What inspires me to Arendt.
After this here now as an exercise for the exam on Wednesday hernehme, I compare Arendt actually more - with Aristotle and Hobbes. (We are Wednesday to answer 2 questions and essay-like style of writing is to convince our ... )
Another side note: I am shortly off to the part, leaving out many things. To the understanding / insight, it should be enough but me and you can also ask you something ... In part, it is likely to be rather confusing, is a bit difficult to accommodate all the most important aspects in a (brief) text.
Recently, we have therefore deals with Aristotle's Politics, Hobbes Leviathan and Arendt's "Vita Activa".
Aristotle assumes a positive image of man, that man is by nature political politikon, the zoon. We draw after him, but also through our language that distinguishes us from animals.
"make policy" in Aristotle only the men, the freemen. Craftsmen would include not clear if they would therefore, ever more wealth to accumulate. "Free", then, who knows his basic care needs and can therefore act as a free man in the polis. In the oikos, the needs of breastfed and Aristotle distinguishes between three forms of domination: man - woman, man - a slave, man - child. Anyway, with the individual he's not Sun
Hobbes is actually come and say that this is all nonsense - the man is evil by nature, for now. "Man is wolf to man" comes to mind often. He goes from one (actually fictitious, because never before seen) from a natural state of man, the state of war. Everyone has a right to everything. If I take everything I can - but then the the other. So this is a very restless, insecure state. Actually, an "ugly" freedom.
must therefore form the Leviathan, in which auf-/abgibt all his rights, but can live in peace and widespread freedom. The Leviathan, however, is not "absolute totalitarian", even if it seems only Sun Because everything is not set by law, is free. Ie, "private" can not think of any and largely do what he wants. In addition, Hobbes is not really intended that the Leviathan against his "constituents" (the individual) is based. That would be a bit of a paradox, it consists of the individual ...
It's always the question of how the Leviathan looks after, according as it is extreme.
now to Arendt. It has no humanity for a very simple reason: how can the man to make a statement about yourself? Usually it ends up that we construct a God, then we are just the same, etc. But about ourselves, who and what we really are, we say nothing.
Arendt leaves some ideas of Aristotle revived: they separated in oikos and polis. Oikos belongs to it, because it supplies the basic needs, working and producing. Action (this includes speaking) belongs to the polis.
are this way, we also determined - (- survive so that we are working) by the plurality (as we need the action), by the worldliness (manufacturing) and "life itself". However, we are of course also due to our mortality, and above all by the birth rate. Just their interpretation of the birth like it so well: everyone gets the chance to start something completely new / create.
addition to the birth rate, especially the action plays a central role. Only then we are actually to the people act, communicate, speak - that is our own. Work and produce - that can be operated alone in 'nerve cavity.
Actually, you can look at their "Vita Activa" not only as a criticism of Marx, but as a critique of contemporary society. Yes, Arendt died several years ago, but the theories have actually lost nothing of its validity.
She criticizes the emergence of today's society where it comes to equality and only the "safe conduct" is about.
Of course, with her people and the same, but here it is more a kind of "normalization." Previously met in the polis "equal" to each other men, "before" could "come out" one noticed - this is now really no positive nor negative possible. No one should be better, no worse - rather keep in the center and norm.
is given that the work became the center of life. "Work" but should serve only the basic needs to satisfy, so you then still have enough time / opportunity for action.
Nowadays, one could argue that it would become a kind of freedom, we are working on our "basic needs" beyond. According to Arendt, however, finds true freedom only in action.
mix at all the oikos and polis more and more. We landed in a mass society, we must adapt ourselves to work, it has become important, public runs into the private sphere and vice versa. The worst result we enjoy our last remaining privacy in the "Intimacy", which Arendt, the last escape route of people that: we retreat to our own back. That is in their opinion, actually the ruin. The plurality is finally important to communicate with others - and not push back.
On the other hand, we draw us more and more from the "political" back. More and more bureaucracy governs our affairs, which, according to Arendt, the "rule of nobody" is a bad state. It has become really seems to be an inverted world.
Actually, what we To operate for Arendt an indictment. We could all different.
I'm now just short of the actual term "active life" which really only at the point of eternity / immortality. I believe that we can understand the concept of doing better.
very short active life is due to Aristotle and experienced dramatic changes through time. As the term implies, it is about the "Take Action". At the same time came to the contemplative life, was amplified by Plato and later by the Christians - does what you want, anyway you come into the kingdom of God, actually you need not exert yourselves - to put it very roughly. Previously, it was
people Greeks often or later of the attainment of immortality, was dismissed as "vain pursuit," the whole "active life" has been devalued by and the "contemplative life" just the "look of eternity" became more and more in their place.
A nice quote:
"by immortal deeds, which extends as far as the human race, leaving behind imperishable mark on the world, the mortals immortality own gain just human nature and thus prove that they, too divine are natural . (p. 29 d. "Vita Activa")
And just because now comes the crunch point that not everyone understands. One attains immortality the fact that one produces a work of art? Or that you work hard? According to the definitions: neither. A house can fall apart, the work is only for survival. You might as well leave the human race one day this planet.
immortality is attainable only by so acting. And since then everyone is thinking: "In 100 years as since you have not forgotten me anyway."
Arendt also mention that our "common" (which is unfortunately lost), we share this world.
I think the aim of the whole so much on the existential philosophy. And a little into the abstract. In which I act today, I automatically give a little further, which can no longer get lost, Finally, it causes something - and this again triggers something new. I realize I speak of action, then find my freedom and can win my immortality. I take part in the world of the others.
more thing to think about:
'mortality lies in the fact decided that the people live an individual life with a discernible life history from the biological process of living out and the increment. " (p. 30)
0 comments:
Post a Comment