us to think about are what we are fully desired and capable of thinking.
It absolutely does just that, beautiful
I don't want seclusion. I just need my freedom and privacy. If living in seclusion is the only way to attain that then so be it. It's not the same as not wanting to be under corrupting influence of society. I'm perfectly fine with society the way it is. And i'm not gonna be sitting around thinking without doing anything. I'm gonna be doing my own research. I have experienced all that status quo has to offer, so there's no need to waste any more time when there's serious work to do.
What i am trying to say is that it's the only path for me. All else has been done to death. I'm not asocial although i used to believe that until recently. I can't describe my views. They are far too nuanced and complex. I'm in the process of trying to simplify them. Everything is converging to point of clarity and simplicity as i do my work. That's why i need privacy. I can't work under pressure or when i feel insecure. I'm not a soldier. I would like to be a scholar.
I aim to fix everything i can. How i would go about doing it, i don't know. I will know when my work is finished. I'm looking for absolute perfection in my solutions. The philosophers i like are UG, JK and Buddha. No one else in this world gets them really. It's a delicate balance to understand and embody what they have said. All our current day buddhists are doing it wrong. I would never categorize myself as a buddhist. I am glad i have no self-knowledge. There are no people like me. No one else understands the things i do. I am completely alone. And that's why i have to do this. I am not on anyone's side and i never will be. There's a deeper meaning to what i said in the previous sentence. Most won't get it. It takes courage to understand deeper truths of life. I hate to talk. All i have just said here in my comments will be redundant once it's said and done. Don't follow me.
But, if you can't shake this feeling or doubt that something's wrong then i ask you to have faith in humanity and if you can allow yourself to be generous enough, also to have faith in me.
But neither Carl Schmitt nor Martin Heidegger--two of the most astute and profound thinkers of their day--resigned themselves from public life. So engagement per se (the vita activa) cannot be what is necessary to obviate totalitarian regimes. One can be complicit as active participant and political philosopher (Carl Schmitt) in aiding and abetting such regimes. Though it is naive to think that such engagement actually matters one way or another. The Nazi's did not need theoretical types to justify their policies. This seems so obvious. Perhaps this is why Strauss did not think very highly of Arendt as a philosopher. He accepted that the political uselessness of the philosopher is the price he pays for his attempt to be impartial/disinterested, that is to say, to give the best possible arguments for all positions. Theoretical life is the life of possible positions, not actual position-taking. Anyone can vote--butcher, baker, candlestick-maker. It doesn't really matter what philosophy lies behind the check you make--every ballot counts the same. Behind Arendt's chastisement of theoretical types seems to be an inflated idea of the consequentiality of thinking, which, in the real political world--as opposed to the classroom--comes down to no more than having an opinion--one among many.
A critique of Nationalist Socialism must also be a critique of the democratic process that enabled it to assume power. For what was Hitler if not a demagogue? Such a critique is as old as democracy itself (viz., Plato's Republic).
Lewis Paul Martinez Larry Lopez Jessica
Man.
I hope people start thinking for themselves and stop identifying in groups real soon. The average person doesn’t read or listen to any philosophical writings. We are in a time where either political party can interpret this in order to take action upon the opposing party. Only discourse will save modern society. Hopefully big tech won’t stop that.
19
21.54
Say Planet one more time.... is that banality enough philosopher? Violence is power that's what she said and it's also the reason why people prefer to act stupid and philosophers stay silent or become cynical.
Hi English class
Holy toledo ... If Arendt had a TH-cam channel today, she'd be cancelled by the "woken" copy/paster/"fact"-checkers. Could not be more relevant than in 2020-2023+ ... bravo for posting!
лife: ¡ p.s.s. percent !
I think you like all the americans and i think very few with some kind of creation.
I ask you what you hate so much the period call Enlightment?
And the way you read Marx througth her, have you read any book of his directly.
Stop the bull....
Is not '..what makes us human.. ( thereby distinguishing us from other biological organisms) the ethical faculty of conscience.
i.e. evolution ain't no done deal.
Try not to get sta££€d in the $imian $tratum.
Cultureless society
The first three minutes of this is completely false-from the allegory of the cave, to how philosophy is actually conducted. Philosophy is NOT what happens to occur to one who becomes a hermit. Plato did not believe that Philosophy was advanced through seclusion... The allegory of the cave is about a mind without wisdom (the slaves in the cave) to the pursuit of wisdom( the journey out of the cave and to knowledge). Plato would have undermined the entire philosophical process of his teacher, Socrates, and disgraced his legacy if he did not engage in Socratic dialog. This first three minutes was enough to have me turn off this video-for if you lie about something as simple as the allegory of the cave and the Socratic Method- I want to hear nothing else you have to say about ANY Philosophy. Sincerely, A Philosopher.
I can't stop being annoyed with how you pronounce Arendt. Maybe you could've googled how to pronounce her name? It's less than a minute of work.
Thank you!