Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe relevance of Arendt's reflections on evil is analyzed in three respects. She warns that the appeal to absolutes (good or evil) destroys politics; her claim that radical evil involves making human beings as human beings superfluous is relevant to contemporary concerns with the vast refugee and stateless populations; and her idea of the banality of evil focuses our attention on the evil deeds that persons commit even when they do not have evil motives or intentions.

Argues that Hannah Arendt's understanding of politics, action, & plurality is a profound response to Martin Heidegger's failure to understand the meaning of public life. According to Arendt, the human condition is characterized by a capacity to act & speak, which, in turn, represent opportunities to bring into being something wholly new & unique. Thus, the human condition is, by definition, plural, with individuals acting, speaking, & creating new things. For Arendt, the most important danger of modern bureaucratic social life was the extinction of this plurality in speech & action. It is shown that Arendt comes to this conclusion not simply by borrowing Heidegger's concepts, but by appropriating & inverting them into a new meaning. It is concluded that, while, in a sense, Arendt was faithful to Heidegger in employing his concepts, she was unfaithful by engaging in independent thinking & thinking against him; she used his provocation to provide an acute critique of his work. D. M. Smith