A few questions for our esteemed leader
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:20 am
...or really anyone who can and feels inclined to answer them.
I'm sure each of these questions could be asked in the chapters to which they apply; however, rather than divert whatever discussion may already be going on, and assuming that I will have more general-type questions I could use answered, I figured I would start a questions page. So...
Arendt talks about "acts of state" in sovereign governments and likens these acts to acts an individual would commit in self-defense. Thus, under extraordinary circumstances, governments may perform acts that are outside of legal and moral grounds essentially to ensure their own survival. She then contrasts this with totalitarian regimes where the entire system of government requires acts of state that are essentially illegal. Is Arendt saying that these acts of state are acceptable in the former? Would this speak in a specific way to say capital punishment in the U.S.? (pp 38-39)
Arendt refers to Socrates's secular concept of morality. But in the dialogues, as I recall and understand, Socrates's discussion on doing right as opposed to wrong is tied up in consideration with a soul. That upon death, the soul would be in the state it had assumed through years of life, and preserving the goodness of the soul was the ideal. Is this really secular?
Arendt says that philosophy is about thought, the individual, while politics is about action. Does this fly in the face of Plato's philosopher king? I know that Arendt is not saying that those who participate in politics are not thinkers. But Plato made the argument that philosophers make the greatest rulers, while Arendt is making the argument that philosophy is inherently a personal occupation, yes? Or am I interpreting that wrong?
O.K. I'm tired I'm going to stop there. I have more to add at another time, but I can't quite get a grasp on the question.
I'm finding Arendt pleasingly difficult. That is to say, it's work to sort out her concepts, and the concepts her writing inspires, but it's not aggravatingly so...yet. I will say that her writing is far from what I normally read and that is making it difficult to suck it up in a way that I normally would. I'm hoping that if I can get my head around some of the above questions I've had, along with others I haven't quite formulated yet, I'll be able to jump into conversation in a useful way.
I'm sure each of these questions could be asked in the chapters to which they apply; however, rather than divert whatever discussion may already be going on, and assuming that I will have more general-type questions I could use answered, I figured I would start a questions page. So...
Arendt talks about "acts of state" in sovereign governments and likens these acts to acts an individual would commit in self-defense. Thus, under extraordinary circumstances, governments may perform acts that are outside of legal and moral grounds essentially to ensure their own survival. She then contrasts this with totalitarian regimes where the entire system of government requires acts of state that are essentially illegal. Is Arendt saying that these acts of state are acceptable in the former? Would this speak in a specific way to say capital punishment in the U.S.? (pp 38-39)
Arendt refers to Socrates's secular concept of morality. But in the dialogues, as I recall and understand, Socrates's discussion on doing right as opposed to wrong is tied up in consideration with a soul. That upon death, the soul would be in the state it had assumed through years of life, and preserving the goodness of the soul was the ideal. Is this really secular?
Arendt says that philosophy is about thought, the individual, while politics is about action. Does this fly in the face of Plato's philosopher king? I know that Arendt is not saying that those who participate in politics are not thinkers. But Plato made the argument that philosophers make the greatest rulers, while Arendt is making the argument that philosophy is inherently a personal occupation, yes? Or am I interpreting that wrong?
O.K. I'm tired I'm going to stop there. I have more to add at another time, but I can't quite get a grasp on the question.
I'm finding Arendt pleasingly difficult. That is to say, it's work to sort out her concepts, and the concepts her writing inspires, but it's not aggravatingly so...yet. I will say that her writing is far from what I normally read and that is making it difficult to suck it up in a way that I normally would. I'm hoping that if I can get my head around some of the above questions I've had, along with others I haven't quite formulated yet, I'll be able to jump into conversation in a useful way.