Overview of the Class

Comprehensively, I found this class helpful in reminding me to think twice about my actions. Throughout class we've discussed whether or not we found it important to incorporate philosophy classes into curriculum, whether it be in high school or college. Personally, I find classes such as this helpful in expanding "thinking" skills. Not often are students given the chance to sit and ponder and discuss issues that are not relevant to our degrees or future jobs. In conclusion, I believe classes such as this are definitely crucial in helping students to gain a well-rounded education.

Question for Paul

Paul, I really liked the fact that you brought in an outside source, "Night" into your paper topic. I did have a question regarding your topic though. In what way do you plan on incorporating "Night" into your paper? Are you going to use just as an example of what can happen, such as the boy stealing bread from his own father? Just curious on your plan. Great job overall!

Comments for Nicole

Nicole, I think you did an excellent job portraying your material for your paper. Besides the content, your graphics on your PowerPoint definitely captured the audience's attention. I also liked how you separated your central themes into 3 separate sections so that it was very straightforward what you would be talking about in your paper. Overall, great job!

Question for Matt

First off, I enjoyed your presentation on Wednesday. In American society, there are extreme arguments that exist on gun control and other such areas. I liked how you sort of touched upon those areas to make Arendt's work relevant to what we are living in today. I do have question though. Do you think other such areas exist to find information besides Fox News of MSNBC? Do you think there are other credible sources besides these two that we need to choose between? Just curious on your thoughts. Great job!

Question for Sarah

Sarah, I loved your presentation on Wednesday. Especially the fact that you brought in a Catholic/Christian perspective when it came to schools and education. However, I did have a question for you. When it comes to organized religion, do you personally agree with this notion? Or are you going to take a stance in your paper on whether or not you agree with organized religion? Just curious! Overall, great presentation.

Comments for Bill*

I really enjoyed your insight as a parent. It really made me understand how difficult it is to do things such as answer questions that kids have. Kids are complex beings and their constantly wondering why everything is the way it is and why people act the way they do. And honestly, I don't even know the answers to these questions! (This wasn't just your final presentation, but through the whole class)

Sorry, wrong name on here before!

If Arendt Was Still Here

I sit and think to myself, Arendt has so many wonderful ideas in so many areas. Then I sit and wonder what she would think about the evil in today's world. What would she think about the bombings, cyber-bullying, any of the evils? What would she think about today's education system? About No Child Left Behind? I wish someone who was anything like Arendt would come forward and do the same line of work. Better yet, I would love to have Arendt as an instructor for a class.

Conformity

I never actually realized how serious conformity was until Keith did his presentation. As much as people don't want to admit it, religion is a huge conformity that people fall in to. I always hate to question religion, but you look at certain situations and wonder why. Lets take a look at Al Qaeda for example. Those people honestly believe that it is OK to bomb other people's homelands. Then, we look at the United States, and in reality we are in their territory. To both sides, we are justified in our beliefs. We both believe that it is OK that we are doing what we are doing, but not OK that the other side is doing what they're doing. I know in the United States we look at everything and we say "Yeah, I know that's bad." But, how are we to judge any other countries for their doings? Kids who grow up in different cultures with different religions will grow up and have their own beliefs. That isn't that part of the amazing things in the world? Everyone is different in their own way. Religion gives us something to believe in, something to have hope in. Some people have no hope in the world. Instead of bashing other people, we should be grateful for what we have.

Comments for Sarah

I absolutely loved your presentation. It instantly grabbed my attention. I also loved your intake on your experience at a catholic school. I am not Christian or Catholic either and I know exactly how you feel about teachers questioning. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but they shouldn't push their beliefs on others.

On Thinking and Empathy

Arendt comments that thinking is what allows imagination, which in turn is what allows people to see the world and their actions from the view of another person or people. This, in turn, develops the conscience, which is stimulate by the sort of two-in-one dialogue people have within themselves when they stop and think. When they do this sort of internal dialogue, they in turn develop their empathy, or their capacity to understand how others feel. By imagining how their actions will affect the world around them through thinking, they in turn begin to understand how to act, which in turn creates an empathy with the people around them.

Demonic Evil versus Banal Evil

The difference between demonic and banal evil seems to be a matter of intent. Within demonic evil, there is an intent to do harm to another person or people, for whatever reason. Within banal evil, it appears that there is no real intent to do harm, you just sort of don't notice it's happening. Sort of like the difference between shooting someone to death in an alley and being the one hearing the gunshots on the street and not calling the police. The shoot is displaying a sort of demonic evil, whereas the bystander, by their inaction, demonstrates the banal.

Why Does Thinking Matter?

We have spent the semester learning about thinking, so the question I'm asking here is, why does thinking matter? According to Arendt, thinking is what allows us to have a conscience, it allows us to be a good person by making us consider out actions from the point of view from the other people it may effect.  It also represents our natural curiosity towards the world. Thinking is what sparks the mind to consider things beyond the everyday, which in turn makes people consider what is out there. Why are these two things important? Because they are part of what makes up humanity as a whole, thinking is what drives us to learn and grow as people, and to treat others well. Thinking is what makes societies change and strive upwards. Thinking is important.

The Threat in Education

The educational system had been slowly changing over the years, and not necessarily for the better. School systems, rather than educating their students in such a manner as to promote thinking, have instead taught to a system of guidelines that supposedly all students should learn by. This, rather than promoting the thought process of said students, instead restricts them. It deprives them of the opportunity think for themselves, to pursue those subjects and questions which they wish. Instead, teachers "teach to the test", focusing more on what they are told to teach rather than educating their students in such a manner as to pique their curiosity.

Question for Paul

According to Arendt's dualistic theory with conscience, how does this differ from Descartes's dualism of body and mind?  Are there still "two" people?

Question for Carolynne

Arendt has connected banality and evil through non-thinking.  However, if non-thinking is normal, how is it not natural?  Are there things that are unnatural that become normalized and are therefore only perceived to be "natural"?

Arendt and religion

Arendt is clearly opposed to ideologues  but I don't think this would necessarily translate to the all followers of religions, or even those helping to create doctrine.  If you focus on religion as a collection of people appealing to an authority for answers to their questions, then I can see how it could be dangerous.  But if you see religion as a group of people with similar beliefs that all believe the same thing, not because someone told them to, but because they find the answers given appealing and reasonable.  Many religions, or at least mainstream sects encourage open-mindedness on many issues.  The Hierarchy of Truths in the Christian tradition is an example of how a religion can encourage open-mindedness in topics not high in the hierarchy.  Private vs. Public revelation allows for people to remain independent thinkers of the group.  Religion is obviously a framework that some people rely on completely which is a problem for thinking.  It would just be remiss to clump all followers of religion together when some try to create their own viewpoint from within the religious framework.

question for Matt

How do you think our government got to the "less representative" point it is at today and is this seen in other countries as well?

question for Sarah

Since the backgrounds of students at public and private schools are reflected in their academic performance and it is less of a factor at Catholic schools, how do you think this happens? Do you think there is there a way that public or private schools could progress to the same situation without compromising their founding ideals/principles?

Metaphorical Speech

To Emily:
I am still at awe in the difference between saying "Love is a snowmobile" and "Love is like a snowmobile". Even without saying 'like', is it not implied that in fact it is like a snowmobile. Love will never actually be a snowmobile (unless you live in the mountains and really really like snowmobiling, I guess). I see any sarcasm really as being a metaphor. You don't have to say like for it to be like an object. Also, you said there was no concrete definition of love. "An intense feeling of deep affection" noun. "Feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)" verb. So why must it be described as a snowmobile?

Questions for Phil

Can a republic become a tyranny when one person gains more power and creates movement?

Questions for Bill

Is there a time when thinking will happen automatically regardless of all the distractions that kids face these days?

Questions for Emily

Are metaphors an accident of language or something that is conditioned into us as we learn the language?  What do you think and what would you say Arendt thought?

Where do telling details come from?  When do we develop them?

Conformity and its contribution to the roots evil

Conformity plays a vital role in the implementation of evil on a large-scale, but it is not the beginnings of evil.  There is always an underlying group of conspirators who set evil goals that take much ingenuity to translate from the drawing board into action.  Like any well thought out plan, it must start from the top and trickle down through bureaucracy.  Arendt wrote about totalitarianism and the political backgrounds that lead up to them and occur throughout totalitarian rule.  However, conformity is not just a consequence of totalitarianism but is already imbedded in the fabric of most societies.  The difference is the lack of disparity in opinion under totalitarian rule.  People who think differently, are killed.  Therefore, people are forced to conform or flee.  In the case of the Nazis, blaming the Jews was something that only fed on the consensus of the group.  It took cunning subtle persuasion to slowly ease the society into the extermination of the Jews as a norm.  The policies are generally unopposed by those who have any influence so the norm goes on without being questioned.  However, the German people did not wake up one day with the common desire to kill all Jews. The ethnic discrimination was already present, all that was needed was a determined man with a strategy to turn that inclination into a hate strong enough to accept their demise.  Therefore, it takes more than conformity for evil to manifest itself in the world.  At the same time, only conformity can lead to a widespread acceptance and implementation of evil works and attitudes.  Each component is contingent on the other.  Conformity starts with an idea that spreads, whether evil or not, and together, the idea and the acceptance, evil becomes perceivable in the world.

Arendt on Education

Arendt's unique combination of both a liberal and conservative view on education keeps her from belonging to any particular theory-based formula set for education. She probably sees that as a strength knowing how she feels about ideologues. She seems to discuss more of the issues with education rather than a solution. She proposes a return to classical education but there obviously can't be a complete return to that because that would be a step back, not forward. So she adds dimension to it by intertwining natality and introducing the children to the world. It is more about the concepts than actual applications that should be used in the classroom. This is where her theory has strengths. It isn't all guidelines but something open for interpretation.

Progression of Selfishness

One point that I think everything boils down to in terms of Eichmann's failure to think can be found in "his almost total inability ever to look at anything from the other fellow's point of view." When he interacted with Jews he could only express unemotional sorrow and an apology for their predicament. When asked to recall events he could only remember those events that were directly consequential to him getting (or failing to get) a promotion. He viewed cooperation with his men as everyone "pulling together," creating the illusion of a willing coalition. Eichmann always primarily and singularly concerned with himself and first would not and later could not shift his focus away from himself.

Eichmann's Banality

It is ironic that Eichmann is considered so normal when he can't even carry on a conversation properly.  I found it interesting that Arendt couldn't take his completely serious due to the extent of his reliance on political jargon and cliches of the time.  It seems clear that anyone could be reduced to this state having undergone the changes of the Nazi regime, but I am surprised Arendt didn't discuss how in particular, Eichmann was not able to articulate events correctly.  She discussed his skewed memory, but I think that he may have been more impacted than the average German by the unification under Hitler.  He was not so easily pulled back into post-war mentality as the rest of Germany was.  He seemed to be stuck in his wartime identity.  He may no longer be the head of transporting Jews to their deaths, but he didn't seem to be recovered necessarily either (at least by Arendt's accounts).  I think it goes beyond simply being swayed by authority either way due to a lack of thinking, but there was something more, at least in Eichmann, that kept him from reverting back to "everyday life".  He obviously tried to defend himself in his trial, but like Heidegger  he never was actually "sorry" about what HE did.  He may have been sorry about what happened, but he never took responsibility.  Even if others in the Nazi state 'let things happen' they probably would have seen the atrocities and taken some sort of responsibility.  I just see Eichmann as beyond just a 'non-thinker' and was actually 'stuck' with the Nazi party as his authority even after the war.

Learning Language

One part of Arendt's criticism on education that I have conflicting opinions on is her declaration that we are going about the teaching of languages all wrong, using it as an example for how the whole system is flawed. Arendt seems to feel that in order to learn a language one must focus on rules, syntax, grammar, and such. She scorns the idea that one "is to learn a foreign language in the same way that as an infant he learned his own language." I have taken German classes for going on five years. The problem I find with this is that all of my teachers have emphasized that the hands down best way to learn German (or any language for that matter) is to go and live in Germany for however long. What is this if not being thrown into an unfamiliar environment where you have no choice but to learn the language "in the same way that as an infant he learned his own language." While I do not deny the importance of grammar and syntax, becoming immersed in the speaking of the language can be just as helpful in learning it. Learning a language comes from a combination of studying the rules and experiencing it firsthand.

The Seesaw Crisis

The Crisis in Education is really a Seesaw.  Arendt is asking for more education and less "just learning" and since the 1950's the situation has escalated even more.  However, the more recent focus on learning rather than education is the standing of the United States behind many other developed countries of the world when it comes to test-scores and other rankings of academic achievement.  We are stuck in the push for the education of liberal arts colleges and the pulling of math and science in the classroom.  As side inches up the see-saw, there is more of a chance of schools slamming down onto either side.  The crisis is that we have not found a solution to make people "smarter" AND "ready for the world".  Our society has differentiated those who are street smart from those who are school smart without there being much allowable overlap.  I sympathize with Arendt's interest in making people more educated about the world, but education is failing on other points as well.  I don't know if reverting back to conservative ways of teaching will help, but it is clear that the system is not working out now for the majority of those going to school.  It will take more than progressive individualists to solve the problem a whole society is facing.

To be alive

One of the most interesting things I've read in this book is about Socrates " As far as he himself is concerned, there is nothing more to be said than that life deprived of thought would be meaningless, even though though will never make men wise or give them the answers to thought's own questions." (p 178) I find this to be completely true. Later in the same passage it says "To think and to be fully alive are the same." The second I read this it instantly struck me that this statement is scary, yet honest. I looked at it as the mental state many of us consider being a 'vegetable'. When we have no brain activity, yet we are still breathing. Would any of us want to lay there with nothing? Many people even sign papers that won't let them live that way if it happened. Thinking is one of the fundamentals of life. It allows for society and ourselves to function the way we normally do. Without thinking, life is essentially meaningless.

What would you like to tell people?

I don’t know… I think I’d like to say only that they should learn to be alone and try to spend as much time as possible by themselves. I think one of the faults of young people today is that they try to come together around events that are noisy, almost aggressive at times. This desire to be together in order to not feel alone is an unfortunate symptom, in my opinion. Every person needs to learn from childhood how to be spend time with oneself. That doesn’t mean he should be lonely, but that he shouldn’t grow bored with himself because people who grow bored in their own company seem to me in danger, from a self-esteem point of view.

Russian filmaker Andrei Tarkovsky

The Danger of Thinking

For me, one of the most meaningful points made in chapter 17 is Arendt's assertion that "there are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous" (176). Arendt declares this in the context of relegating nihilism and other like theories obtained by reversing old values to a lesser and more dangerous plane of thought. However, it is applicable to so much more. History has dozens (probably hundreds, if not more) instances of people or races being denied education. As an example, slaves were kept illiterate and it was in some places illegal to teach them to read. The fact is that learning leads to thinking and thinking leads to action, which is exactly what slaveowners didn't want. The thought process can be a formidable weapon and it is for this reason that Arendt describes it as dangerous.

Is Thought Paralyzing?

In chapter 17, Arendt spends a great deal of time describing Socrates, and the thinking activity itself, as paralyzing in nature. She says that "it is inherent in the stop and think...and it also may have a dazing after-effect" (175). This seemed all well and good to me until she brought it back to her previous analogy of the house. Arendt says of the house "once you have though about its implied meaning...you are no longer as likely to accept for your own home whatever the fashion of the time may prescribe" (175). I disagree. Perhaps my own understanding of what a house is is not in line with "the fashion of the time," but if it can be accurately described as a dwelling place where I choose to plant my life, then even thinking about that does not paralyze my thought on the subject. Meditating on "home is where the heart is" does not make it any less definite to me. Perhaps this disagreement would not carry over to other subjects, but at least in terms of house, I find that thought is not paralyzing.

The Three Basic Mental Activities

"Thinking, willing, and judging are the three basic mental activities; they cannot be derived from each other and though they have certain common characteristics they cannot be reduced to a common denominator." This is how Arendt starts the "Mental Activities in a World of Appearances" section on page 69. Would the common denominator not be thinking? Do we not think when we judge? Do we not think when we are willing? Do we not think when we are thinking? Though we do some things out of habit and it doesn't require much mental capacity, almost everything everything requires at least some thinking. When we are judging someone, especially for their behavior, we are thinking "Why would he do.... It's so immoral!" or "I can't believe she.... She's going to hell." We are trained to know the difference between right and wrong, and when we or someone else does something wrong, we instinctively know it's not right. Is knowing not thinking?

Phenomenon of the Will

Pg 155-I found the concept of “the phenomenon of the will” extremely important. Its described as “an altogether different mental capacity, whose chief characteristic, compared with the ability to think, is that it neither speaks in the voice of reflection nor does it use arguments but only imperatives, even when it is commanding nothing more than thought or, rather, imagination.” I feel that will reflects exactly who you are and what you’re capable of.  If you have the will to do or not do something, it shows the strength you have. But I also feel that it completely uses arguments and requires thinking because you debate the outcome of the choice you're about to make. Did the Nazi's use will to guide their choices? Absolutely not. They didn't argue with Hitler's commands or think about what was going to happen to all these people. Will is different for each person, but being brain washed, you have no will.  

Greek and Roman Answers

Two of the most basic questions of philosophy that have plagued the human race for centuries is what causes us to think and why is there something rather than nothing? Throughout history, the Greeks and the Romans attempted to answer these questions in their study of philosophy. The Greek answer is one that admires or wonders about concepts in a worldly fashion. Plato and Heidegger use this form of thinking and Arendt therefore also uses this way. The Romans on the other hand, have a derogatory and dismal aspect as they despair at life and believe thinking is a cure. In conclusion, Arendt found this argument from the Romans unconvincing and as a result, used the Greeks way of thinking to answer these questions.

Portrayal of Evil

In class, we watched the romantic comedy of "Bringing Up Baby". Although countless examples of thoughtless in terms of Katharine Hepburn's character could be identified, would Arendt constitute "Susan's" thoughtlessness as evil? I believe this not to be true. Susan in the film was acting out of her love for Dr. Huxley. She was not acting out of malicious or evil intent. In fact, her thoughtless actions had a purpose or intent of love behind it which displays actually displays her thoughtfulness. In total, this comedy was a great example of how we can identify the differences between thoughtfulness in actions and complete thoughtlessness.

Spectators vs. Actors

Hannah Arendt believes that in reality, there exists two forms of human beings: spectators and actors. As plurality is a basic feature of the human condition, we therefore possess unity with other human beings and we are all in a sense connected. Spectators are active non-participants in life's daily business (Arednt 93). The actors are the people performing in action what the spectator already expects of them. Spectators are people who are able to withdrawal their mind from the condition of all mental activities so they can thus truly think and contemplate. Overall, it is the spectator and not the actor who therefore holds the clue to the meaning of human affairs (Arendt 96).

Comparison of Answers

Arendt gives a succinct summary of the two answers to "why do we think?" on page 162. "On the one hand, admiring wonder at the spectacle into which man is born and for whose appreciation he is so well equipped in mind and body; on the other, the awful extremity of having been thrown into a world whose hostility is overwhelming, where fear is predominant and from which man tries his utmost to escape." This clearly shows Arendt's preference for the first answer, and I must say that the Roman response was rather unsatisfying. Plato's wonder and awe, compared to the apathetic and undesirable place that the Roman's thought of as earth, is vastly preferable. Why accept an answer that degrades us and necessitates escape rather than one that champions the ability of the human race to admire what cannot be understood?

• why is something at all why is there nothing

·      why is something at all why is there nothing..                                                                   

    I am still trying to wrap my head around this whole context of this. if you think about what it really means you can come up with so many answers in your head about it. It is one of those subject that you can lay in bed at night time and just sit there and think and ponder for hours and still not come up with a solid conclusion, or even idea of what it could mean. 

    

     Something that kinda got me think today in class was about the bible and God knowing before anyone knows. I wonder since he is the all knowing, if he would know why is something at all why is there nothing. I mean why is something at all, why are we at all, why are we nothing, are we nothing compared to the rest of this universe ? These are the type of questions that come out of my mind when discussing this topic.

Wondering about Wonder

In chapter 15 Arendt discusses Plato's response to "what makes us think?" and expands on Plato's theory that wonder is the origin of our cognitive abilities. The one stipulation that Arendt makes is that "the wonder that is the starting-point of thinking is neither puzzlement nor surprise nor perplexity; it is an admiring wonder" (143). This is an important distinction because it leads to the later discussion of Being and its relation to thinking and the divine. One way this connection is made is by Arendt's explanation of one of the supposed proofs of the existence of God, that nothing causes itself to exist and therefore was caused by something else. That thing that caused the first thing must have a previous cause and this chain continues, but, since it cannot continue forever, must arrive "at something which is its own cause...the ultimate cause, called 'God'" (145). The importance of faith in this "primary mover" is reflected later in Arendt when she states that "the element of admiration in Plato's wonder needs faith in a Creator-God to save human reason from its speechless dizzy glance into the abyss of nothingness" (147). Arendt even goes on to say that without wonder, it is Being's fault that nothingness becomes unfathomable.

Thoughtlessness of romantic comedies

"Bringing Up Baby" has obvious forms of thoughtlessness that are meant to be funny, not evil. Leaving the window to the car open enough so that the tiger jumps from one car to the other is not evil, nor does it show a lack of a conscience. However I can see how an escalation of the behaviors or more serious behaviors could display a problem if there is no guilt. The female character does not take responsibility for her actions and since they are simple and will eventually not be as harmful as they seem to the main character, her actions are humorous and not upsetting or subject to negative judgments. There must be a fine line somewhere when thoughtlessness becomes unforgivable.

quote from Michael Jordan

Sitting in my apartment watching ESPN after class I saw a blurb from Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame speech that I thought was philosophical and somewhat Platonic. The context of the quote is that he mentioned we just might see him playing again at 50 and he ends it by saying, "....limits like fear, are often just illusions." The GOAT knows his philosophy.

Speech

"It is not our soul but our mind that demands speech." (p98). This is a very strong statement made by Arendt. I also find it very debatable. I see where our mind does demand speech, but I feel our soul demands it too. The first thing I thought of was love. We're always told "actions speak louder than words." I'm a strong believer in the fact that love comes from the soul. While actions sometimes mean more than words, would our soul be okay with not hearing the words "I love you." I know for a girl that when you love him, you want nothing more than to hear those words. We want nothing more than to be told and reassured of their love. So is it our mind, or is it our soul? I guess it depends on which you believe the soul controls.

Philosophy and Religion

Arendt describes the Greek goal of philosophy as reaching immortality by following two steps. "first the activity of nous, which consisted in contemplation of the everlasting...then followed the attempt to translate the vision into words" (137). Previously in the chapter she stated that "philosophizing became the only possible 'way' to piety" (135). However, religion could be looked at as another way of reaching immortality through the same basic steps. Really, what is religion but the activity of contemplation of the everlasting (or, the divine) then followed by the attempt to translate the vision into words (and actions). These are two ways of looking at the same activity. Philosophy did not replace religion, it, in some ways, complements it.

Thinking Too Much

This is a poem I found with a perspective on what thinking is and why it is important to the author.  I like how she is questioning the ling between thinking and thinking too much.  It relates to the debate about philosophers being removed from the world too much because of how often they think.

http://open.salon.com/blog/embracingepiphanies/2012/09/25/poem_thinking_too_much

Is Philosophy Still Relevant?

The study of philosophy has started to fall out of favor in the academic world for the past couple of decades. So far, in fact, that it is a possible question to ask in this day and age if the subject is still relevant to our world. Personally, I think that it absolutely is. Philosophy forces you to think, and I mean really think about things. It forces you to have an introspection of  your goals, your beliefs, the world that you live in, all of it. It teaches critical thinking skills that are growing more and more rare to the people of our world. What's more, it also gives people the tools and methods to have new and creative ideas that can be of use to the world.

The one flaw that I do see in the study of Philosophy that would have to change if it wanted to remain in modern day thought is that the study would have to do away with its elitist attitude and image. Many students that I know are cagey about taking philosophy courses because they feel that they are not smart enough to do well, or that they won't get anything out of it. If philosophy were to show how it can be relevant in today's world and make itself more accessible to the "normal" people, I think it would take off like never before.

Language and its Effect on Thinking

Language, as the way that we bring thought into the world, is deeply connected to act of thinking. So it wouldn't be too far a leap to say that the language that we utilize to think can have an impact on the way that we think and the way that we express out thoughts. If you speak a language with, shall we say, over three billion words, your thoughts would probably be more complex, though not necessarily better than, someone who speaks a language with only three hundred. The content of the language could also have an effect on your thoughts. Languages that have more than one word for the same thing, such as the Eskimo's thirty seven different words for "snow", probably have more of a tilt towards certain thoughts than others. It is said you've only truly mastered a foreign language when you start to think in it, and I think that statement, considering the huge connection between language and thought, is proof enough as to how the types of language we use effects our thinking.

Metaphor and the Ineffable

As Arendt says, metaphor is the bridge between thought and the world of appearances, and those metaphors that we use do take from one of our five bodily senses to create themselves. But Arendt also makes the point that if we were to try and think about the ineffable, we find ourselves at a loss as to how to go about doing so. Mainly because of the fact that, because the ineffable is not rooted in the world of appearances, we have no metaphors with which to consider it. As such, all we really have is a "feeling" of it, an occasional burst of inspiration that leaves us as soon as we attempt to pin it down. Because our language, the words we use to actualize thought and make it concrete in our minds, does not have words with which to make the ineffable realized in or connected to the world of appearances, such thoughts are unable to be considered or spoken aloud. Based on such evidence, it could be entirely possible to proclaim the ineffable does not exist at all. And yet, we do still have that sense from time to time, those moments of inspiration or those feelings of sudden understanding, that do hint that the ineffable is out there. In my personal experience, such things usually are accompanied by that sensation you get when you have a word on the tip of your tongue, and just can't remember what it is. You know it's there, but it just refuses to be said or even understood sometimes. So I suppose the only consideration then is to figure out how to quantify it, either without using language, or by inventing new language to do so.

Desperate Philosophers

An interesting point that Arendt made in chapter 10 was that "the greater [certain philosophers] loom in our tradition of philosophy, the more they were inclined to find ways and means of reinterpreting these inherent traits" (1. withdrawal from the world of appearances 2. self-destructive tendency 3. knowledge of thinking only as long as thinking lasts) (88). Even more curious is that Arendt qualifies this by stating that philosophers are trying to reinterpret these facts, not for the masses, but for themselves. They appear to be unwilling to accept the fact that their chosen profession could, in fact, be useless. They will  stick to their subject without acknowledging that it could lead to nothing. Perhaps this is the reason that Plato feared people's derisive laughter as a danger and believed that the masses would rise up against the philosophers if they saw an opportunity.

Intramural Warfare

On pages 87-88, Arendt discusses the necessary withdrawal the thinking ego must take from the common world of appearances to contemplate something deeper. She says that the world of appearances can distract the mind and can conceal the mind from viewing an invisible Being that reveals itself only to the mind. She also goes onto say that our minds have a natural aversion to this way of thinking as if we might discover something that is distasteful to us, which goes back to her theory of the banality of evil. Overall, withdrawal from the common sense world of appearances, self-destructive tendency, and awareness of the mind’s activity is all part of the intramural warfare between common sense and thought.

Out of Order Thinking

In understanding what it means to "think", Arendt uses Heidegger's philosophical understanding of what it means to think. Arendt believes thinking exemplifies itself as a stop and think sort of action. More specifically Arendt (78) quotes Heidegger that thinking on any level or any such reflection demands and “out of order” thought process. In other words, it is wrong to believe that an established hierarchal order exists among the activities or thought processes of the mind. Ultimately the thought processes that occur in the human mind are more directed towards thought-objects than to sense-objects. Thought-objects require desensitization from our body so the mind can enter into a place where thinking can occur.

Existentialism

I remember Emily asking "what is existentialism?" I told her that I absolutely loved the literature that came with existentialism. The web definition says "A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will". I was extremely surprised when in my Education class I was classified as an existentialist teacher. In this description it says "a highly subjective philosophy that stressed the importance of the individual  and emotional commitment to living authentically. It emphasizes individual choice over the importance of rational theories, history, and social institutions." I think it's awesome that philosophy and education are tied so closely together. As a teacher, you have to know what you believe in and how you want your students to learn. 

Discovering Who We Are

Something that struck me in our reading this week was chapter 10 page 53 (for hard copy) when Arendt says "If we take our perspective from the world of appearances, the common world in which we appeared by birth and from which we shall disappear by death, then the wish to know our common habitat and amass all kinds of knowledge about it is natural." I think this really falls into the science as much as it does the knowledge. We are always searching for the truth. We're trying to find the depths of the world that are infinite. Everyday, we learn something new about ourselves, about the world around us. Most of us yearn for knowledge. A reason we're in college, to better our lives and know about our surroundings. We encounter new people, new lifestyles everyday. What is life if we're not gaining knowledge? What is knowledge without the science behind it?

Illogical Philosophy

Something that struck me while ready chapter 10 was the affinity Arendt described between philosophers and death, which they believed would "liberate the mind from bodily pain and pleasure, both of which prevent our mental organs from pursuing their activity" (81). The illogical part is the assumption on the part of the "professional thinkers" is that they do not seem to have thought about the fact that no one knows what succeeds death. Their blind hope seems to be that they will be free of bodily concerns, yet still free to think abstractly about such things as they please. To leave something like that unaddressed seems out of character for people who like to ask questions. Perhaps there is a bodily form in the afterlife. Perhaps there is no afterlife. Perhaps thought is restricted in the afterlife. It is impossible to say, but it is very odd for philosophers to pin their hopes on something they can't know about until they die.

The mind, the soul, and action

For not being a philosopher, Arendt has a rather comprehensive philosophy involving the mind-body connection.  Arendt says the soul is essentially the inner workings of the body that can be expressed through emotions.  She also says that thought and speech are interconnected, yet thought has no outward expression.  She clearly uses many metaphors to explain thought, but none of them seem to back up the other one.  The mind and soul are connected, as well as mind and action, but they are not dependent on it.  I am curious to see what she says to bring all these concepts together.  Thoughtlessness may be the cause of evil, but it is not quite clear how.  If thought is connected to speech and the soul, you would think they would both be disrupted by thoughtlessness instead of functioning perfectly.  The one consolation we have so far is that maybe the emotions brought about by the soul may be affected to keep someone who is thoughtless from feeling remorse or sympathy.  Regardless, there just seems to be more questions than answers.

Perception and its Connection to the Mind

Something that I have found rather interesting about Arendt's concept of the life of the mind is that it is that, while the activities take place outside of the world of perception, it is dependent on those perceptions in order to exist. If there was nothing to perceive, then there would be nothing to think about, or, at least, not in the way that we would understand considering our perception based thinking. Which raises the interesting question of how the thinking of individuals who's perceptions of the world differ from ours. What does the thought process of a blind person look like? That of a person with a brain injury that alters how they see the world? That of a mentally ill person, who suffers from hallucinations? Of a person who has synesthesia, who perceive different sense in the context of others, like seeing sounds or smelling sights? What's more, it raises the question of what does it mean of our thoughts if the very thing they are concerned with, the reality we perceive, isn't what is truly there. All we know is that our surroundings look like what we perceive. It is entirely possible that what we see is fundamentally wrong, and yet, because it is what we as a species can perceive, it is what we take to be real. It is entirely possible that, as the Matrix says, "There is no spoon."  But that's a bit over my head to really begin to comment about. I just find it interesting to contemplate how our perceptions of reality affects how we think, and how the perceptions of others does the same to them.

The Thinking Ego

Arendt explains the thinking ego as activity that is ageless, sexless, without qualities, and without a life story (Arendt 43). She sees the thinking ego as distinct from the self. For example, if a person says "I think the sky is blue", they eradicate the notion that thought is part of the human mind because they determine their existence with the statement "I think". They are denoting ownership of their thought to their body/mind which the exact opposite of what Hannah Arendt tries to dictate to her readers. The example she uses in her book are dreams. When a person dreams at night or even day-dreams they are someplace separate than their own bodies. She determines this as the reasoning for thoughts occuring outside and separate from the body.

A Body-Bound Soul

I found it interesting that Arendt finds the soul to be "body-bound" (Arendt 32), as most people before her time found the soul to a be a separate entity from the body. She interprets the soul as emotions with somatic experiences such as when your heart aches when you grieve or how love and joy can simply overwhelm a person. The language of the soul expresses itself through thought and is not simply an untouchable, imaginable idea as it had been thought of previously. The soul is understood as something that is bottomless and unlimited, and is expressed through the body as a pair that cannot function one without the other. Overall, her interpreation of the body and soul is very profound.

Importance of Reason

One distinction Arendt makes and stresses is the difference between intellect and reason. She quotes Kant saying, "the intellect (Verstand) desires to grasp what is given to the senses, but reason (Vernunft) wishes to understand its meaning" (pg 57). I think that this corresponds with her discussion on common sense and intellect. As she points out and as many people are aware, raw intelligence does not indicate common sense. Sometimes the most "book smart" people don't have an inkling of "street smarts."  Arendt says that "it is the sixth sense's [common sense's] function to fit us into the world of appearances  and make us at home in the world given by our five senses" (pg 59). She is merely emphasizing that it is thinking (which Kant called reason) that allows human beings to function properly.

The many influences on Arendt

Arendt is good at giving a history of philosophy to help explain the background of her thought and where it develops from. In this section talking about Kant's reevaluation of metaphysics, it is clear that reason, thinking, and truth will all come together to show the banality of evil. We are beginning to discuss absentmindedness and see how "thinking" and "not thinking" can go on simultaneously until someone who is intelligent could also be considered thoughtless. The types of truth that also come from different types of thinking could also have an impact. As I begin to read "What is Called Thinking," it becomes clear what influence he has had as well. His first lecture in the series dives right into why and what we think. All of these influences contribute a piece to the puzzle Arendt is systematically laying out in "The Life of the Mind".

The Perception of Society

In Arendt's chapter on Body and soul; soul and mind she says "In addition to the urge toward self display by which living things fit themselves into a world of appearances, men also present themselves in deed and word and thus indicate how they wish to appear, what in their opinion is fit to be seen and what is not." I feel like everyone since the beginning of time has done this. It's like our mind only wants to satisfy what the rest of society perceives as 'right'. We will change what we want to be what everyone else wants, and even then, it's not good enough for the perception of society. Why is our mind set to care about what others think? Or is that our soul?

Arendt has a scientific account for the soul rather than the classical transcendental view.  She brings the soul back to the here and now and lets it account for things like emotions and other parts of the 'inner life'.  This is important when discussing thought and the banality of evil because the soul is what connects the mind and the body.  If thoughtlessness is the cause of evil, then the link between the soul and the mind could be the key to how the person becomes thoughtless.  It also might be explained by the link between thought and speech.  If the 'evil-doers' were not thinking about what they were doing, then they wouldn't try to speak out against it or refuse to do his/her duties.  Regardless, the links Arendt draws in the first few chapters of her book, help to set the stage for the link between thoughtlessness and evil.

Thought v.s. the Soul

Something that interested me greatly in the chapter of, "Body and soul; soul and mind," was the relationship that Arendt draws between the mind and the soul. Specifically in the way that we express the reactions of both in our daily lives. Arendt makes the distinction between the presentation of an emotion, which would be the mind thinking upon the experience and then producing the appearance that if feels is appropriate to said experience, and the actual emotion, which she argues is the domain of the soul, and can no more be displayed in an unadulterated form than our internal organs. The emotions of the soul are first considered and thought upon by the mind, and when they have been transformed by this process, then and only then are they displayed by the body. This, in turn, connects to the idea of self-presentation, or how we want to present ourselves to those around us. When we feel something in our soul, we first consider it, then, depending on the situation or the people that we are in contact with, we can either act on it and display it, or we can ignore it and internalize that feeling. In this, Arendt makes a strong case for her argument that the soul and the mind are not separate from the body.

The Banality of Heroism

Banality of Heroism (19:15)

This is a link to a video on TED.com which discusses a theory of evil that is psychological.  However, the social psychologist concludes that society needs to address and encourage the idea that it is not evil that is banal, but heroism.  The discussion of heroism starts at 18:30 but before that, Philip Zimbardo discusses the Stanford prison experiment and the shock experiment we talked about in class.

The Thought of God

In Arendt's introduction chapter, she reflects on theology, philosophy, metaphysics and ultimately the notion and thought of God. She discusses the existence of God and how the dynamics of understanding God are "no longer convincing" (Arendt 10). After enduring and witnessing life-altering events such as World War I, World War II, and the Holocaust she emphasizes that the traditional thought of the existence of God can no longer be used and is otherwise "dead". For example, in Medieval times, people looked for the explanation of the Black Plague as from God and that in some way or another the person deserved this suffering to atone for one's sins. She is merely explaining to her readers that this reality of God can no longer be assumed and people can no longer view the world in this manner. Overall, I feel that her explanation of this notion of God is not unrealistic after undergoing what the people of this time period had witnessed and experienced.

The Banality of Evil

One of the subjects that Arendt discusses in this chapter that interested me a great deal was her description of brand of evil she witnessed in during the Eichmann trail in Israel. Specifically the term "banality of evil". In her description of Eichmann, we are denied the villain we believe we should be treated to, and are instead given a man who seems almost pathetic in his inability to connect his actions to the evil that they caused. What's more, though he seems to be completely incapable of personal thought or actions. Arendt says that, "In the setting of Israeli court and prison procedures he functioned as well as he had functioned under the Nazi regime but, when confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he was helpless," (Page 4). To me, this speaks of the two kinds of evil in this world. The first, and most familiar, are the deliberate and oftentimes intelligent acts of cruelty performed by human beings. Which can range from murder to wholesale genocide. The second kind is this sort of banal evil, in which people facilitate it, but deliberately separate themselves from it. Though they may not commit the acts, they are involved in them at the very least indirectly. Eichmann was not responsible for the murders committed in the concentration camps, but he was responsible for the logistics that allowed those people to get there, and so by extension somewhat culpable in the crime. What's more, though he had knowledge of what was going to occur during the Holocaust, he, like many other Germans, made no attempt to prevent it. This, to me, is the hallmark of the second, and ever increasing, kind of evil. Where people, good or bad, ignore the evil acts of others and in turn become involved in those acts. I'll end this with a quote, which I think fits in with this particular kind of evil, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," (Edmund Burke).

Seeing is Believing

One of the points that Arendt makes is that there is an end to not God, but the thought of God. She also writes "The fact that our mind is not capable of certain and verifiable knowledge regarding matters and questions that it nevertheless cannot help thinking about, and for him such matters, that is, those with which mere thought is concerned, were restricted to what we now often call the 'ultimate question' of God, freedom, and immortality." I just wanted to share my thoughts behind this. I feel like a lot of people question God because they can not see him. It is known that 'seeing is believing', and I feel that is the biggest issue with people who question the presence of the Catholic/Christian God. 

Meaning vs. Truth

One thing I found puzzling in the introduction is Arendt's statement that "The need of reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning. And truth and meaning are not the same" (Arendt 15). To me, it seems nigh impossible to extricate one from the other. The meaning of anything for anyone becomes truth to that person so how can they not be synonymous? The meaning of something, to me, seems to be made true by virtue of the fact that it has been "discovered" at all. If to be true means to to exist in reality, and any meaning is real to certain people, then they must be the same.