<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > watchmen of the lost world</h1>
Born in Germany, Hannah Arendt left her homeland in 1933 to escape Hillert's persecution of the Jews and spent many years as a stateless wanderer in a foreign country before eventually arriving in the United States, where she was able to spend the rest of her life. She was a prominent political thinker of the 20th century, and even more striking because she was female.
A thinker
Stop thinking only at the end of your life
Arendt's writings are not without difficulty in reading. There is something unique about her writings.
First of all, Arendt attaches great importance to the distinction and analysis of concepts. Conceptual distinctions are intended to distinguish between different phenomena. Whether it is Arendt's time or today, a serious problem in the humanities and social sciences is the mixing of concepts, and this mixing with power will refer to deer as horses, reverse black and white, and bring great disasters to mankind. The slogan of the British writer George Orwell's novel 1984, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is power", is a portrayal of this mixture. Orwell also mentions the tendency of totalitarian societies to constantly create "new words" (new words). "New Words" alienate people from reality, immerse themselves in a state of intoxication, and willingly accept enslavement.
Second, Arendt pays special attention to the identification of new phenomena in people's lives. Arendt argues that one of the mistakes that scholars are prone to make is to use the past to attach to new things that have emerged, ignoring the true nature of new phenomena. For example, people look at Hitler's Third Reich in the sense of tyranny and tyranny, which does not grasp the crux of the problem, and Arendt uses "totalitarianism" to describe the new form of government that emerged in the twentieth century, the Nazi polity, and the similar polity that has the same essence and aims to establish ideological domination.
Third, Arendt focuses on a deep understanding of political experience. Arendt opposes the positivist and scientist research methods, arguing that they use abstract dried data and charts to distance people from realpolitik experience, making scholars cold-blooded animals. The number of deaths in statistics is not as powerful as a corpse in front of you. From the functionalist point of view of the social scientists, Hitler and the heroes played the same ruling function, the same essence, and ordinary citizens had no uniqueness with each other.
Finally, Arendt's writings are fragmentary and often do not lead to clear conclusions. Arendt once said, "If my memory is good enough, I won't write a word." "She admired Socrates so much that she claimed that all her work was a record of the unfolding of her ideas, and that she was a veritable political thinker. The way of thinking about the problem, Arendt calls understanding. Arendt often refers to a metaphor called a Penelope's web, which means a man weaving a net and then disassembling it the next morning and re-weaving it. This is exactly what thought activity is, and thought is not a designed serial with a clear beginning and end. Arendt quotes Heidegger in the opening of her Spiritual Life to talk about what thinking is. Thinking does not bring us solutions to problems, nor does it produce anything new, it is just a process, an endless process, and a thinker stops thinking only at the end of his life.
In the modern world of laboring animals
She drew attention to action
Action is a unique human activity in practical life, and Arendt distinguishes action from labor and production. "Production" is an ancient Greek term used primarily to describe handicraft activities. The distinction between labor, production, and action is very clear. Labor is the exchange of energy between man and nature. Man is subject to nature in his labor, and his labor must not violate the agricultural time. The characteristic of production is that people create tangible objects according to the goal or blueprint, such as a table, which is the result of the production. Man is not passive in this process, but he is only partially free, characterized by clear goals and means. The typical image of the production activity is the craftsman of ancient Greece, and the typical example of labor is the farmer who cultivates the land.
The action is different. The concept of action in Arendt's writings is not uniform. Sometimes it refers to the opening of a new situation, the unknowable action, such as heroic feats, and sometimes to the words and deeds of citizens in public political life. In the second sense, action is linked to the politics of the ancient Greek city-states. The citizens who participate in the political activities of the square are completely free, not bound by the natural necessity of labor, nor governed by the logic of ends and means as productive activities.
Many political theories make the mistake of describing political activities according to the logic of production, thinking that to engage in politics is to create an ideal country according to the blueprints. The first person to make this mistake was the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Plato criticized the craftsman's state, in fact, he talked about politics according to the logic of production, and his thinking was the craftsman's thinking. In Plato, all sentient beings are the raw materials, making a good city-state, removing some people, drying the canvas. That's the logic of the producers. Plato criticized the action and looked down on the exchange of opinions between citizens. Plato argues that opinions are held by ordinary citizens, meaningless, amateurish, undeserved, and have no intellectual content, while philosophers are different, who come out of the complexities of life, out of the "cave", and always stare at the truth. There is no discussion in Plato's ideal state, there is no citizens' assembly, and truth makes discussion superfluous. Plato was the enemy of the city-state, and arendt's description of the political life was modeled after the city-state life, which modern man lost. Arendt's life of action is the activity of a free man, man is an animal with the ability to speak, man should be allowed to express his opinion in public forums, and his voice needs to be heard by others. Arendt said: "In political life, there is no truth, only opinion. Political life stems from the fact that people are "diverse," that is, "not one person, but countless diverse people, living together on earth." ”
Political action should be distinguished from conduct. Behavior is the core discourse of modern social science, the characteristics of behavior are predictable, and the characteristics of action are unpredictable, man participates in political activities, we do not know what he wants to say or do; the ability of man to make unpredictable words and deeds is called the ability to act.
Behavior, on the other hand, is the result of a long period of domestication (totalitarian naked coercion, or invisible domestication in modern society), such as the modern etiquette curriculum, which is dedicated to teaching you a standard set of behavioral norms, which excludes anything that is free to play. Arendt said that the harm of the rise of behaviorism is not in its absurdity, but in the fact that it conforms to the characteristics of modern society, and man has become predictable. In the modern world, there is only political action when revolutions take place, and action is a matter for free men.
Action cannot happen in isolation; it is an activity of a political nature. Labor can be carried out by one person, production can be done by one person, action requires the presence of others, the witness of others, and the speaker of the actor needs to be listened to by others. Arendt pointed out that in the eyes of the ancient Greeks, it was a very sacred thing for a person to enter the public sphere from the family sphere, and that slaves, women, and Gentiles were not qualified to do so. It takes enough courage. Actions appear before different actors, the actors are all equal, there is no superior or inferior. When a group of people come together, it is possible to form a public space. Arendt has a very famous metaphor, she said, a group of people sitting around, there will be a table in the middle, the table is like a public space, it connects everyone, and then separates them from each other, if there is a magic that makes the table disappear, we will feel embarrassed, embarrassed. Public spaces are both something that connects us to us and separates us from each other. Totalitarianism in all its forms destroys public space through various means and realizes its absolute domination of the individual.
Totalitarian societies do not allow people to assemble freely. Why are you so afraid of free assembly? Because together, it is possible to form a public space, to form a force for common action, and this force for common action is political power. According to Arendt's line of thinking, power is the ability of a group of people to act together. We are separate people from each other, and by sitting together we form a public space, forming power. The essence of power is this kind of power. Arendt said that a small number of people form a power organization that can control a very large country because they have "the power to act together."
Arendt's ultimate purpose
It points to the world
Arendt's ultimate goal, however, is not to act, but to the world, the lost world of this shore. Arendt advocated great action, which is certainly good. However, Arendt was also wary of the dangers of the operation. In this sense, her theory expresses concern for the world. Arendt believes that the fundamental problem of the present era lies not in marx's alienation between man and the self, but in the alienation of man from the world. The world has become alien to us, it has become uninhabitable, or we no longer feel at home in the world.
Arendt's "world" has a unique meaning, it is not the global in the geographical sense of the everyday Chinese, but to describe a civilizational phenomenon. What is Arendt talking about when he talks about the "world"? The important point is to think about the relationship between nature and man(s) and man.com. The distinction between nature and man-made is still a practice in the ancient Greek tradition. When Arendt speaks of nature and man-made, she is describing what man can do and what restrictions are placed on man's activities. "Nature" in Arendt is a force outside the realm of human freedom.
The significance of this distinction is that totalitarianism, as defined by Arendt, is essentially the domination of man by the forces of nature. Totalitarianism is unique in that it is a force that transcends man and dominates all people, including the leaders of totalitarian societies. In the Nazis, it was the law of racial evolution. Racial divisions are described in natural language. Race is a word in biology. You are Jewish because you were born that way, not because you became a citizen of a certain nationality.
The description of totalitarianism as the domination of natural forces over man, man's submission to external forces, is very unique. In a totalitarian society, it is not the law of man who violates any man-made law that determines his fate, but that he was born wrong, that he was born a Jew, and thus must be exterminated, and this is the horror of totalitarianism. What dominates here is a force external to man, a class to which a person belongs is not his own, and whether a person is Jewish or not is not a member of himself.
Arendt's understanding of totalitarianism from this perspective has not attracted enough attention. Many admirers of natural law and the theory of natural rights regard nature as a magic weapon and as a very noble thing. Here in Arendt, nature is a destructive force. It is the result of Arendt's long study of Kant. Kant famously said that man legislates for himself. This means that man is to take charge of his own affairs. Kant had a very famous republican idea. Kant said that a people of the devil can establish a better form of government if they are wise enough. That is to say, man does not need to be too great, too noble, and does not need the leadership of heroic figures to create a civilized world for himself. The man-made world is very important here in Arendt. It is not advisable to be left alone. In the face of the sin and bloodshed of the world, Arendt asked: Are we just blind to this?
Arendt does not endorse the modern state system, but she hints at the opposition between the modern state and totalitarianism. Arendt points out that totalitarian movements arose where the nation-state disintegrated, and there was no totalitarianism where the nation-state was very well constructed. Arendt believed that things were man-made. She believes that people can be expected to form a public world through their own strength to keep their promises and trust each other.
The world has two dimensions, on the one hand, it is a legal system that embodies the spirit of the rule of law. It ensures that everyone has a space for movement, and Arendt metaphorically says that the Dhamma is like a edifice, in which each room is the scope of our free movement, and without this Dhamma to prop up this edifice, our free space ceases to exist. In the second dimension, the world that Arendt is talking about is the world composed of the fruits of human civilization, especially the world composed of the products of human production activities. This is very different from many theorists who reflect on modernity. Many theorists who reflect on modernity praise the idyllic life, about the organic integration of man and nature, which is not Arendt's thought. Arendt believed that the difference between humans and animals was that people began to build dwellings, make crafts, decorations, and so on. If this is negated, man becomes an animal.
Arendt criticized all kinds of "ism" thinking
Arendt's political ideas, implemented on the individual, point to a rich theory of citizenship. A central issue that Arendt's theory of citizenship addresses is the question of individual responsibility in dictatorships. This is particularly evident in Arendt's discussion of the Eichmann trial.
In the modern world, how can one be considered a qualified citizen? There is a clear distinction between citizens and bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is a person, and the citizen is a person. Arendt said that when a society is full of bourgeoisie (or bourgeoisie), the soil for totalitarian movements is formed. The bourgeoisie is characterized by depoliticization, non-participation in politics, pursuit of wealth increases, and indifference to politics. Citizens are characterized by public responsibility, a voice at the right time, an effort and practical action to create and maintain a public home, and a sense of justice and courage to draw a sword to help each other when the road is uneven. This kind of citizenship has classical overtones, but it is not a resurrection of the ancient Greek citizen, because he can be a part-time citizen.
Participation in political life was the whole of the life of the citizens of ancient Greece, but not the life of the citizens advocated by Arendt. Unfortunately, modern society is full of bourgeoisie, citizens are like the morning star, and few people care about public responsibility. This is dangerous. The more important question is whether ordinary people are responsible if they live in an extremely tyrannical dictatorship or a totalitarian regime with terror as their essence, and in what way and in what way. Arendt's reflections on personal responsibility in totalitarian regimes are always guilty. For the preservation and safety of the flesh, how many people can bravely say "no" to the Nazi butcher knife? The Jews in the concentration camps who sat and waited to die were proof of this.
Arendt's passionate words have inspired many people. She inspired Habermas's theory of communicative action, inspired a renaissance in republicanism, and inspired the development of radical democratic theories. However, there is no such thing as the Arendt School. Only a closed circle that clings to a certain doctrine will show obvious school characteristics, and Arendt fundamentally rejects such an approach.
Thinking is a highly individualized thing, an effort to reconcile man with the external world, and Arendt never thought that thinking was the patent of philosophers. In fact, professional philosophers are no more judgmental than ordinary people. Professor Heidegger's flattery during the Third Reich shows that he was similar in some respects to the mediocre Eichmann, neither of whom had proper judgment. Arendt believes that each of us should learn to think, and she says that we should exercise our thinking skills as often as we exercise our bodies. Thinking is a silent dialogue between a person whose heart is divided into two corners, between me and "myself". Arendt, starting from the example of Socrates as a thinker, seems to want to show that thinking is of great importance to one's refusal to do evil. Socrates would rather endure being wronged than injustice to others, because once he has done something wrong, he cannot coexist as friendly with the "self" in his heart as a friend.
Arendt criticized all kinds of "ism" thinking, believing that it was a constraint on the human mind and a sign of man's loss of the ability to think. Ideological clichés make people lose their sense of reality and lose their own judgment. Ideologists are as inexpressible to people with independent thinking skills as summer worms. However, scholars still gave Arendt the title of doctrine, such as republicanism, conservatism, and radicalism. This is somewhat a reflection of the reluctance of people to really listen to her teachings. Probably without the ideological coordinates of "ism", we do not know how to understand a thinker. Or rather, we don't want to complicate things, we want to make a simple and quick analysis of a person's position. This is pathetic, a manifestation of people's laziness to think.
Arendt, a watchman of the Lost World, in the silence, her words are like light in the night, letting people see a glimmer of hope from despair. The poet said, "The night gives me black eyes, but I use them to seek light!" ”
Author: Chen Wei (Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Chinese Min University)