brigs’s Reviews > The Origins of Totalitarianism > Status Update

I think perhaps the description was meant only for pre capitalist societies? but arguably they were even more subject to ownership and economic control being passed down through generations and limited to groups of people than modern capitalist contexts. im just not sure what she means by this.

either way, her definition of imperialism leaves something to be desired. framing it primarily as a political and often social phenomena is strange bc she literally does acknowledge capitalism requires endless expansion and therefore imperialism is a result of the need to expand outside the given state, but she denies it is an inevitable outcome of the economic model of expansion for expansions sake, which of course begs the question, how does arendt anticipate capitalism operating as it does economically without imperialism resulting from the need to expand? I dont think the marxist view of things reduces the role of ideology or racism and similar things have in politics, i think its just a matter of thinking about what causes what. ideology doesnt spring fully formed from the head of zeus, it must be a result of something... arendt treats economics and ideology as almost parallel.

it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness

Begs the question is a malaphor here. You have to stop misusing that.

Isabella wrote: "Begs the question is a malaphor here. You have to stop misusing that."

if most people use it the "incorrect" way, then the meaning of the phrase becomes however people are using it. linguistic elitist. and you used the word malaphor wrong, while we're at it. malaphor is the blending of two idioms, not using an idiom wrong. like "i'll burn that bridge when i get to it." unfortunately for you, i don't think thats the colloquial definition of malaphor, so... :(

The malaphor is that the correct phrase is “raises the question” so you’ve blending them. It just happens to have the same phrase in both.

Isabella wrote: "The malaphor is that the correct phrase is “raises the question” so you’ve blending them. It just happens to have the same phrase in both."

begs the question and raises the question are two separate phrases, the first of which is commonly used to mean the second - you don't see raises the question used commonly as an idiom because many people colloquially use the first to mean the text is "begging" you to ask this question. if it was a malaphor it would have to take half of one idiom and combine it with another. this is not taking half the idiom and combining it, firstly because its just a misunderstanding of where the idiom came from (as a particular logical fallacy) and because "raises the question" is not an idiom. using an idiom wrong is not a malaphor. malaphors are usually obvious and often intentionally comedic.

So you admit. It’s a misunderstanding. Good to end on a note of agreement.

Isabella wrote: "So you admit. It’s a misunderstanding. Good to end on a note of agreement."

yes lol i said that from the start. dont try to distract from the fact that in your effort to correct my use of an idiom you used a word wrong, which is so much funnier than me using an idiom wrong (aka the way most people use it)

I stand by my account of how it’s a malaphor. You can’t prove otherwise.

Isabella wrote: "I stand by my account of how it’s a malaphor. You can’t prove otherwise."

i guess you're just not the sharpest star in the shed