La condició humana

by Hannah Arendt, Oriol Farrés Juste (Translator)

Hannah Arendt dissecciona la raça humana i fa un anàlisi profund sobre les coses que els homes i
les dones són capaços de fer. I es refereix tant a les capacitats humanes per atendre les necessitats bàsiques (menjar, beure, vestir-se o dormir...) com a la sublimació d’aquestes en un àmbit més transcendental. Un anàlisi històric amb clara vocació de construcció política d’ampli abast filosòfic.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Theory

773 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1958

About the author

Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a difficult read, although initially more frightening than it ends up actually being. Arendt's intellect is intimidating to say the least, and the manner in which she launches into a discussion of the human condition in the modern age is altogether unlike anything I've ever seen before -- "unique" is certainly an understatement. She completely renovates the discussion of political and social theory, but does it in a way that makes it seem logical and even natural. The scope of her knowledge is breathtaking, as she deftly handles everything from Ancient Greek property rights to modern day astrophysics, displaying an impressive working knowledge of Greek, Latin, German, French, and Italian in the process.

The book's greatest value is in its content. In addition to Arendt's revolutionary proposal of the vita activa (contrasted with the vita contemplativa) as broken up into the three separate areas of labor, work, and action, she also develops background arguments in each of these three categories that could have become books unto themselves. Her discussion of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was one of the highlights. It was utterly fascinating to learn that unlike modern slaves that exist for production's sake, ancient slaves existed chiefly to free their masters from the necessities of everyday labor (day-to-day maintenance such as cleaning and cooking). This distinction does not seem like much on first glance, but it completely shifted the manner in which these two separate cultures thought about labor and human liberty:

The opinion that labor and work were despised in antiquity because only slaves were engaged in them is a prejudice of modern historians. The ancients reasoned the other way around and felt it necessary to possess slaves because of the slavish nature of all occupations that served the needs for the maintenance of life. It was precisely on these grounds that the institution of slavery was defended and justified. p.83

In order to have freedom to pursue the truly worthy human deeds (politics, oration, philosophy), they had to enslave these servants. Arendt's documentation of this shift is perhaps the most memorable part of the book.

I also enjoyed Arendt's writing style. Though she tended to lose me with some of her longer sentences, the meaning is always very clear when you take the time to parse down each phrase and aside. She is precise, if not concise. She is seemingly without pretension; neither arrogant in the way that she boldly takes down to size intellectual giants like Marx, Adam Smith, Bentham, Kant, or any of the Stoics or Epicureans, nor overly humble when she kneads the entire mass of political philosophy into a new (and more appropriate) form. Also, she seems to intuit that her ideas are complex and not immediately penetrable; some of the concepts in the first chapters that leave you scratching your head she knowingly addresses in more detail later on, without calling too much attention to the repetition and further elaboration. It's as if she knew you wouldn't have any idea what she was talking about the first time and wanted to inconspicuously help you, avoiding any embarrassment on your part.

My biggest problem with the book is its lack of stated purpose or overall thematic vision. I know she mentioned early on that the idea was to get people to think more, and I can respect that. But I was left confused with what she was actually proposing. I understood that she seemed to value action higher than either work or labor, but she was fairly clear in her condemnation of some of the worse outcomes of unplanned action as well (unpredictability, irreversibility). So what, then, is a reasonable model to follow, according to Arendt? Or is it just about developing more appropriate categories for these ideas? The introduction (which I recommend reading AFTER the text itself) addresses this issue but doesn't fully resolve it either. All in all, the genius of the discussion itself more than makes up for this lack, and that indeed was probably her intention all along.

Cross-posted at Not Bad Movie and Book Reviews.

@pointblaek

[فرشاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

وضع بشر اثری فلسفی نوشته هانا آرنت است که چاپ نخست آن به 1958 باز می‌گردد. اثر با بحثی درباره تمایز زندگی فعال و زندگی اندیشمندانه آغاز می‌شود. برخلاف کارل مارکس، که بر برتری بی چون و چرای زندگی فعال بر زندگی اندیشمندانه اصرار داشت، آرنت بر این باور است که از منظر فلسفی، هر دو مفهوم از کیفیت یکسانی برخوردار هستند. او سپس زندگی فعال را به سه شاخه تقسيم می‌کند. زحمت، کار و عمل.

در ادامه، آرنت از آرمان‌شهر افلاطون یاد می‌کند و بحث را به یونان باستان می‌کشاند، جایی که از نظر آرنت اولین تقسیم بندی زندگی به دو حیطه خصوصی و حیطه عمومی در آنجا انجام گرفت. قلمرو خصوصی جایی بود که در آن انسان به رفع نیازهای اولیه زندگی و اموری چون غذا و سرپناه و غرایز جنسی و ضروریات زندگی می‌پرداخت که آرنت این امور را زحمت می‌نامد. اما حیطه عمومی، مکانی فارغ از این امور بود و انسان را قادر می‌ساخت تا به مشارکت سیاسی در امور بپردازد. که آرنت از آن به عنوان عمل یاد می‌کند.

نویسنده سپس اثبات می‌کند که چگونه با سقوط امپراتوری روم، کلیسا حاکمیت قلمرو عمومی، و لردهای فئودال حاکمیت قلمرو خصوصی را تصاحب کردند. آرنت این فعل و انفعالات را منشا ظهور شکل سومی از قلمروهای زندگی می‌داند. حیطه اجتماعی.


زحمت از نظر آرنت، فعالیتی است که برای رفع نیازهای بیولوژیک انسان صورت می‌پذیرد. و دارای نوعی آغاز و پایان است. اما بر خلاف زحمت، کار آن نوع فعالیتی است که ثمره و نتیجه ماندگاری دارد و شامل تمام آن فعالیت هایی می‌شود که بشر در آن، از طبیعت، به سمت ساخته های مصنوعی حرکت میکند.

بعد از تعریف زحمت و کار، آرنت به تعریف عمل یا اکشن می‌پردازد. به عقیده آرنت، عمل، سخن را نیز شامل می‌شود. او می‌گوید انسان از طریق عمل، خودش را به دیگران معرفی می‌کند. از طریق عمل است که هر انسان ماهیت خویش را بدست می‌آورد و یکتایی و منحصر به فرد بودن خود را اثبات می‌کند. آرنت می‌گوید که تنها انسان بودن کافی نیست. انسان باید بتواند هویت خود را نیز تعریف کند. عمل همان فعالیتیست که انسان بر مبنای آن روابط خود با دیگران را شکل می‌دهد.


در نهایت آرنت از زندگی فعال در عصر مدرن بحث می‌کند. او از سه رویدادی که شخصیت عصر مدرن را پایه گذاری کرده اند نام می‌برد. کشف آمریکا، اصلاحات دینی لوتر و انقلاب علمی. او می‌گوید یونان باستان، نمونه روشنی از فرمانروایی عمل بود. اما در عصر مدرن بعد از نظریات مارکس، مساله برعکس شده و جوامع انسانی، بر مبنای زحمت و کار کارگران شکل گرفته است.

او کتاب را با جملاتی تلخ و البته با کورسویی از امید به پایان می‌رساند. آرنت می‌گوید هرچند وضعیت اندیشه و خرد در عصر مدرن بسیار شکننده است، اما هنوز در برخی جوامع آزاد، امکانی برای آن وجود دارد.

[julieta · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took months reading this book, and I loved it. What I keep mostly about reading it is changes. The possibility of change. How the world has changed and what brings about those ch ch changes.

The way everything is connected, philosophy, science, spirituality, and the way one change of view brings many more as consequence. Ver stimulating read, totally worth the effort, every page leaves you with a lot to think about. It applies to every day life and what we see happening in the world.

I underlined so much, but I will write here some of my favorites:

"Power is always, as we would say, a power potential and not unchangeable, measurable, and reliable entity like force or strength. While strength is the natural quality of an individual seen in isolation, power springs up between men when they act together, and vanishes the moment they disperse."

Another one on power:
" Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities."

This one made me think so much of Mexico, my country, because it is exactly what she says, in opposite: word and deed have parted company, with politicians saying one thing, with tragedies happening every day and not being explained, and words are empty, and deeds are brutal, with so many people disappearing, or dying every single day. Words are only used by politicians to veil intentions, and deeds are used to violate and destroy so many lives.

But I will end with a more positive tone:

"The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth, something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before."

So yes, there is always the possibility of change, and that is something that gives me hope that things can always get better, because we all have a possibility of change.

Also, I love how she separates power from strength, and how power is more of a collective of people having the same view. That is the real power. And that also gives me hope, that in unity. A country can grow stronger, no matter what its defects or problems are, there is always the possibility that it will be better than its problems.

[David Withun · Rating 5 out of 5]

-

[Bart Everson]

I read this, or tried to, when I was 20 years old. It was completely over my head. It was assigned in a 400-level religious studies class at Indiana University which was also over my head. The class met in a pub and I was slightly intoxicated most of the time. That may not have helped my comprehension, but the prof had known Hannah Arendt personally, and he told us, "She would have approved. She preferred hard liquor and could drink more than most mortals."

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 5 out of 5]

Velelepna knjiga, koja u filozofskom zanosu budi. Menja. Budi kontemplaciju kao nešto u čemu se čovek potvrđuje kao najistinitije biće. Razmrsivanje nerazmrsivog klupka ljudskog stanja je borba neprestana, a britka misao Hane Arent ponovno namagnetisanje davno razmagnetisanog kompasa.

„Ukoliko se ispostavi tačnim da su znanje (u modernom smislu znanja kako da se nešto učini) i mišljenje zauvek razdvojili, onda ćemo zaista postati nemoćni robovi ne toliko naših mašina, koliko našeg znanja, postaćemo nemisaona stvorenja koja su predata na milost i nemilost svakom novom uređaju koji nam naša tehnika omogućava da napravimo, i pri tome neće biti važno u kojoj meri je taj uređaj možda smrtonosan.” (10)

I upravo je ključno pitanje uporišta čoveka na ovom svetu, pitanje njegovog bića i delovanja. Arent, tako, u okviru sfere aktivnog života (vita activa) izdvaja tri kategorije: rad, proizvodnja i delanje (15). Dok rad korespondira sa biološkim procesom ljudskog tela (rast – metabolizam – propadanje), proizvodnja se izražava u neprirodnosti ljudske egzistencije (zahvaljujući njoj postoji „veštački svet stvari”, kojim čovek razdvaja ljudsku egzistenciju od „pukog životinjskog okruženja” (9))*, a delanje je oblik aktivnosti okrenut između ljudi. Pluralnost je uslov ljudskog delanja, a ono dovodi do utemeljivanja i očuvanja političkih tela, bez čega, opet, ne bi bilo pamćenja, to jest istorije (17).

* „život, koji je za druge životinjske vrste sama suština njihovog postojanja, za čoveka je teret i to zbog njegove odbojnosti prema uzaludnosti” (164–165)

„Šta god da dodirne ljudski život, ili uđe u trajni odnos sa njime, odmah dobija karakter uslova za ljudsku egzistenciju. Zbog toga su ljudi, šta god da rade, uvek uslovljena bića.” (18) A najradikalnija zamisliva promena ljudske uslovljenosti bilo bi preseljenje na drugu planetu. (19) Otuda ne čudi, na primer, pažnja koju Arent posvećuje pojavi teleskopa: „nije razum, nego je teleskop, ono što je dovelo do stvarne promene u gledanju na fizički svet” (377). Jer pitanje korišćenja tehnologije nema samo metodološku već i egzistencijalnu dimenziju, koja se često prenebregava. Tako je jedan od izraza modernog doba smenjivanje stare dihotomije između zemlje i čoveka novom – između čoveka i univerzuma (372). Razmišljanje o ljudskim aktivnostima i svemu onom što sa sobom nose, predstavlja osnov za rasvetljavanje posebnosti čovekove egzistencije, koja opstojava u riziku od jezive utilitarističke vulgarizacije. S tim u vezi, svakodnevno iskustvo nam pokazuje sav uspeh ideologije „uspeha”, takmičenja, trke, skupljanja bodova za studiranje/posao, jurenje „targeta” u firmi ili nekog drugog oblika kvantifikacije. Ali kako je samo degradirajuće i duboko pogrešno da se neko poistovećuje kao suma rezultata svojih delovanja! Ponašamo se kao da su CV-jevi naše istinske lične karte i to ne samo kao ispostave vrednosti, već kao ono što jedino može da ima potvrdu u savremenosti. Dakle, pitanje nad pitanjima nije šta jesam, nego šta radim? A instrumentalizacija, veli Arent, podrazumeva degradiranje svih stvari na sredstvo (216). Tako nam promiče da nasilje postoji u svakom proizvođenju, a da je homo faber, tvorac veštačkog ljudskog sveta, oduvek onaj koji uništava prirodu (192) ili da je potrošačko društvo, „u kome se bogatsvo shvata u ključu sposobnosti za zarađivanje i trošenje” (174) i gde je potrošnja zamenila upotrebu, zapravo, drugim rečima – društvo radnika (175). Bez rada ne bi bilo ni obilja, ni udobnosti, pa ni nezasitosti. A prava emancipacija će doći kada pokušamo da iz tog kolopleta izađemo, kada osvestimo Katonove reči: „Nikada on nije aktivniji nego kada ne radi ništa, nikada nije manje usamljen nego kada je sam.” (447) Više teorije, manje prakse. Makar za početak.

[Tom Choi · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I could recommend one work of philosophy, I'd turn to this magnificent book. And of the many interesting and influential philosophical texts from the 20th Century, this one is the most important of them all as it critically and sympathetically addresses our age, our problems and our fears.

In short, our ideas and our leaders (governments) have failed us. But against the spirit of pessimism of her German counterparts (notably Heidegger and Adorno, each representing a distinctly opposed sense of pessimism), Arendt says, Do not despair for there is hope after all. And there is hope because, for Arendt, it is that we have not quite understood the important way in which philosophical thought is linked to human activity (of living, of making and building things and of trying to live together). Whereas the "phenomenological turn" placed human consciousness as the source of all philosophical activity, Arendt is more realistic and pragmatic: philosophy begins with how we live. Any philosophy that forgets its foundations in the human condition is simply misguided. In a way, Arendt is Nietzsche with a great heart.

With "The Human Condition," Arendt surpasses her own immediate influences (Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger) as well as her notable peers (Sartre, Adorno, Wittgenstein, Russell).

And who is her only real rival? In my estimation: Immanuel Kant.

[Bekhradaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

۱۰۴
مالکیت (به معنای داشتن حقوق نسبت به زمین که نسل اندر نسل انتقال یافته‌است) همواره دژ مستحکم اصلی جهان متمدن بود از این لحاظ که باعث می‌شد نفع مالکان در حفظ ثبات این جهان باشد. تغییر عظیمی که با موارد سلب مالکیت در قرن شانزدهم (سلب گسترده مالکیت کلیسا و روستاییان که در جریان نهضت اصلاح دین صورت گرفت) به راه افتاد تغییری دوگانه بود. اولا کشاورزانی که سهمی در ثبات این جهان داشتند به صورت زحمت‌کشان روزمزدی در آمدند که به کلی غرق در تقلای برآوردن نیازهای جسمانی‌شان شدند. ثانیا اموال غیرمنقول به صورت ثروت قابل‌تبدیل به پول - درواقع به‌صورت سرمایه - در آمد که تاثیراتی پویا به همراه داشت. ... انسان‌ها بجای سکونت در جهانی ثابت و پایدار مرکب از اشیایی که برای دوام یافتن ساخته‌شده‌باشند، خود را در کام روند رو به شتاب تولید و مصرف دیدند.

91
در بطن تحلیل آرنت از وضع بشر، اهمیت حیاتی وجود متمدنانه جهان بشری پایداری نهفته است که بر کره خاکی بنا شده تا ما را در برابر روندهای طبیعی حفظ کند و زمینه و محیط باثباتی برای حیات فانی مان فراهم آورد. این جهان، همچون میزی که افراد دور آن حلقه زده اند "در آن واحد انسانها را به هم می پیوندند و از هم جدا می سازد". تنها چیزی که می تواند ما را قادر سازد تا واقعیت را از هر طرف ببینیم و حس مشترکی پیدا کنیم این تجربه است که جهان بشری مشترکی را با دیگران شریکیم. دیگرانی که از منظرهای متفاوت به آن می نگرند. بدون آن هر یک از ما به جانب تجربه شخصی خودمان واپس رانده می شویم که در آن تنها احساسات، خواست ها و امیالمان واقعیت دارند

84
مدرن سازی در کار افزایش تولید، مصرف و زاد و ولد بسیار قابل و تواناست، به گونه ای که نوع بسیار توسعه یافته ای از بشر پدید آورده است که بیش از هر زمانی در گذشته تولید و مصرف می کند ... از وقتی این دغدغه های اقتصادی کانون توجه عمومی و سیاست عمومی شدند (به جای آنکه همانند آنچه در تمام تمدن های پیشین جاری بود در خلوت خانه پنهان بمانند)، بهایی که پرداخته شده تخریب تمام جهان بوده است و تمایل روزافزون انسانها به این که خود را بر حسب میلشان به مصرف دریابند و تصور کنند

78
این که فعل سیاسی را ساختن چیزی بدانیم از نظر آرنت خطایی خطرناک است. ساختن - فعالیتی که اون آن را کار می نامد - فعلی است که صنعتکار یا سازنده ای از طریق واداشتن ماده خام به انطباق با قالب و الگوی مورد نظر خویش انجام می دهد. ماده خام در این روند از خود اختیاری ندارد، همین طور انسانهایی که برای ایجاد جامعه ای تازه یا ساهتن تاریخ، نقش ماده خام بر عهده شان گذاشته شده است. سخن گفتن از "انسانی" که تاریخ خودش را می سازد غلط انداز است... تلقی سیاست هب صورت ساختن، غافل ماندن از تکثر بشری در نظر و اعمال زور بر افراد در عمل است

55

برآمدن عصر فضا نشان میدهد که آدمیان به معنای حقیقی کلمه از طبیعت فراتر می روند. در نتیجه بیگانگی علم جدید از زمین، قابلیت نوآوری انسانها تمامی حدود و ثغور طبیعی را زیر سوال می برد و تکلیف آینده را به طرزی هشدار دهنده و نگران کننده نامعلوم می گذارد. از طریف دیگر، در سیری که آرنت سرچشمه آن را در بیگانگی از جهان پیدا می کند، جوامع خودکار شده مدرن که غرق در تولید و مصرف هر چه کارآمدتر شده اند ما را ترغیب می کنند به این که صرفا به هیئت نوعی از انواع حیوانات که تابع و مقهور قوانین طبیعی است رفتار کنیم و خود را صرفا چنین موجودی بدانیم

از مقدمه مارگارت کنوون

[Eshraq · Rating 4 out of 5]

اول بگم که ترجمه اقای علیا رو خیلی نپسندیدم
حس کردم یه جاهایی نه تنها کمکی نمیشد که بشه مفهوم رو دریافت کرد بلکه استفاده از یکسری کلمات و الفاظ باعث میشد درک مطلب سخت هم بشه.

کتاب فوق العاده ای بود برای من
در خلال خوندنش با سوال های بسیار زیاد و مفیدی مواجه شدم
و بشدت ترغیب شدم که از این نویسنده بیشتر بخونم.

[Alain Verheij]

Het had me echt gaaf geleken om hier meer van te begrijpen dan ik daadwerkelijk deed

[Cosmo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an odd work.

Arendt mischaracterizes a great many thinkers over the course of the book; her "labor," "work," "action," trichotomy seems only intermittently useful; it is unclear whether or not her vision of political action has ever, or could ever, exist. And yet.

One of my fellows in our reading group suggested a nice way to get past the egregious misreadings of various thinkers (Locke and Smith have an especially hard time). He suggested that, instead of offering actual interpretive work, Arendt positions the thinkers she references as one would characters in a play. I think this is right.

That understanding fits with reading the book as a kind of polemic--but it's a polemic with at least the appearance of a serious scholarly apparatus. So, what to do with it? Arendt wants political action that may or may not be possible, that she attempts to illustrate by appealing to classical thought.

Obviously that is overly reductive, but it draws out the connections she shares with some of her fellow German emigres from the mid-century--most oddly, Leo Strauss. Arendt is often associated with the left; Strauss with the right. Nonetheless, I couldn't escape the feeling while reading The Human Condition that something about that German experience (e.g. Heidegger) had shaped them so thoroughly that they could not escape each other, and that their political associations are more a product of personal priors and who their students were than anything particularly substantive in their thought. It's something I'll have to consider more.

Strauss prizes the vita contemplativa while The Human Condition is an exhortation of the vita activa; Arendt writes elsewhere, however, of the necessity of the former (see, for instance, "Thinking and Moral Considerations"). They share similar Heidegerrian misgivings about society and technology. Etc.

Anyway, much of the book strikes me as muddled, but it is occasionally wonderful. Well worth reading.

[AliReza Sha · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب وضع بشر the human condition
هانا آرنت معشوقه هایدگر و شاگرد او و همچنین شاگرد کارل یاسپرس

در این کتاب میپردازه به این مساله که ما انسان ها زحمت میکشیم ولی فکر نمیکنیم
مدرنیته از ما میخواد که همش زحمت بکشیم همش در طول یک سیستم ومدارک دانشگاهی خودمون باشیم ولی فرق گاو و بقراط و ندونیم
فقط بریم کار کنیم و بیایم و تفکری نداشته باشیم
میگه تفکر خطرناکه آدم متفکر آدم خطرناکه آدمی که فکر میکنه
فکر کردن سوال ایجاد میکنه و این خطرناکه

آرنت ابتدا اسم کتابش و میخواسته بذاره عشق به کارل یاسپیرس هم گفته بوده
هانا ارنت موضع سیاسی داره برخلاف هایدگر که آدم سیاسی نیست
ارنت میگه من فیلسوف نیستم سیاستمدارم
آرنت یه مبتکر و متفکر صاحب سبک لزومی نداره بپذیریش همین که متفاوته خوبه مثبته نگرش تازه داره
وی ضمن شرح مفاهیم زحمت، کار و عمل و جایگاه آن‌ها در وضع بشر، با نگاهی تاریخی سیر آن‌ها را تا روزگار ما پی می‌گیرد و نشان می‌دهد که از دوران یونان باستان تا امروز رویکرد ما به زندگیِ وقف عمل چه فراز و فرودها و تغییراتی به خود دیده‌است.
آرنت مثل هایدگر فنومنولوگ یا پدیدار شناس بوده

درون‌مايه اصلي كتاب زندگي وقف عمل (Vita active) است به تمايز از زندگي وقف نظر (Vita contemplative) كه در برابر هم يكي از آن تقابل‌هاي دوگانه‌اي را تشكيل مي‌دهند
زحمت (Labour)، كار (Work) و عمل (action).

آرنت فقط یکبار از ایران نام برده در نوشته هاش اونم در مورد ایران نبوده مو��وعش

آرنت اول فقط میخواسته فلسفه آلمان و بخونه و سیاست اصلا براش مطرح نبوده بعدا با وقايع ج ج دوم براش موضوعیت پیدا کرده

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is very deep. By this I mean not that it is a difficult read or that it is philosophical (it is both), but that it is as complicated and interesting as a deep-sea shipwreck. One can revisit this text over and over again and uncover new treasures. Agamben has called this work "practically without continuation" in any scholarly tradition. This is not because it is ignored, but because it is a very original and multi-faceted argument. Besides its main thrust of the sullying of politics the book hints at and opens many lines of question in passing. Arendt puts forth a theory of the political (action), a critique of liberal society, discussions of goodness, suicide, technology, the modern, etc. etc. The accusation of elitism that Arendt faces - that the rise of lower classes into politics threatens politics - is not without foundation. However, more recent theorists such as Foucault, Agamben, and Rancière have continued to push us along this dangerous line of thought. The rise of the population into politics, intertwined with the technicalization and instrumentalization of the world has led to a confused moment in which public and private have lost there distinction and great horrors have become possible.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arendt directly and indirectly engages with Marx in this great book; and in some interesting ways takes the topics of private, public, labor, work, and action beyond what Marx did. The fundamental source of all her thinking in this book is not mentioned even once, but it is what provided her with the framework to approach all these topics in a unified and deep way; that is - Heidegger. As it happened, I was reading their correspondence at the same time with this book, and on October 28, 1960 Arendt wrote to Heidegger: “You will see that the book [German edition of “The Human Condition”] does not contain a dedication. If things had ever worked out properly between us – and I mean between, that is neither you nor me – I would have asked you if I might dedicate it to you; it came directly out of the first Freiburg days and hence owes practically everything to you in every respect. As things are, I did not think it was possible, but I wanted at least to mention the bare fact to you in one way or another.”

[Amin Tallan]

ترجمه بسیار بد و غیر روان
نصفه رها شد

[Latif Joneydi · Rating 5 out of 5]

از توانم بیرونه که بر این کتاب یادداشتی-چه به عنوان پیشنهاد یا دلیل اهمیتِ اثر- بنویسم و "وضع بشر" رو نمیشه پایان یافته دونست چون نیازِ بسیار به بازخوانیِ چند باره اش احساس میکنم.
بدون اگاهیِ حداقلی ای از سنت فلسفیِ یونانی و متون بنیادینِ سیاست در عصر مدرن نمیشه تأمل درخور و دیالوگ سودمندی با این کتاب ایجاد کرد.
ولی نگاهم رو در همین اولین مطالعه نسبت به مفاهیم به ظاهر تثبیت شده و پیش انگاشته ای به صورت بنیادین تغییر داد.
همین.

[Andrew]

I'm afraid that I have difficulty with so much of the great intellectual powerhouses of the immediate postwar era, which is terrible, because I know they were a reasonable, humane bunch who tirelessly threw themselves towards lofty goals. But it seems to me that most of these cogitations on universal human aspiration are a bit suspect.

Hannah Arendt, you are clearly a stunningly intelligent person. Your phenomenological approach to the work-labor distinction is admirable for its rigor, and a great many of your observations are just as cutting as they were fifty years ago. But when you use the intellectual circles of classical Greece as an immortal standard, you're selling yourself a bit short. I have a great respect for many classicist principles, but if you fail to recognize a degree of contingency, then the substratum of your approach is inherently flawed. Sorry.

[Emil · Rating 2 out of 5]

Your local pub, Thursday 02:00 AM. A group of drunken "philosophy enthusiasts" discussing the human nature. This is how Arendt's The Human Condition feels like. A cocktail of disjointed ideas and obscure classifications.

[Steve Greenleaf · Rating 5 out of 5]

The flyleaf in my copy of this book records that I bought this book on 12 October 1974 for the cover price of $3.75. I was taking off a year from college before the start of my senior year in 1975. I don't recall if I read it before I returned to school the next fall, but I do know that I read Arendt, either this The Human Condition or her Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (or perhaps both). I'd taken a couple of courses in political thought and hadn't done all that well, but the topic drew me in and has never left me. The Human Condition was assigned for a contemporary political thought class that I took the following fall, and then I sat-in on an entire class about Arendt in the fall of 1978 while I was in law school. So, I estimate that I'd read the book at least twice before--and last about 42 years ago.

But while I don't believe that I've read The Human Condition completely since 1978, Arendt's work and thought stayed with me, fermenting as I've considered it and as I've continued to refine my political thinking.

With the election of a right-wing authoritarian as president 2016, my mind turned once again to Arendt and to her thought. And with the great pandemic of 2020, I joined the Virtual Reading Group" at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College (remote, of course). I'm now back again exploring works of Arendt that I'd not read before, such as Men in Dark Times and Essays in Understanding: 1930-1964. But Arendt provides more than emergency reading--the value of her insights transcend the "times of troubles" from which so much of it arose.

When I first read Arendt, I recall the sensation of reading by lightning flashes. So many of her insights remained hidden or obscure to me, but these obstacles were interspaced with flashes of insight that prompted me to press on. Now, after four more decades of reading and learning, I can read her works with a greater appreciation and at least a pretense of comprehension. The Human Condition is a brilliant book. Brilliant not simply in the sense of sharp or engaging, but in the sense that it sheds an intense, revealing light upon politics, labor, work, and the Modern Age. By engaging with this book, one cannot but help but coming to a deeper understanding and engagement with the world. Despite having been written in 1958 (a very different time!), it helps us comprehend our current situation by grounding her analysis within the framework of the human condition (a term she unpacks in the book).

In this book, Arendt lays out some of her most important and enduring ideas. These include three attributes of "the human condition:" natality, mortality, and plurality (which entails a type of equality). In brief, natality refers to the fact that each human person is born into the world. As Arendt notes, this fact gives rise to newness, the initiation of something (someone) unique and therefore underlies the basis of freedom. On the other end of each human life is mortality, that each person will die. We enter and exit. So what do we leave behind? Plurality reflects that we each are born into a human community, of which we are but one among many. Plurality gives rise to political and social life.

The main emphasis of the book is upon what Arendt labels the vita activa, the Latin phrase that we can understand as the active life. This form of life, with its three components, contrasts with the vita contempletiva, the life of contemplation that developed in late antiquity with Stoicism and Epicureanism and that was adopted Christianity and became the ideal way of life in the world of Medieval Christianity. But with the rise of the Modern Age, the vita activa took the preferred role, but with an inversion of the classical hierarchy of action, work, and labor. The three modes of life within the vita activa include action, work, and labor, which Arendt identified as going back to ancient Greece and that survived well into the Roman period. For the Greeks of the city-state during the flowering of democracy, action was the most highly valued way of life. Action consists of speech and deeds done in public among one's peers; to wit. politics. Work consists of the making of items that were durable and not for consumption; tools and tables and works of art, for instance. Arendt argues that these items provide a continuing presence to human life that no individual life or consumable good could provide. I venture that these items produced by work are the cultural artifacts of archeologists, the pottery shards and bits of papyrus that allow us to see the physical world of ages past. The third activity in the vita activa is labor. In the ancient Greek world, this was the lowest form of life, mostly addressed by slaves. It represents the necessity of certainty activities and functions that allow the continuation of a human life. However, with the advent of the Modern Age, with the coming of more advanced technologies and new forms of life and production, labor gained a new level of importance. Economic and socio-political thinking came to place the greatest values on consumption and the processes of life and therefore labor became more highly valued. This trend was especially important in the work of Karl Marx (whom Arendt addresses at length in this book and whose importance she recognizes without adopting Marxism).

The description above is a brief summary of the guiding concepts upon which the remainder of the book rests. What Arendt does with these concepts is quite amazing. For with these fundamental insights, she comes to grips with ideas and events that have created our world. In addition to Marx, Arendt draws deeply upon the classical world and modern thought, often citing Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, in addition to the likes of Kant, Hegel (not much), Nietzsche, Bergson, and Whitehead. (Of note here is the fact that Arendt cites her teacher Heiddegar not at all in this book (perhaps for obvious reasons) and her other teacher--and friend--Karl Jaspers only in two footnotes, both related to Descartes.) To be clear, despite her firm grounding in the Western philosophical tradition, her thought is unique and original in a stunning way. Also, I should note, her mastery of issues outside of philosophy, such as economics and economic history and political and social history are astonishing. But be forewarned: reading her work is often not easy. To fully grasp everything that she wrote in this book, one would need to prove the master of five languages: English, German, French, ancient Greek, and Latin. (Happily, the body of the text is in English with Greek and Latin occasionally interspersed, while the French and German are mostly restricted to footnotes!)

As I look back upon this work that has influenced me so much, I have to address the question of "why?" I came to college very interested in politics (declaring my major upon my first registration). Both of my parents were active in politics, especially my father, although he was not a politician. By the time I went to college, acting as my father's apprentice, I'd already been to two national political conventions, attended meetings with governors and senators, and sat through all manor and level of political meetings. I gained a sense of what ground-level politics consisted of in the United States. In college, my freshman year, I took a survey course on political thought: Plato, Machiavelli, Mill, Marx, and contemporary developments. It was perhaps in this class that I first heard of Arendt. In any event, as I related above, I eventually came to read her on my own before any class requirement. What I discovered was a sense of politics that conferred upon political activity (Arendt's "action") a sense of dignity that one wouldn't intuit from my earlier ground-level experience. Speech and action based on thought, deeds that were worthy of history. The creation of a polity in which one could express oneself and one's insights and have an opportunity to act in concert with others to create something that, while certainly ephemeral, could nevertheless prove worth remembering. For some, politics could prove a calling, a way to be in the world. I never "went into politics" (ran for public office), but I've remained outspoken about political issues, and I've actively supported candidates. And, for a career, I pursued the law, which is the use of speech to attempt to avoid and resolve conflicts and to refine the daily operations of politics have been resolved in some measure (but not completely) by the adoption of laws. Speech and that actions that arise from speech are certainly among the highest and most distinctive human traits, and no one has made this more clear to me than Hannah Arendt. No gift is more valuable to have received in this age of increasing authoritarianism and deception in the public realm than Arendt's guidance about the value of speech and action in the public realm.

[T.R. Preston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This woman was a true genius. Her extensive knowledge of history and philosophy - displayed through her countless references and layered forms of analysis - convince me that she was one of the most well-read people of the twentieth century. A remarkable mind.

[Sini · Rating 4 out of 5]

De filosofe Hanna Arendt (1906- 1975) krijgt de laatste tijd veel aandacht, en dat maakt mij erg nieuwsgierig. Het kraakheldere en inspirerende "Hannah Arendt. Politiek denker" van Dirk de Schutter en Remi Peeters vergrootte die nieuwsgierigheid nog, en gaf mij bovendien genoeg moed en voorkennis om in "The human condition" te duiken, een van Arendts hoofdwerken (gepubliceerd in 1958) en volgens sommigen een van de belangrijkste filosofische boeken uit de 20e eeuw. Dat was een heerlijk leesavontuur, dat mij ruim drie weken intensief bezighield. En nu sta ik te trappelen om te beginnen met "Het leven van de geest", haar laatste en deels postume hoofdwerk. Want Arendt is voor mij echt een ontdekking.

Mooi aan "The human condition" vind ik de voortdurende originaliteit en avontuurlijkheid, de niet aflatende stroom van prikkelende verrassingen, en de rijkdom aan gedachten en zijpaden die je in geen enkele samenvatting recht kunt doen. Dat alles wordt ook nog eens gecombineerd met even onuitputtelijke als eigenzinnige eruditie, zodat het hele boek een ontdekkingsreis wordt doorheen eeuwen van filosofie, waarin tientallen filosofen en denkers belicht worden op manieren die ik nog nooit eerder had gezien. Descartes' principe van de methodische twijfel bijvoorbeeld wordt zeldzaam indringend beschreven, en op meeslepende wijze verbonden met de ontdekking van de telescoop door Galileo: een apparaat dat ons de buitenwereld op geheel andere manieren liet zien, en ons - volgens Arendt althans- leerde dat de ons via de zintuigen gegeven wereld helemaal de ware wereld niet was. Wat de methodische twijfel aan alles in niet geringe mate voedt. Ook gedachten van Marx, Adam Smith, Augustinus, Nietzsche, Plato en Aristoteles en vele anderen worden op virtuoze wijze met elkaar verbonden, en van een voor mij geheel nieuwe lading voorzien, zo virtuoos dat het mij niet eens kan schelen of Arendt gelijk heeft of niet. Tientallen gereputeerde denkers worden besproken, geherinterpreteerd, bekritiseerd en van nieuwe betekenissen voorzien, op een manier die hun werk veel nieuwe glans geeft. Althans, voor mij. Alleen daarom al genoot ik erg van "The human condition", heel langzaam lezend en alle passages ook in de voetnoten zorgvuldig proevend. Ik had kortom grote waardering voor de intellectuele avontuurlijkheid en schoonheid van dit boek, en voor het puur esthetische plezier dat het mij gaf.

Het boek geeft echter niet alleen puur esthetisch plezier, maar geeft ook veel te denken. Het is een exploratie van de "vita activa", dus de dimensie van het actieve menselijke leven. En dat is een nieuw en relatief onontgonnen terrein, want filosofen voor Arendt concentreerden zich juist op de "vita contemplativa", het leven van contemplatie, beschouwing en geest. Bovendien duidt Arendt de "vita activa" vanuit een nooit geziene drieslag van "three fundamental human activities", dus van drie activiteiten die volgens haar kernen zijn van het mens-zijn. Die fundamentele activiteiten zijn: labor (arbeiden), work (werken) en action (handelen).

De eerste activiteit, "labor" oftewel arbeiden, duidt zij, op hoogst originele wijze, als "the activity which corresponds to the biological process of the human body, whose spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventual decay are bound to the vital necessities produced and fed into the life process by labor. The human condition of labor is life itself". Het leven is een eeuwige cyclus van ontstaan en vergaan, van geboorte en dood, van verwekking en verval, van eten en gegeten worden. En arbeiden, althans in de zeer eigen betekenis die Arendt aan dit begrip geeft, is dan elke menselijke activiteit van deelneming aan deze cyclus. Alle activiteiten dus om in leven te blijven of bij te dragen aan het levensonderhoud. Alle repetitieve dagelijkse activiteiten ook die we als "slavenarbeid" ervaren, of waardoor we soms zelfs het hele leven als slavernij ervaren, zoals bijvoorbeeld schoonmaken of afwassen of andere dagelijkse maar onvermijdelijke routines vol gezwoeg, of het steeds maar weer maaien of ploegen van het land. Arbeiden gaat volgens Arendt vaak gepaard met pijn en moeite, en met de "darkness of pain and necessity". Ook al spreekt zij daarnaast, in betoverende passages, over de "sheer bliss" die gepaard gaat met "labor", en die dan gelijk is aan de "sheer bliss" van het in leven zijn zelf.

De tweede activiteit, "work" (werken), staat daarentegen niet - of althans minder- in het teken van noodzaak en levensonderhoud, maar in het teken van nut, van doelmatigheid, van rationele middel- doel relaties. Werken is het tot stand brengen van een kunstmatige wereld van gebruiksdingen, een "artificial world of things, distinctly different from all natural surroundings. Within its borders each individual life is housed, while this world itself is meant tot outlast and transcend them all. The human condition of work is worldliness". "Werken" is bijvoorbeeld het ontwerpen en bouwen van huizen, scholen en wegen, het inrichten van infrastructuren, het ontwerpen van apparaten of gereedschappen die het arbeiden vergemakkelijken, het maken van handboeken die richting geven aan ons dagelijks handelen, het optekenen van gedachten zodat deze niet verloren gaan in de eeuwige kringloop van de natuur. "Werken" is kortom alles wat we doen om de natuur een bepaalde doelmatig- rationele vorm en inrichting te geven en om daarmee de wereld tot een menselijke wereld te maken. Een wereld vol logische betekenissamenhang, die er zonder onze artefacten niet zou zijn. Een wereld kortom die in cultuur is gebracht, en die daardoor voor ons bewoonbaar is geworden. Want "work and its product, the human artifact, bestow a measure of permanence and durability upon the futility of mortal life and the fleeting character of human time".

Arendt zegt fascinerende dingen over "labor" en "work", en over de sporen van deze begrippen in het werk van vele oude en nieuwere denkers. Ik heb dan ook veel gemijmerd over de rol van repetitieve "labor" in mijn leven, dat ondanks alle luxe toch meer elementen van slavenarbeid kent dan mij lief is. En ik mijmerde nog meer over alle beleidsstukken en andere artefacten die ik heb gemaakt, zonder ooit echt te hebben beseft dat ik dit kon zien als "work" en dus als een bijdrage aan "worldliness". Of op zijn minst als een onderdeel van de "world of things" die mij en mijn collega's omringt, en die hopelijk een zekere "measure of permanence and durability " introduceert, wat "the fleeting character" van ons bestaan wat minder nijpend maakt. Althans, dat laatste hoop ik dan maar. Bovendien, wat Arendt zegt over het "werken", en van de homo faber die de wereld als rationaal en planmatig maakbare wereld vormgeeft, is van een enorme schoonheid. Terwijl zij tegelijk heel eloquent waarschuwt tegen werkelijkheidsopvattingen waarin alles als planmatig maakbaar wordt beschouwd, en waarin mechanische productieprocessen alle zingeving versmoren.

Maar wat Arendt zegt over de derde activiteit, "action" oftewel handelen, vind ik nog beduidend fascinerender en inspirerender. "Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men (...), corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world", aldus Arendt. Bij handelen gaat het niet om levensonderhoud, en niet om nut of doelmatigheid, maar om intermenselijke zin en betekenis. Handelen gebeurt bijvoorbeeld als kunstenaars nieuwe perspectieven openen op het menselijk bestaan, of als een groep van idealisten een actiegroep opricht en gaat actievoeren voor een betere wereld, of als mensen in hun familiebijeenkomsten werken aan hechtere familiebanden. Hoe dan ook wordt handelen in al zijn facetten gedreven door het verlangen naar intermenselijke zingeving en betekenisgeving. En dat is zingeving en betekenisgeving in een wezenlijk pluralistische wereld, d.w.z. een wereld die vol is van strikt singuliere en unieke individuen. "Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live", zegt Arendt. Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dan ook eindeloze dialoog met andere singuliere individuen, die jouw perspectieven opbouwend- kritisch toetsen aan (en verrijken met) hun eigen, zeer van de jouwe afwijkende perspectieven. Een nieuwe zin en betekenis die ik op mijn eentje bedenk is volgens Arendt zinloos en betekenisloos, omdat niemand hem hoort. En hij is bovendien schraal, omdat ik alle andere perspectieven van al die andere singuliere individuen niet heb benut. Ook daarom ziet Arendt handelen als een intermenselijke activiteit, waarin de pluraliteit van de wereld zo goed mogelijk naar voren komt. Of althans naar voren zou MOETEN komen: er is geen echte pluraliteit - en dus ook geen echt handelen- in situaties waarin iedereen elkaar napraat, of waarin alleen oppervlakkigheden en dichtgetimmerde standaardmeningen worden gedeeld.

Bovendien, juist handelen is volgens Arendt sterk verbonden met wat ze "nataliteit" noemt: met het vermogen om een totaal nieuw begin te maken, een begin met de kracht van een nieuwe geboorte. Het Bijbelverhaal van Jezus' geboorte ziet ze als exemplarisch voorbeeld van die nataliteit, en dus als miraculeuze geboorte van nieuwe zin en betekenis in een pluralistische wereld. Maar nataliteit heeft voor haar vele vormen: "This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins. Thus, the origin of life from inorganic matter is an infinite improbality of inorganic processes, as is the coming into being of the earth viewed from the standpoint of processes in the universe, or the evolution of human out of animal life. The new always happens against the odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, every day purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle". En precies dat miraculeuze is eigen aan het menselijk handelen, althans in Arendts interpretatie van die term: "The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before. If action as beginning corresponds to the fact of birth, if it is the actualization of the human condition of natality, then speech (...) is the actualization of the human condition of plurality, that is, of living as a distinct and unique being among equals".

Ieder mens is voor Arendt een miraculeus uniek en singulier wezen, en daarmee in staat tot handelingen die volstrekt nieuwe ontwikkelingen in gang zetten, die alle conventies en routines doorbreken, en die tot nog nooit geziene zin en betekenis leiden. Iedereen kan dat in principe, suggereert Arendt, als hij in het miraculeuze nieuwe begin gelooft en als hij respecteert dat handelen ook interactie vereist met andere singuliere individuen. Maar het miraculeuze gehalte gaat volgens Arendt wel gepaard met enorme onvoorspelbaarheid en onzekerheid: "the human capability to act - to start new unprecedented processes whose outcome remains uncertain and unpredictable whether they are let loose in the human or the natural realm". Het totaal nieuwe is immers zonder precedent: er staat geen maat op. De hele wereld binnen en buiten ons is bovendien doordesemd van onzekerheid en onvoorspelbaarheid. We beheersen en reduceren die onzekerheid weliswaar als we ons laten leiden door onze ratio en als we de wereld hanteren in termen van doelmatigheid en nut . Maar nooit lukt ons dat helemaal, want de wereld is meer dan onze ratio. Al was het maar omdat al mijn medemensen net zo onvoorspelbaar zijn als ikzelf, en omdat leven in een pluralistische wereld dus ook leven is in onvoorspelbaarheid. En ook los daarvan is het bestaan doordrenkt van contingentie en redeloos toeval.

Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dus niet alleen geloof in een miraculeus nieuw begin, maar ook scherp besef van de "chaotic uncertainty of the future". Het is essentieel om je aan je beloften en beginselen te houden, en om die beloften tot richtsnoer van je handelen te maken, maar die beloften zijn nooit meer dan "islands of security" in "oceans of uncertainty". Zonder beloften of beginselen, hoe onzeker ook, is elk handelen richtingloos, maar elke handeling blijft een sprong in de onzekerheid. Je weet immers nooit of jouw handelen leidt tot geheel andere gevolgen dan je had beloofd en voorzien. En van die onbedoelde en soms averechtse gevolgen kun je alleen worden verlost als anderen zo goed zijn je te vergeven. Ook dat is echter onzeker: je weet nooit van tevoren of anderen je zullen vergeven voor wat jij veroorzaakt hebt, en er is ook het risico dingen te veroorzaken die niet of moeilijk te vergeven zijn. De belofte biedt dus geen garantie tegen onbedoelde gevolgen, en de hoop dat die gevolgen vergeven zullen worden is een heel onzekere hoop. Niettemin, voor Arendt zijn het beloven en het vergeven zeer essentieel, hoe weinig garantie ze ook bieden: "Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacities to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever, not unlike the sorcerer's apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell. Without being bound tot the fulfillment of promises, we would never be able to keep our identities; we would be condemned to wander helplessly and without direction in the darkness of each man's lonely heart, caught in contradictions and equivocalities- a darkness which only the light shed over the public realm through the presence of others, who confirm the identity between the one who promises and the one who fulfils, can dispel".

"The human condition" is een onuitputtelijk rijk en dus niet samen te vatten boek. En iedereen zal het op zijn eigen wijze lezen. Maar ik bewonder vooral Arendts woorden over de miraculeuze nataliteit en het handelen, en dus over ons vermogen om radicaal nieuwe processen in beweging te zetten die zullen leiden tot volkomen nieuwe zin en betekenis. Je zou die woorden volgens mij kunnen zien als een noodzakelijke correctie op de moderne tijd, waarin de pluraliteit - en de erkenning van de singulariteit en onvoorspelbaarheid van elk uniek individu- nogal is versmoord door consumentisme, denken in termen van maakbaarheid, oppervlakkige opinies in media en politiek, en eenvormigheid. Of misschien niet eens als een correctie, maar als een vorm van voorzichtige hoop. De hoop bijvoorbeeld dat "iemand" een miraculeuze nieuwe wending weet te geven aan de vastgeroeste gesprekken over klimaatverandering, of aan de zo verhitte dialogen over het voor- en tegen van coronavaccinaties. De hoop misschien zelfs dat ik zelf tot miraculeus nieuwe inzichten kom, over deze of geheel andere kwesties, samen met en mede dankzij anderen. Een hoop bovendien die beseft dat zij broos is, en dus geen naïeve hoop in een maakbaar mirakel dat alle problemen oplost. Want naast het gloedvolle en inspirerende geloof in nataliteit, is er bij Arendt ook het besef dat elk handelen een sprong is in oceanen van onzekerheid. Maar ook is "The human condition" een inspirerend appel om die sprong toch te maken, in het volle besef van alle onzekerheden. En vooral omdat dit appel zo centraal staat in "The human condition" vind ik het een grandioos boek.

[Bryan Wall · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book that is all over the place and is not an easy read. I'm not entirely sure what she was trying to attempt.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Human Condition is Hannah Arendt's eclectic 1958 exegesis on the social, political and material conditions under which us humans live, learn and labor.

Before attempting to summarize some Arendt's main points. I’d like to offer a brief personal disclaimer, and reflect a little bit on the style and organization of the book.

PERSONAL DISCLAIMER

I’m not a trained philosopher. Not even close. I’m not even that well read in philosophy. My training is in (a) fine art (I went to art school and working in film and television for a bit more than a decade), and (b) psychology (I’m a licensed psychotherapist, and I’m currently finishing a PsyD with doctoral research emphasis on addiction and trauma).

I’m reading a bit of philosophy lately out of curiosity/fun, and in order to better explore/understand phenomenology, both to enhance my clinical work and to support a qualitative research project I’m currently working on.

I offer this DISCLAIMER as a lengthy way of DISCLOSING that I know next to nothing about what I’m about talk about. And furthermore. I’m fundamentally unqualified to comment on a text as technical and historical as this one.

What you’re about to read (should you continue) is literally me just kind of grasping at thin air, just simply trying (and probably failing) to make heads or tails of the book I just fucking read. But barely understood.

STYLE

Ardent is fluent in multiple languages, including English German and ancient Greek. And she makes liberal use all of these languages. As well as referring to ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights. And it is both amazing and humbling to behold.

And it’s A LOT to take in.

Particularly, if you’re an American (like me) and your liberal arts education skimmed the classics, skipped the Bible altogether, and paid an inordinate amount of attention to DeSade, Foucault, and all those other French PoMo/HoMo critical/queer theorists (that were in vogue in the 90s, particularly at the San Francisco and Art Institute, when/where I did my BFA, and the went completely out of Vogue circa 9/11/01, and have suddenly become in vogue again because BLM, #MeToo, Trans Visibility and TikTok?).

ORGANIZATION

The book is organized as follows:

Introduction: wherein Arendt introduces the key themes and concepts.

Part I: The Human Condition, wherein Arendt introduces her three fundamental human activities: labor, work, and action, and their relevance to the overall human condition.

Part II: The Public and the Private, wherein Arendt explores the distinctions between the public and private spheres, including their evolution, significance, and broader implications.

Part III: Labor wherein Arendt focuses on the embodied activity of labor, and its necessity for survival (particularly if you’re poor or a slave).

Part IV: Work wherein Arendt Examines the activity of work, distinguishing it from labor, and discusses the creation of the human-made world, and the durability of objects (including Adam bombs and satellites).

Part V: Action wherein Arendt further different differentiates the activity of action from labor and work, and explores its implications on personal freedom and innovation.

And of course.

Conclusion: wherein Arendt summarizes her analysis and reflections on the human condition, drawing together the themes discussed throughout the book and their implications for modern society.

BIG IDEAS

Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa:
Arendt distinguishes between the "vita activa" (active life) and the "vita contemplativa" (contemplative life). Arendt argues that Western (global northern) philosophy (and culture) has traditionally valued contemplation over action, leading to a diminished appreciation for the active aspects of human life.

Three Fundamental Activities:

1: Labor which Arendt defines as the repetitive efforts related to the necessities of survival.

2: Work which Arendt defines as activities that create the world of durable/useful objects. Work involves fabrication and builds the human-made world, providing durability and stability.

3: Action (or rather Political/Social Action) which Arendt identifies as the most important and significant activity for humans.

In sum.

According to Arendt, under pre capitalist and capitalist societies, poor people and salves labor, and working class people work, so rich entitled people can take Action. Arendt seems to argue that this is fucked up. And seems to agree with Marx in the assertion that everyone deserves to be free enough to take action.

The Public and Private:

Arendt differentiates between the public and private realms. For Arendt, the private realm is the sphere of liable, necessity and the sustenance of biological life, while the public realm is the sphere of work, freedom and political action.

Arendt observes that poor people, slaves and women are relegated to the private realm under patriarchy (although she does not explicitly use this term). Which she seems to lament. However, she also laments the decline of the public realm in modern times and the rise of the social, which blurs the line between public/private. Which was a little confusing. But I think she was critical of the modern social realm, because it renders people vulnerable to consumerism and political in action.

Clarify this for me in the comments if you can.

Plurality:

Arendt uses the term Plurality to connote the human action that involves interaction with others, and their different perspectives.

Arendt highlights the value and uniqueness of the individuality of each person (and I think she is critical of Marxism for devaluing individuality).

Polis V Social:

Arendt discusses the ancient Greek polis as a model of the public realm where citizens (not including slaves, women and poor people) engage in collective action and discourse.

She contrasts this with the modern world, where mass society and bureaucracy threaten individual freedom and political engagement.

Word!

Technology and Modernity:

Arendt examines the impact of technology and modernity on human life, noting how they have transformed labor, work, and action.

Arendt critiques the positivistic, reductionistic, materialistic rationality that dominates modern society, which prioritizes efficiency and productivity over meaningful action and engagement.

Word UP!

IN SUM

Arendt's analysis highlights the importance of individual political action and the public realm in maintaining a vibrant and free society. Arendt is critical of the technological orientation that prioritizes the cognitive and devalues the embodied experience of labor and work.

I think she would have a thing or two to say about the internet, climate change and AI.

And she might be highly critical of this writer for using CHAT GPT so liberally in the creation of this review 😜

5/5 STARS ⭐️

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The Human Condition (1958), Hannah Arendt discusses the public/private distinction with hope toward a more active political life, what she calls viva active (7). She argues that the dividing line between private and public has become blurred because we have come to understand political realms in terms of the family (28). She sees a "gulf" between private and public in ancient thought where people had to cross, and it touch courage to cross this gulf because one left behind concerns of only his survival (33, 36).

Arendt argues that the social is a recent category as well, one that arises because of the spreading of the private into the public (38). For Arendt, privacy is deprivation, and we have lost this sense because of the "enormous enrichment of the private sphere" (38). Privacy is deprivation because we are "deprived of the possibility of achieving something more permanent than life itself" (58), the "transcendence" into a sort of earthly or political immortality (55). Before the "discovery of the intimate," privacy was thought to be characteristically animal, not fully human (46). The disappearance of the public realm means the "threatened liquidation of the private realm as well" (61).

[hayatem · Rating 4 out of 5]

حنة أرندت الفيلسوفة المعروفة بطابعها الفكري المركب الذي يضم نسيجاً معقداً من الأفلاطونية والآرسطية والسبينوزية والكانطية والهيغلية والماركسية، وغيرها.
تسبر تمظهر القوى الاجتماعية أوالاقتصادية وأثرها في وضع الإنسان؛ بصفة خاصة " الانسان العامل أو الصانع " منذ فجر العصر القديم ، إلى القرون الوسطى وما تلاها، وصولا الى العصر الحديث . كما أنها قدمت نقداً موضوعياً وموجزاً للإرث الفلسفي ل كارل ماركس. وتقول أرندت في ذلك : أقوم بتذكير ماقاله بنجامين كونستان، حينما شعر بأنه مجبر على مهاجمة روسو:"سأجتنب بالتأكيد الالتحاق بناقدي رجل عظيم. و حينما تحقّق الصدفة التقائي معهم في الظاهر حول نقطة واحدة، فإنني أتحدى نفسي ولأواسي نفسي لأنني بدوت لحظة أشاطرهم موقفهم . .. إنني في حاجة إلى نكران هؤلاء التابعين وإلى إضعافهم قدر ما هو في وسعي."

بعض من أهم النقاط أو المفاهيم أو المواضيع التي تطرقت لها أرندت في الكتاب :

المجال العام والمجال الخاص والتمييز بينهما في سياقات متعددة:
"يطرح التفكير في العمومية العديد من المفارقات والإشكالات المرتبطة بالشأن العام، ذلك أن التفكير الفلسفي في تطوره التاريخي يخضع قضايا الوجود البشري وكل أوضاع وشؤون البشر للسؤال، ولعل العمومية كمفهوم متداول بشكل كبير في الفلسفة السياسية (وعلى الأخص الفلسفة المعاصرة) يجد مدخله الأساس في الترابط الحميمي واللامشروط بين الإنسان كذات مفكرة وعاملة وفاعلة مع نفسه من جهة، ومع الآخرين والعالم من جهة أخرى؛ إنه مدخل الشأن الذاتي والجمعي والشأن العام، الذي يفرض علينا اليوم الوقوف على كل أبعاد العمومية من منظور السياسة ومن منظور الفلسفة.
إذا كانت المدينة-الدولة الشرط الضروري لتحديد الإنسان/المواطن عند أرسطو، فإن المدينة -الدولة ذاتها تشترط التمييز بين المجال الخاص والمجال العام وهو الشرط الذي وضعته حنة أرندت للتفكير في العمومية ضمن ما أسمته حياة-فعل بحيث انطلقت من السياسات لأرسطو لرصد تحولات البنيات الاجتماعية وما رافقها من تحولات في الفعل السياسي، لفهم العالم الحديث.
يعود الفضل في التفكير في العمومية إلى كانط الذي دافع بقوة عن الجرأة في استعمال العقل، تلك الجرأة التي تفترض الشجاعة والاستقلالية والمسؤولية والإرادة، ولكن: أي استعمال ممكن للعقل؟ يميز كانط بين الاستعمال الخاص للعقل والاستعمال العمومي للعقل، وهو التمييز الذي ساهم بشكل كبير في نحت ما سماه هابرماس بالفضاء العمومي، ذلك الفضاء الذي يتداخل فيه الفعل السياسي لتأطير الممارسة السياسية بواسطة الدعاية لتوجيه الرأي العام وجهة العمومية، بالفعل التواصلي، وهنا تصير العمومية معياراً لكل تفكير يحكم أي فعل إنساني في الزمان والمكان، وكل قضية من قضايا الشأن العام: العدالة، الحق، السلطة، القوة، العنف، الواجب، الشرعية، المشروعية، إلخ. ومن جهة أخرى الفعل التواصلي وما يفرضه من أخلاقيات للمناقشة والتداول من أجل الإجماع أو التنازع، وما يفرضه هذا من سجال لعل أبرزه بين كارل أوتو أبل وهابرماس ، وكل المساهمات المعاصرة التي أتحفنا بها ليوتار وبول ريكور ودريدا ونانسي فريزر وبيتر سلوتردايك وريتشارد رورتي . وبهذا المعنى أصبح التفكير في العمومية مشروطاً بالتفكير في الفضاء العمومي الواقعي منه والافتراضي معاً. "

نظرية الفعل:
إن أكبر ممثلي الفلسفة الحديثة للحياة هم ماركس، ونيتشه، وبرغسون، والثلاثة يساوون بين الحياة والوجود. ولهذه المعادلة فإنهم يثقون بالاستبطان، والحياة هي في الواقع، " الوجود" الوحيد الذي يمكن للانسان أن يعيه بمجرد النظر في ذاته. و الفرق بين هؤلاء الفلاسفة وسابقيهم في العصر الحديث، هو أن الحياة تظهر عندهم أكثر نشاطاً وأكثر انتاجاً من الوعي، الذي يبدو جد مستند وبشكل حميمي، إلى التأمل وإلى الأنموذج القديم للحقيقة. إن هذه المرحلة الأخيرة من الفلسفة الحديثة ، ربما كان الاحسن وصفها بالتمرد على الفلسفة ، تمرد يبدأ مع كير كيغارد وينتهي مع الوجودية ، ويظهر منذ البدء مؤكداً على معارضة الفعل للتأمل. غير أنه اذا تمعنا جيداً، تبين لنا أن لا أ��د من بين هؤلاء الفلاسفة اهتم به بالفعل بما هو كذلك . وينبغي أن نترك جانباً هنا ، كير كيغارد وبشكل الفعل لديه، باعتباره باطنياً وغريباً عن العالم . ويصف نيتشه، وبرغسون، الفعل في عبارات الصنع-الإنسان الصانع- عوض الانسان المفكر- تماماً مثلما يفكر ماركس في الفعل في عبارات الانجاز ، ويصف العمل في عبارات الأثر. ولكن مرجعهم الأخير ليس الأثر، والانتماء إلى العالم ولا الفعل، إنه الحياة وخصبها.

المكونات الرئيسية لنظرية الفعل عند أرندت هى: الحرية والتعدد والإعلان أو الافشاء . وتتعلق تلك المكونات بالروابط بين الفعل والشكل الأدبى وأهمية التذكر أو ما تسميه أرندت " مجتمعات الذاكرة " . وكذلك العلاقة بين الفعل والسلطة وساحة العرض أو فضاء الظهور ؛ وركزت أرندت على "سلطة الوعد" و " سلطة الصفح. "

*العمل والحرفة والفعل:
تميز أرندت بين العمل والحرفة والفعل حيث تقول: " إننى اقترح مصطلح " الحياة العملية " لكى أشير إلى ثلاثة أنشطة بشرية جوهرية هى: العمل والحرفة، والفعل . إنها جوهرية لأن كل واحد منها يتطابق مع الأوضاع الرئيسية التى تعطى الحياة للإنسان على الأرض. "

*السلطة وفضاء الظهور:
"الفلسفة السياسية عند أرندت متأصلة فى الفهم الظاهرى (الفينومينولوجى) لأهمية الظهور، والذى لا يحمل فقط دلالة سياسية ولكن أيضاً دلالة وجودية ."

الإنسان الصانع وفضاء الظهور .

الحركة العمالية:
التمردات والثورات الحديثة قد طالبت دائماً بالتحرر و بالعدالة للجميع ، بينما في العصر الكلاسيكي " لم يطالب العبيد أبداً بالتحرر باعتباره حقاً لا يمكن التنازل عنه بالنسبة إلى جميع البشر، ولم توجد أبداً محاولة لتحقيق إلغاء العبودية كما هي بواسطة فعل منظم إرادياً."

أكثر مايثير التفكير والتساؤل في هذا الكتاب هو إشكالية الهوة الفاصلة بين الوجود الفردي والوجود الاجتماعي للإنسان!؟

[Miloš · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Čudo koje svet, to jest domen ljudskih stvari, spasava od normalne, "prirodne" propasti, jeste natalnost. U natalnosti je sposobnost delanja ontološki ukorenjena. Ona je, drugim rečima, rođenje novog čoveka i nov početak, delanje za koje je čovek sposoban zahvaljujući tome što je rođen. Samo potpuno iskustvo ove sposobnosti može ljudskim stvarima dati veru i nadu, te dve ključne karakteristike ljudskog postojanja koje je grčka antika potpuno ignorisala, odbacujući održavanje vere kao vrlo neuobičajenu i ne preterano važnu vrlinu, a nadu ubrajajući među zle iluzije iz Pandorine kutije. Ta vera u svet i ta nada vezane za svet, našle su svoj verovatno najveličanstveniji i najsažetiji izraz u nekoliko reči kojima su jevanđelja objavila svoju "dobru vest": "Rodilo se dete". (339)

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

De doua zile ma codesc sa scriu recenzia acestei carti. Citind-o pe Arendt pentru prima oara, m-au fascinat inteligenta, capacitatea argumentativa, scriitura didactica si foarte clara (totusi, multe pasaje le-am tradus in romana pentru a le putea intelege mai bine si chiar si asa nu stiu daca am reusit sa inteleg tot ce zice ea acolo. Asta nu din cauza scriiturii, ci din cauza capului meu inca necopt).
Cartea este un periplu istoric al conditiei umana, incepand din Grecia antica, si ajungand la viziunile marxiste, scepticismul cartezian, pana la fenomenologia erei moderne.

Conditia umana este reprezentata de vita activa si vita contemplativa. Iar vita activa inseamna: travaliul (viata insasi, necesitatile bazale ale vietii, travaliul de a produce painea zilnica), munca creativa (conditia homo faber-ului, omul creator care se foloseste de elementele din natura pentru a crea lucruri durabile, lucruri care stabilesc o despartire de natura, cum ar fi casa, scaunul, masa) si actiunea (actiunea care are loc aproape tot timpul in spatiul public, caracterizata de un final imprevizibil si ireversibil, modificabil prin capacitatea omului de a ierta sau de a putea tine o promisiune).

In Grecia antica existau mediul privat (The free citizen care era stapan asupra casei lui, respectiv asupra nevestei si a sclavilor) si mediul public (in care se exercita actiunea politica, facebook antic). In Grecia antica, necesitatile erau privite drept privare de libertate, omul liber este cel care nu depinde de necesitati, pentru asta exista sclavii care se ocupa de producerea mancarii etc... Apoi odata cu Marx et al, travaliul si-a schimbat statutul rusinos, omul a devenit un animal laborans, a aparut societatea formata din oamenii muncitori ("labor").

Pentru Arendt, epoca moderna a inceput o data cu descoperirea telescopului de catre Galileo. Sistemul geocentric din epoca antica (pamantul e punctul fix), a fost preluat de cel heliocentric (soarele este punctul fix) pentru ca in era relativitatii sa nu mai existe nici un punct fix, si totul este relativ. Faimosul punct al lui Arhimede este citat aici de Arendt.

Era moderna este dominata de multe elemente de instrainare - instrainarea fata de pamant (nu mai exista sistemul geocentric, apoi aparitia zborului, cunoasterea pamantului prin departarea de el), instrainarea fata de proprietatea privata care a dus pe de o parte la instrainarea anumitor paturi populationale fata de locul lor in lume si la expunerea lor la exigentele vietii, iar pe de alta parte la acumularea de averi si posibilitatea transformarilor acestor averi in capital, instrainarea fata de credinta.

In sfarsit, pe masura aparitiei stiintei, omul a inceput paradoxal sa inteleaga tot mai putin din lumea inconjuratoare. Arendt zice ca omul nu poate intelege decat ceea ce a realizat el cu mainile si capul lui. Prin stiinta, omul a reusit sa imite fenomene naturale, asta insa neinsemnand ca el a reusit sa inteleaga DE CE-ul. Aceasta neintelegere a dus la urmatoarele: daca in Grecia antica omul era orientat spre natura, doritor sa vada si sa descrie ceea ce se intampla in jurul lui, era moderna a dus la o intoarcere a omului catre sine insusi, a dus la descoperirea constiintei si la efectele perceptiei asupra lumii inconjuratoare (si asta de la Descartes, primul care a inceput sa isi puna probleme dintr-un punct de vedere antropocentric - omul devine punctul fix al lui Arhimede, ajungand la fenomenologii secolului XX). Scepticismul cartezian aplicat la religie si credinta (vezi Kierkegaard) a dus la decaderea religiei catolice, crestine in general.

Si astfel s-a schimbat si modul de privire a vietii. Catolicii au aparut intr-o perioada de declin al lumii, si au inceput sa propovaduiasca sacralitatea vietii si vesnicia ei. In Grecia antica, omul era trecator iar viata lui nu era atat de importanta, lumea insa era imortala. Odata cu religia crestina, zeul unic a devenit asociat oamenilor, pacatul a devenit guvernator al vietii omului si salvarea pacatelor pentru a obtine viata vesnica era speranta suprema. Expropierea si instrainarea fata de lume a dus la aparitia unei mase de oameni fara nimic la care aceaste concepte au prins foarte bine.
In plus viata devine elementul cel mai important, trebuie sa traiesti pentru a obtine viata vesnica (sinuciderea era vazuta mai rau decat crima). Era moderna a creat un scepticism major referior la religia crestina, in special la salvarea sufletului fara de pacat.

Vita contemplativa, care a castigat teren in era moderna si a dus la marile revolutii stiintifice (caci omul nu a mai contemplat pasiv minunadu-se, ci a inceput sa contemple activ, sa isi puna probleme si asa a aparut stiinta si descoperirile stiintifice), a dus la aparitia sentimentului ca viata apartine lumii, aceste doua concepte nu mai sunt separate. Asa ca lumea este viata omului si omul este parte integranta din lume. In ziua de azi viata nu mai e bunul suprem din perspectiva imortalitatii, este asa din perspectiva lumii inconjuratoare. Principiul utilitatii, principiul fericirii - principii care si-au pus amprenta asupra vietii moderne (fericire: sum total (placeri - dureri))
Finalul cartii provine de la Cato si inca il mai rumeg :
Never is he more active than when he does nothing, never is he less alone than when he is by himself.

Din pacate cunostintele mele sunt mult prea reduse pentru a gasi cusururi la scriitura lui Arendt. Ma intreb doar in ce categorie ma aflu eu, ca medic. (travaliu, munca creatoare, actiune, sau e pur si simplu un job - caci in era moderna omul a devenit doar un detinator de slujba - jobholder).

E o carte la care ma voi mai intoarce candva. Am incercat sa prezint cateva din temele principale, asa cum le-am inteles eu. Recomand cartea cu mult drag. Dupa ce reusesti sa o termini, ai asa o senzatie de usoara ingamfare si te simti parca un pic mai destept.

[Ryle]

This is one of my favorite philosophy books I've read; Arendt is brilliant, difficult to understand at times, but so rewarding. Arendt doesn't just offer observations or insights--she crafts a story of our world.

"It is quite conceivable that the modern age--which began with such an unprecedented and promising outburst of human activity--may end in the deadliest, more sterile passivity history has ever known."

[Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition is unlike any book I've read before it; and any book I read after it is likely to be judged in the light it casts forward too. After all, as the title reads, there's nothing less than 'The Human Condition' at stake in this book. Of course exactly what that means is the rub, and Arendt's book is distinguished by the way it treats the question not merely in philosophical, but also in explicitly political and historical terms. Rather than being a detached investigation into some sort of eternal or underlying essence of man, Arendt - whose critical gaze spans the breadth from ancient Greece to the modern day - patiently and probingly traces the subtle but decisive changes wrought upon ‘Man’ by the changes of modernity.

Crucial to Arendt’s account is the way in which, more than ever, the space of (political) action - in which one distinguishes oneself as an individual ‘who’, as opposed to a substitutable ‘what' - is being occluded by the increasing focus and emphasis on ‘life’; sheer survival at the expense of genuine political expression. Arendt’s paradigmatic case here is that of the Greek slave, who, subject to the necessity of biological subsistence, is unable to access the realm of freedom which constituted the proper space of the Greek citizen. Thus, drawing on her considerable erudition and classical education, she approvingly quotes Seneca, for whom "life is slavery without the virtue which knows how to die.”

The crux of Arendt’s provocative analysis then, is the question of whether or not we ourselves, without acknowledging it as such, have been reduced to just such a condition of nihilism: a condition in which one is merely concerned with the ‘administration of things’, as the head of household is with the economics of domestic organisation. Against this very real, largely looming spectre, Arendt passionately affirms that another manner of human practice is possible: one that affirms the novelty, singularity, and unpredictability of human action. The possibility, inherent in those who have a stake in the polis, of exercising political courage, and cultivating the ethos commensurate with a politically virtuous community.

Although it’s been nearly sixty years since Arendt set out these thoughts, the passage of time has done little to diminish their force of insight. If anything, they are, like the words of so many classic works, more pertinent than ever before. Nearly every theme of modern day political theory can find its germinal seed here: that of biopolitics (in Foucault, Agamben and Esposito), of the Event (in Badiou and Zizek), of poststructuralist theories of politics (Honig, Brown, and Cavarero) - and probably many more I remain ignorant of. So while The Human Condition certainly isn’t the last word on the eponymous subject, it remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in it.

[Margaryta · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had never heard of “The Human Condition” before one of my professors brought it up in class and said we would be reading it for the course. Seeing as how there is high praise for Arendt written on the back cover and the reviews on Goodreads are quite high, I expected to at least somewhat enjoy it. Philosophy is not within my field of reading – I get lost in the wordiness of it, and sometimes lose my patience with the arguments when they contradict themselves or have apparent loopholes if they are applied to the practical world.

That is exactly what happened with “The Human Condition”. Most of what I read went right through me – I wasn’t sure which strands and ideas to cling onto, and which should be seen as support material. The book is an overload of philosophical theory, name dropping and referencing to philosophy’s past without thinking twice. And to someone who is familiar with the works of people like Hegel this won’t be a problem. But seeing as how I never touched anything of Hegel’s, and my one and only brief experience with Nietzsche ended up with me hissing at the book and returning it to the friend I borrowed it from, I was lost in a sea of information. The arguments got quite redundant at times and, although the fancy language was impressive, it often took away from the argument.

Then again – every person is entitled to their own theory, thoughts, and ways of expressing them. Just because Arendt didn’t speak to me doesn’t mean she isn’t worth reading. There were some extracts which I quoted for an assignment from the book that I thought were wonderful. This began from the very first page in the prologue, where Arendt talks about “the first “step toward escape from men’s imprisonment to the earth””, which was a very simple thought that somehow I never considered, and it left a lasting impact on me. If there were more clear and simple but truthful thoughts like this, I would’ve enjoyed the book a lot more. Instead reading it became a chore that I’m only too glad to have completed.