The subtitle of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem is "A Report on The Banality of Evil." Check out my video on The Banality of Evil here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8Km0LQCK-9I.html
Para os BR's. Para encontrarem os trechos referenciados por ele, tendo como base a edição da Companhia das letras, contem trezes páginas para frente da página citada por ele.
Thank you very much for this information, honestly I consider very important nowdays to be aware of all this "psychology" below the society. Keep feeding this channel 💪💪
Yes, regarding so many person's present choice--either to engage in acts of Reckoning and Repentance about the Covid/Vax Disaster and their own part, whether small or medium, in aiding in it, or, to continue the present Pretense of a Return to Normality which depends on extending the anti-liberal Suppression of the story of the century--Eichmann in Jerusalem seems quite relevant. Naomi Wolf quotes it in her Facing the Beast book, for example. Carl Eric Scott
What do you think distinguishes blind, automated obedience from obedience that is a virtue (perhaps, even in its more extreme forms, in vowed religious life)? True rational obedience to a person or good is still one of the most powerful forces in the world. I wonder how this can be distinguished from obedience that perpetrates corruption and lust for power. My own guess would be that before making the vow of obedience there should always be rational choice involved, in which one must make sure the act of obedience is to a true good. An exercise of this sort of obedience, given in freedom, could be one of the fullest expressions of our humanity: "I don't know where this yes will take me, but this person is good, so I choose to submit/surrender my will." I also think space for that most anti-utilitarian of tasks, true leisure and rest, is key. Without space and silence to examine the choice to CHOOSE obedience to another, we risk suppressing what makes us most human. Rest puts us in touch with what it is to simply BE--that most fundamental gift which one can never earn, but only receive. Thus, the yes, even when one is not fully sure how it will be realized, is rendered as a potent, beautiful form of obedience ... Not sure if this makes sense, but it's a question I've wrestled over and am trying to sort out!
These are very good questions. I think thoughtfulness is a key distinguishing feature. Arendt argued that totalitarianism seemed to thrive on circumventing or confusing people’s reason, making it hard to think and see things for what they were. There is a difference between reasonably committing to a noble cause like raising money to build a hospital in an under-serviced community and agreeing to join a cult or hate group. Your point about rest is interesting. It may have a lot to do with thoughtfulness actually. The ancient Greeks like Plato and Aristotle believed strongly that leisure time was a pre-requisite for philosophy.
Nicely done. Actually, Eichmann seems to validate his behavior by comparing it with those above him in the structures of society & state. He never could think for himself. From there, well, things get really dicey, don't they.
Her analysis is pretty accurate. The aggravating factor in the case of Nazi Germany is that, totalitarian regimes aside, German culture already emphasizes a sort of an uncritical adherence to rules, laws and protocols by its members. Following rules, even nonsensical and inefficient ones, is seen as a virtue and a goal in and of itself. With this kind of blind obedience, it's really not surprising that all it takes for atrocities requiring the participation of hundreds of thousands of people to happen is a handful of mad men with horrific, genocidal ideologies promising the people of a country in post-war to deliver them from misery and enacting laws and rules that should be followed.
They were looking at Eichmann as a monster she was looking at Eichmann as a clown because he saw himself as a victim of a system he was bound to obey. Opinions please I like other people's ideas. She was right about a system a bureaucracy where power prevalis over those who do not fit the percieved model in some way where she wrote it is impossible to identify culprits a sore of fog where the evildoers who thing they are decent can hide.
Excellent commentary. This is a very important topic even today and it has been, and it will continue to be for many years to come. This partly explains our fascination to continue looking, exploring, studying Hitler and Nazism. All of those who surrounded and supported Hitler (including the German people and many others around the world) were not "monsters". These were "regular" people who participated, who became obedient and who had the capacity to do evil things. It is important to recognize that this capacity to do great harm or significant evil, is not just perpetrated by "monsters" but by people like me and you. This is very sad and difficult to admit in respect to humanity, but it is true. This is what Stanley Milgram demonstrated in his obedience to authority studies in the 1960' and the prison experiment by Phillip Zimbardo. Hannah Arendt was a revolutionary thinker and her genius emerged out of her personal wound. She was a holocaust survivor and her family died in concentration camps. This perspective by Great Books Prof is very good, I am glad that I found it.
Loved your insightful comment. This generation really needs to learn her ideas asap to escape from the bandwagon which we are programmed to perform evil deeds to our fellow humans.
@@robertsimon4424I think our graduating students are symbolizing this philosophy today and all the people who are protesting and refusing to be complicit with the Zionist Fascist Terrorists today is a hopeful tectonic ethical paradigm shift that has the potential to elevate our consciousness and being on this Planet. ASE. Robert Simon of Chicago??
She is a courageous, brilliant thinker. She is however, incredibly difficult to read! Difficult to follow her train of thought Constantly making me wonder, am I stupid?
Haha! I've had that experience too! She is immersed in the "tradition" of political thought and is often referencing other thinkers and their works. That can sometimes make Arendt hard to follow, because she's often referencing something Hegel said, or Plato said, or Marx said. My sense is the more of her work one reads, the more you get familiar with her main arguments and her way of thinking. You can often begin to anticipate her line of argument and the position she's going to take once you've read a few of her works. That said, she is a very original and imaginative thinker, and she will still sometimes surprise you by approaching a problem or question from an unexpected direction!
Just finished “Eichmann in Jerusalem” which was my first exposure to Arendt’s work and I agree. If you read 50 pages, it feels like you’ve read 100 pages because of the sheer amount of information you have to consume! Definitely not easy to follow, she argues about so much at once.
I also get this strong "am I stupid?" vibe :D when trying to read Arendt. So for the moment I settled with some of her great interviews, where she speaks casual language. Give a try "Hannah Arendt (1964) - What remains? (Full interview with Günther Gauss)", from the channel Philosophy Overdose. It has great and good readable English subs. Also from the same channel, an excerpt from the Joachim Fest interview, "Hannah Arendt on Eichmann, Banality, Guilt..." I also found "VRG: The Last Interviews #2 Joachim Fest" (I consider the Fest interview even BETTER than the great Gauss interview!) ... So but for reading Arendt, I have no advice for you. Sorry.
My experience as well 😅 I took me a year to read 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' as I had to reread some chapter 3 times to remotely grasp what she was trying to convey.
Very helpful. Am reading "Eichmann in Jerusalem" now. Your analysis is right on. Thanks. It is a very powerful book and demands that we think. Your ideas/thoughts give me something to hold onto.
Thank you , it was much clear to me on totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt with your explanation. I read her books more than 30 years ago, it was eye opening for me. Now I have few details of the book, I still remember the feeling of awesomeness Thank you again.
Considering what's happening in Israel this is such an interesting topic these days. For example more than 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza in last 160 days and when the poll was conducted in Israel, 80% of them believed that their forces are not using sufficient force in Gaza. It really makes you think how can a society collectively fall victim to a disease of 'folie a plusieurs' but it's far more common, as Hannah Arendt puts it, in what seemingly normal ppl to commit such crimes and have such apathy towards other human beings.
She wrote the crime was so unbelevable that the perpetrators would be believed before the victims. Is that the banality of evil in reverse I don't know? It is normal like the banality of evil in that individuals could not comprehend that humans beings would be exterminated because they were not abnormal but persecuted by law. The banality of evil is the mass production of evil ideology if you know what I mean. It starts with discrimination, which is always there. She wrote when law enforcement becomes like the mob we get persecution by law.
The idea that falling into thoughtlessness is what lets totalitarian regimes thrive makes me think of Camus and his ideas of philosophical suicide, specifically regarding the death penalty, which is a rather cruel and tyrannical thing. He believed all those who saw the existence of the death penalty and either didn't care about it or refused to think about it, accepting it simply because it's always been there, were the main driving force for why it's still in place.
One of the best movies about the holocaust is “ Judgment At Nuremberg “. The conclusion of the film points out that “ ordinary,even extraordinary men can be convinced to commit horrendous crimes.” That the crimes committed by the Nazi regime were not done by madmen but by ordinary citizens who supported the regime. It tells the tale of how easily people can be persuaded to do the unthinkable.
Good analysis, although if one has read about Heidegger's authentic/inauthentic man, one will understand that Mdm Arendt's thesis applies not only to totalitarian regimes. Have just watched the superb German film 'Hannah Arendt'. Can only conclude that her understanding is simply too deep and detached for most people to comprehend because she does not allow her own conceit to guide her pen. And what is in fact banal is the banality of what she says. Anyone who has bothered to read Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago' will namely see him describe the evil of Lenin's/Stalin's vast system described in the same way. Once evil becomes institutionalised, it does not become less evil but those who carry it out are not satanic, merely ordinary people carrying out a job in a satanic society. History is full of people who have carried out evil on a vast scale, not as individual monsters but as cogs in an evil machine. More recent examples are, of course, the apparatuses of oppression instituted by all oppressive governments, from the Shah to the Ayatollahs, from the vast network of intelligence agencies in the USA to 'the only democracy in the Middle East'.
If the leaders of the Third Reich had all been maniacs or sadistic monsters, then these crimes would have no moral significance that an earthquake or any other natural disaster. But this trial has shown that men of ordinary, even extraordinary ability can delude themselves into committing the most heinous crimes. " Judge Hayward. Judgment At Nuremburg
Could it be argued that Eichmanns thinking ability was never great to begin with? I’m reading the book now and she mentions his early life where his siblings were all successful but he just wasn’t
I think it could be yes. But this points to the key problem Arendt is trying to understand. How, under a totalitarian regime, is a thoroughly unremarkable person able to commit immeasurable evil?
I sense through the book that hannah arendt was anti zionist and against Israel because it looks like she was more defending eichmann than accusing him
You’re right that Arendt was ambivalent about Zionism. She does not defend Eichmann, but she is critical of the questionable legality of his abduction and trial. The nebulous question of jurisdiction and against whom precisely Eichmann committed his crime (against Germans? against Jews? against Humanity?) is one of her major preoccupations. She believes he’s evil and guilty and deserves the sentence he received but she focuses our attention on the legal problems created by this novel kind of crime for which we had no categories and procedures.
This is a wonderful partial summation of her theory here. How do you approach her xenophobia and anti-Blackness? I'm having trouble contending with that and her framework.
Kimberly, Thanks for your comment. I agree this is a difficult subject. Here's how I've been thinking about this over the past few years. I don't mean to suggest this is THE RIGHT WAY to think about it, just the way I've been trying to grapple with the subject. *Apologies in advance for an absurdly long reply.* My basic position is probably that Arendt's ideas and arguments are valuable even if she could not transcend her own particular background and biases enough to apply her ideas consistently in all contexts. I tend to make allowances for human frailty and insufficiency and this seems to be an area where Arendt did not think clearly enough. But we can use her thinking about freedom and totalitarianism to produce better political outcomes for us here and now. But we do need to engage critically and actively with her thinking. When it comes up with my students I try to make sense of why Arendt might have made the mistakes she did. So, for instance, in her essay on Little Rock she comes out against school desegregation in the southern US. This is sort of a shocking position, but her argument was that black schools should have received the same funding as white schools, not that black students should be forced to go to white schools. I think she was wrong and naive on this point. The discrimination in the south was so entrenched that some legal "force" needed to be applied. And the idea that funding would have been distributed fairly was a fantasy. But the reason she was wrong about this, I think, is that she was trying to maintain two positions that mattered to her. The first was about plurality. Arendt believed that democracies were well served when they had real diversity, and not just diverse individuals, but diverse groups that -- because of their numbers --have strength and can function as a check against tyranny. In this way a "segregated" society did not seem the worst thing for her, so long as such a society also upheld equality. A strong, vibrant black community within a pluralistic society is good for democracy. I think, if pressed, Arendt would have agreed with that. But I think she failed to appreciate how unfairly black people in the US were treated. The second position she cared about -- and here she may have a point -- was that she did not like "using" children to solve political problems that ought to be solved by adults. This for her was an instance of adults trying to decide for the new generation what the future ought to look like and for Arendt that was a denial of the new generation's freedom. I still don't think this justifies her position, but it is interesting to me how often we adults use children as political capital. I think that is problematic in lots of ways. Her short work On Violence is also critical of the Black Panther movement if I recall correctly. And there again she seems to be trying to maintain a position that violence and threats of violence are the opposite of politics and cannot be used to achieve just political ends. I think here it seems pretty clear that she just failed to extend her sympathy to black Americans in a satisfactory way. She seems to employ racist double standards whereby she ends up consistently criticizing black political action. On the other hand I think it's frustrating for us as readers because we can see the ways that her thinking extends beyond one specific case of racism and is applicable in different ways in all sorts of contexts. She seemed unable to see that in certain instances, probably because of her own prejudices. *Phew* Sorry that was a lot, and I don't know if it was useful. This is something I think about too whenever I return to this material. I'm sure there are better, fuller ways to understand this, but that's as much progress as I've made so far.
@@GreatBooksProf I appreciate you taking this time to be forthcoming about her anti-Black ills and also discuss how you integrate her leanings into your pedagogy. Your response was not long; it was thorough and complex. I have only learned about her xenophobia and procolonialism approaches through other scholars and theologians like James Cones. I was shocked because as a graduate student and instructor, I've never heard about or was assigned material that engages her theories on racism. I introduced your video to my class, but I also exclaimed that although useful, she was also dangerous with her writings and support of certain discriminatory theorists/practices. We still use her theory, but I found it was imperative and essential to also expand her full breath of consciousness.
Arendt had no issue with the judgement of Eichmann. We know now that while Eichmann was not a senior policy maker he was fully dedicated to his work and pushed his authority as far as he could to transport as many Jews as possible. Perhaps she did really believe that Eichmann was just a small cog. Much of the anger towards her was about a perceived lack of sympathy for the victims and the insinuation that they did not resist the Nazis enough.
I think is much easier... ok, think when in your life you have gone unminded... i play guitar and i have had many moments were i had my mind like in an outter world, what i think that germans did is an incredible mindless work, how? Putting the rigth people at the right place. When you reach that level of unconciousness you become a machine, were the passion of your work goes beyond everything, thats why i think they were not humans. The exciteness of its compromition and its selfed congrat made them monsters.
"Ordinary men" is another great insight into this topic but focuses on Nazi soldiers coming to a similar conclusion where many of the men simply shurgged their shoulders and saw it as a "job" and nothing more.
I finished this book yesterday, and I have a question: When I see or hear people referring to this book, it is about Arendt's analysis of Eichmann. However, only a small part of the whole book is about Eichmann. The biggest part of the book is about the institutionalized system of the Nazi regime: how the system of the final solution operated throughout Europe. What surprised me the most was how rationalized the system was, based on law and hierarchy, in conclave with other states and organizations, the working together of multiple states in the 'solution', and so forth. I wonder: why is this part of the book mostly overlooked, and is most of the attention put on the person Eichmann? I think that all the information and analysis about Eichmann in this book would only take maybe 30 pages? This, while the book is 300 pages long, including the epilogue and postscript. So, am I wrong when I say this book is mostly a description of a political (totalitarian) system, rather than an analysis of Eichmann?
This is a really thoughtful question. Thanks! I agree with you that the real target of Arendt's analysis is the general condition of living and working within a totalitarian regime. The occasion of her writing the book -- originally a series of essays for the New Yorker -- was Eichmann's trial, so that's why he figures so prominently. It was also the case that the court -- by nature of it being a court -- was considering Eichmann's specific role in these crimes. At least that's what they were supposed to be doing. Part of Arendt's project in the book is illuminating how difficult it is to hold specific people responsible for everything that happened. On the one hand, we run the risk of thinking that a small number of people orchestrated the whole thing and it was all their fault. On the other hand, there is the danger of thinking the regime as a whole is to blame and so individual choices were meaningless. Arendt is satisfied with neither of those positions. The totalitarian regime does create unique conditions, but Eichmann and countless others are guilty for turning off their consciences and abdicating their capacity to think freely. All of this is to say, I think, you've got your finger on the absolute moral center of Arendt's analysis.
So I guess the point is that when we're trying to judge someone's evil deeds, it's not always (if at all) right, to resort to nothing but classifications of 'true evil', because there are many complicated factors. Even when someone is absolutely guilty of having done wrong, that can't be the long and short answer to everything there is to define about that individual. I'm entirely guessing, and I could be wrong. If I am DO tell me. This whole topic of "Banality of Evil" just really struck me.
@@GreatBooksProf Yes, I didn't mean for it to sounds like we should refrain from judging, just thought that Arendt meant that we should judge beyond just surface level. But your video on the topic of Banality of Evil makes it clearer. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the clarification.
The point is that the most normal human beings are capable of committing atrocities under the right circumstances. Keeping this in mind makes helps us be less susceptible to manipulation into taking part in atrocities.
Eichmann was a step in the the process - his name is on plenty of documents, but it wasn't his idea and he didn't carry out the 'final solution' on his own. He was an essential cog in a big machine. I read this in high school. It is a nuanced text that delivers a message with a sledgehammer - evil exists where good men are complicit in the doing of evil.
