[Matters 96] Holiday Slow Reading Project 5 - Hannah Arendt

Another week passed quickly.

Last week's slow reading notes included a supplement to the distinction between "social sphere" and (pure) politics in (3) , as well as an introduction to the cornerstones of politics "plurality" and "common world", as well as the ideal in Olan's eyes. What does "Republicanism" look like? And in (4) [Speaking, I'm really dizzy, this title is actually marked 3 (crying)], it is mentioned that "action", "manufacturing" and "labor" are the three most important activities of human beings. And then to identify the meaning of these three activities, and how people can thus truly achieve the highest human activity "action" and produce "pure politics". However, when carrying out actions, Elan also reminded to pay attention to its hidden dangers, and to transcend the difficulties inherent in actions through "political virtues—courage and restraint" and "forgiveness and commitment".

In this chapter, the Mann reading notes record Elan's views on " freedom ," " power and authority ," and " the banality of evil. "

Author: Li Jianzhang Publisher: Lianjing (2018)

Table of contents:
1. Freedom
> Freedom is "made"
> Elan's Criticism of Traditional Freedom & Interpretation of Freedom

2. "Power" and "Authority"
> The concept of "power" in the eyes of Erlan
> The concept of "authority" in the eyes of Erlan

3. The banality of evil
> The concept of "evil banality"
> Countering the banality of evil

4. Summary

1. Freedom

🌸Freedom comes from "doing"

 Highlights:
=> The relationship between politics and freedom => Elan opposes the "subjective" and "inner" and "passive" freedoms => Elan believes: freedom is related to others => Elan further believes: obtaining freedom means It means giving up sovereignty!
=> Freedom, equal to action: Freedom is "practice in the public sphere"

"What is the meaning of politics?" is the question repeatedly raised in this book, and in "What is Politics?" ” in this book, one of the answers is: “ The meaning of politics is freedom. ” (p.64)

Yet politics has often seemed to be seen as the opposite of liberty for a long time because:

(1) Political experience of totalitarianism

(2) The destructive power possessed by the modern state, and this power will threaten the existence of the entire human race

Elan would have such an idea mainly because he experienced World War II at that time. Therefore, what Elan was trying to do at that time was to re-establish the relationship between "politics" and "freedom", and pointed out: having a real sense of In the realm of politics, people have real freedom (p. 156 of this book)

For Erlan, "freedom and action are always synchronized at the same time" (p. 157). Therefore, she opposes "subjective" and "inner" freedom, as well as the concept of freedom in a negative sense. But for Erlan, "lack of action or real experience is not freedom. We are only free when we are really 'singing'" (pp. 157-158. In the book, "Entering Karaoke and Singing" "For example, people should not just enter the venue, but should show their singing voice and experience the process of singing.)

To be more specific, what Elan is opposed to is the Western philosophical tradition that believes that freedom is an expression of "will", or, as religions say, freedom is a kind of "inner experience" (corresponding to "subjective" and "inner"). formula" part). In addition, Olan also objected to the statement (corresponding to the section on "negative freedom") that "freedom is what I want, not to be hindered by some concrete external commitment."

In Olan's eyes, freedom is a kind of "political freedom", which is "external" and "external", and is interrelated with "others", "diversity", "the common world of mankind" and "action" . (Book p. 160)

In addition, Elan inherited the influence of Heidegger's phenomenology: " appearance is existence ", so she believes that there is freedom with action, which is not continuous.

In addition to this, she makes a rather subversive argument: " To be free is to give up sovereignty. " (p. 161 of this book). What does this mean?

Generally speaking, freedom as we know it can be described as follows: what I can/want to do is my freedom. In such a discourse, Elan pointed out that "freedom" and "sovereignty" are equated, but freedom should not be like this.

So the book mentions that Elan's proposition is (p. 161 of this book):

"To be free" means "to give up sovereignty," because Oran-style liberty is based on coexistence and sharing with others, the ability to create new ground with political action in the common world, and the ability to express concreteness in the public sphere. Words and deeds to demonstrate political power and personal uniqueness, and to communicate and discuss with other equal citizens to persuade others to agree.

Therefore, Olam mentions: (this book pp. 162-163, from “Between Past and Future”, 2006, p. 151.)

The emergence of freedom . . . is consistent with expressive behavior. Men are free...only when they act, freedom is neither before nor after; being free is synonymous with acting.

And here (because of action) the concept of "power" is involved. The author quotes Wilmer Alberecht Wellmer's point of view, pointing out that some "power" does represent freedom, but Elan does not object to this, however, She believes:

"These rights cannot be regarded as the 'subtance' of political freedom, but only as the necessary 'preconditions' of political freedom" (p. 163.)

Therefore, Olan's interpretation of freedom is simply "practical behavior in the public domain", or more specifically: "Freedom is a kind of display seen in public space, it is a period of "dynamic" "release" the process of obscuring. ” (p. 164. of this book)

On the point of "practical behavior in the public sphere", certain "principles" are needed to support it, and in Erlan's interpretation, these principles are similar to "honor or honor", "love of equality" or such as Montesquieu called the concept of "virtue", but perhaps the most accurate description of what Olam referred to as "practice in the public sphere" is what the Greeks called "always strive to do what you can". To be the best of all and to be the best of all” (“Between Past and Future”, 2006, p. 151.)

And striving to be the best is related to the "showing the opposite sex" mentioned by Elan, but before showing the individual, the premise is to jointly maintain a "public sphere".

2. "Power" and "Authority"

🌸The concept of "power" in the eyes of Elan

 Highlights:
=> Criticism of the traditional concept of "power" => Power is a short-lived existence (because power only exists in the form of "realization")
=> Power emerges when collective action => Power is divisible (or, power is combined from the bottom up)

In the Western tradition of political philosophy, Rousseau's theory that "power" and "absolute sovereignty" are equivalent, and regards any power as a manifestation of " absolutist " will makes Elan particularly opposed. Because "any single person or system with the highest power is, for Elan, an 'autocratic' regime." (This book pp. 169-170)

Therefore, in Oran's eyes, she "doesn't think that power exists in certain power systems or institutions, that power is not like the French philosopher Foucault said 'power is omnipresent', that power is not limited to the state apparatus, and Not associated with violence of any kind. ” (Book p. 170.)

Just as Ellen believes that politics is manifested in action, and the meaning of politics lies in freedom, so they are all short-lived, at this point, because Elan believes: "'Politics' is no different from specific 'actions' and 'actions'. ' is the manifestation of freedom and power." So power is actually a short-lived existence .

It is said by Elan: "Power exists only in the form of ' actualization '." And "power has a temporality: power emerges among people, when they are assembled by action; power also Disappear with the scattering of people.” (This book, p. 172 The Human Condition, p. 200.)

And to put it more clearly: "Power is not only the human capacity to act, but also the capacity to act in concert; power can never be exclusive to one individual, it belongs to a group. It is only when groups come together that power can maintain existence."

That is, power is "a symbol of people's collective action and a factor that enables the existence of the public sphere." (pp. 172-173 of this book)

From the above discussion, it is possible to link back to the "diversity" of human beings mentioned by Elan in the past, and Elan therefore believes that power has "divisibility". And pointed out: "Power can be divided without losing its power, and the interaction of checks and balances between different powers can even generate more power." (This book, p. 174. The Human Condition, p. 201.)

In this regard, the book refers to the work "On Revolution" . In it, Olan pointed out that the American imagination of power is "a characteristic that can be continuously 'stacked' from the bottom up." (Organized from pp. 174-175.) And through this model, the "combination of powers" can be oriented to form "the federal principle ", that is, " the power of the individual is not disappears into collective power, but can grow in tandem with it. ” (p. 176.)

Therefore, Olan believes that power should not be as traditional European thinking (represented by France in "On the Revolution") that "the 'supreme power' is single and indivisible, and it does not need and has no negative checks and balances. ” (Book p. 175.)

🌸The concept of "authority" in the eyes of Erlan

 Highlights:
=> Criticism of the traditional concept of "authority" => The concepts of "power" and "authority" need to be separated => Authority is an inspiration

Similar to power, in general, people can't help but agree that "'the highest authority' is the 'highest authority'".

For Elan, however, the concepts of power and authority are actually separate . (The following is organized from pp. 178-182)

First of all, she explains through the root "Augere" of authority (Auctoritas), "Augere" means "discussion", and what the elders are also talking about and trying to preserve is the foundational experience of the past (foundation) ), the most representative of which are the memory of the founding of Rome and the founding experience of the United States.

And among them the Romans said: " Power belongs to the people, and authority belongs to the Senate. "

Therefore, in fact, authority should be regarded as a kind of "guiding" and "pillar" for the "common world": " authority " connects the old and new worlds; By means of an 'inspiration' rather than a 'command' to integrate the newcomer into the world in which she or he belongs, to give her or him a sense of belonging, to exist, and to act with the blessing of the entire past. ” (Book p. 180, from “Between Past and Future”, 2006, p. 123)

＊

After distinguishing between the concepts of "power" (transient, existing in collective action) and "authority" (the spirit that inspires and inherits the past), Elan pointed out: "The concept of power and authority is a kind of important to the past in the creation and renewal of Interpretation, the exercise of power coupled with the existence of authority means that any political action and pursuit of freedom are based on the "spiritual blessing" of significant others in the past. " (p. 163)

My understanding of this passage is that while performing "(political) actions" (ie, showing off the opposite sex in public), although it is short-lived and only exists because the collective is performing in the public arena, in the process of performing, in fact, Is inspired/influenced by authority.

In the book, the author draws a conclusion on this authority and power, that is: "The separation and support of power and authority is the secret of a country's long-term stability" (p. 183 of this book). Indeed, through the accumulation of generations The "spiritual blessings" of the people do indeed connect the short-lived "powers", and this may be a very valuable part of politics!

3. The banality of evil

🌸 The concept of "evil banality"

 Highlights:
=> Controversy of the trial => Three observation goals of Elan's participation in the trial of rebellion => Elan's reflection on the trial: viewing justice => Proposing "the banality of evil"
In the political realm, obedience should not be considered a virtue

(The following paragraphs are organized from pp. 187-192)

In the first article, Olan watched the trial of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann and came up with the concept of "banality of evil".

In this chapter, the author points out in more detail that the trial in Jerusalem at that time had many controversies in itself, including: Is it reasonable to [extend] to be tried in Israel? Is this just a kind of " revenger's justice "?

In Erlan's eyes, this trial is for her to try to understand better:

(1) Appearance of Totalitarian Participants

(2) How the law deals with this new type of crime

(3) Continue to care about the "evil" problem

After watching the trial, Olam believed that the trial was " viewing justice " and "an attempt to build a solid state of 'Jewish consciousness'." Therefore, in that trial, Eichmann not only represented him The crimes that have been committed are—"... The people on trial sitting in the bench are not just Eichmann, not just the Nazi regime, but the ' anti-Semitism' that has never been interrupted." (This book, p. 190.) [When I read this, I feel uncomfortable about the situation of the Jews, but at the same time feel heavy with the responsibility for the "anti-Semitism" that has accumulated on Eichmann for thousands of years. In fact, regarding the latter, Eichmann's defense lawyers also believed that he was just a "cogwheel", that is, acting on orders and arranging the business of transporting Jews. Of course, this was denied by prosecutors. ]

And after seeing and judging the trial situation very rationally, Elan finally believes: "Under a completely normal and ordinary surface, [this evil will happen because] they have lost the ability to participate in the common world and make judgments. " She would say This sentence is because when watching the trial, she found that Eichmann was a very ordinary person. If you just look at his words and deeds, it is difficult for people to connect them with the evil deeds of massacre.

So she also tries to explain this "administrative crime", this "obedience to orders". In the era of Nazi totalitarianism "obedience was considered a virtue, and disobedience meant death." However, Olam still pointed out that " obedience should not be considered a virtue, especially in the political sphere. " (p. 192.) This also extends to her discourse on "evil banal countermeasures".

🌸 Countermeasures against evil banality

 Highlights:
Eichmann was evil because "he couldn't think for himself"
=> Countermeasures against the banality of evil: thinking and judging => the role of thinking => the role of judgment

(This paragraph is compiled from pp. 192-206)

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, obedience should not be considered a virtue, especially in the political sphere. (Book p. 192.)

In Eichmann's case, however, his new type of crime is "normal" in terms of personality, and the reason why they refuse to "think" and "judgment" is because " he can't think for himself" ( Book p. 193) And this happens because of the project of "dehumanization" under the Nazi myth of "creating a new human being" (which involves people being deprived of "innovativeness" or "unpredictability"). ) (Book p. 195)

Therefore, in Erlan's eyes, she proposes a "countermeasure against the banality of evil", one is "thinking" and the other is "judgment" .

In Erlan's mind, thinking is not a kind of "cognitive" activity, and it is not the establishment of knowledge through the induction and deduction of logic and experience.

She believes:

A basic aspect of thinking is to " detach " from the world, and to consider the habitual habits of daily life and the validity of social mainstream values from another meta-view; Value does not consist in establishing any concrete or substantive knowledge or proposition. ...it is like a kinetic energy that "uncertains" all certainties.

The author mentioned here that, in fact, we can think in our daily life: "Is what we usually believe is worth believing?" (p. 197 of this book)

So it can also be said: " Thinking is a force of self-denial. " (Book p. 198)

I especially like a quote here:

Plato's "Gorgias" dialogues point out that the worst thing for Socrates is to find himself against himself when he is with himself, that is, to contradict himself. Elan makes an important definition for thinking by saying this: Thought is a lonely and silent dialogue between self and self, thinking is like asking yourself: "Is what I am doing right?"

Through this kind of self-doubt, although there will be "split", but then by presupposing "the wholeness of personality " (the wholeness here, I automatically translate it as "completeness") and therefore "conscience" has a role. Therefore, "it is impossible for the human ego to live in a situation of self-opposition and mutual hatred for a long time, and this antagonistic hatred must be regulated after all" (this book, p. 200.)

And here Elan points out that there are two ways in which thinking can cause danger, one is "excessive thinking" and the other is "lack of thinking". And in the case of Eichmann's "bad things", it was because of the latter.

＊

In addition to "thinking", Elan also mentioned " judgment ". Oran believes that "judgment alone is the most politically significant human faculty".

In Erlan's eyes, "'thinking' and 'judgment' both have an element of deliberate 'evacuation' , keeping oneself at a distance from social conventions or those who follow others' opinions.... [Judgment] This kind of withdrawal is for better Re-entry into the common world has made concrete judgments. ” (Book p. 202.)

That is, the judgment will actually involve "others" (ie, it is better to re-enter the common world), the author pointed out: "The judgment must include the "other" and the "common world" shared with others, which is why Elan Particular emphasis is placed on the politics of judgment.” (p. 202.)

A careful analysis will reveal that "judgments are personal, but judgers are able to take into account the presence and absence of others and their arguments" (p. 203.).

Oran mentioned in "Between Past and Future" (2006, p. 237)

Political thinking is representational... When considering a particular issue, the more I can imagine how I would feel and think when I was in their place, the effect of my representational thinking. The stronger the ability, the more valid my conclusions and my opinions will be (this is the ability to "enlarged mentality" to make judgments possible.)

The author mentions that Kant proposed "the vast mind " (eine erweiterte Denkungsart) that rational thinking must also be able to "think from the standpoint of others" (Author's Note: Section 40 of Kant's Third Critique)

On this point it goes on to mention: "Judgment is important because it realizes and respects the two human conditions of 'plurality' and 'common world', because for Elan the validity of judgment depends on its Communicability," that is, speaking rationally with others in the public sphere."

Therefore, the author finally concluded: " Judgment can not only take into account the individual performance of Qiuqiu, but also consider the opinions and opinions of others. " And reiterated:

Judgment is an expression, which means that the judge not only maintains his own personal uniqueness, but also understands and considers the ideas and positions of others, and both are consolidated.

4. Summary

Finally finished writing the slow reading notes of the book "Hannah Elan". [sprinkle flowers]

The last chapter is to organize the three chapters of "liberty", "power" and "authority" and "banal evil". Among them, my favorite concept is the part that refers to countering the evil of banality, namely "thinking" and "judgment".

Although I really don’t know if this form of note-taking is useful, but when I reread and organize my notes, I remember some knowledge points more and more time and time again-even if these knowledge points are not used at all, it is not even very useful for finding a job. Great help, but just use your brains!

Frankly speaking, some of Elan’s ideas are really detailed and somewhat subverting past cognitions, basically taking the line of “ creation ”, which from the very beginning combines politics, human activities (labor, manufacturing and action), public and private & society. Domain, liberty, power and authority are all clearly and clearly separated/redefined from commonly known definitions. However, I have to say that I am still deeply moved by her theory. The point of the move is that in her mind , the world prospered by common good and joint efforts , and that beautiful world grows from the bottom to the top. (A bit like in the monoculture mentioned earlier: " You do something to enrich your life , not based on fear, guilt, blame, or shame.") Rather than being forced from the top down /required.

Speaking of which, about reading and writing notes, it is actually pure "one thing to do to enrich one's life". Looking back on the experience of reading in the past, sometimes I went to "The Human Condition" (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958) because I wanted to know more The phrases that I have gone around, but in the middle of the thread, made me feel deeply inspired, and I also felt a sense of touching my "reality".

It is a luxury to be able to do what I like at this moment, and I am very grateful!

❤️ Silently discovered a super valuable stove: Lianjing "Thinking" opened in Matters~ Big push! In order to avoid the "evil banality", hurry up and improve your thinking ability by reading "Thought"~~

**

Thank you/you for reading this~
Because of your reading, this article exists again and again :)