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.