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?