Comparing Canovan And Arendt On Political Opinions

Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are three philosophers discussing political ethics from entirely different perspectives. This paper argues that Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are all idealists regarding their stances on political ethics. First, this paper argues that Socrates is an idealist due his belief that the current government has much more potential than it is currently reaching, and that the government could eventually be changed. Second, this paper argues that Rousseau is an idealist because of his unrealistically positive view of the natural state of humanity and negative view of society. Lastly, this paper argues that Machiavelli is idealistic because of the overwhelming, impossible number of criteria that the Prince

Arendt explains that the ultimate power of a totalitarian government is the acceptance of the ideology being propagated. The laws that are put into place in totalitarian government are not to empower the people and protect their rights. Instead, the laws tell the people what they must do, not what they must not do. Arendt tells how the law of nature is the foundation for Hitler's Nazis, and the law of history for Russia's communist regimes. According to Arendt, both the Nazi and communist regimes maintained that those laws gave them justification for their cruelty. These laws of nature and history are not permanent or stable. They are in motion to keep history and nature moving, so that it progresses without ever stopping. <p>Arendt claims that these laws of motion sustain the terror fueling the totalitarian government. Arendt says that terror is the realization and execution of these laws with nothing standing in its way. Throughout the selection, Arendt speaks of terror. Terror is essential for the state to keep its power, or else it will fall. According to Arendt, in a totalitarian state terror terminates individuality among the people. Individual men become a mass of humankind, in the eyes of the state. "Terror exists neither for nor against men", claims Arendt, "it substitutes for the boundaries and channels of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Thesis: A key concept to understanding Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” is the essence of terror and the importance of concentration camps in maintaining the Nazi totalitarian state.

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Fascinating as these two subjects may be when they intertwine, philosophy and politics are possibly the two most polarizing things in both academia and throughout society in general, from Karl Marx arguing the idea that all human beings are loyal to their respective socioeconomic classes in some way to Henry David Thoreau proposing that all people should be self-reliant and that society prospers when there is little to no state control. On the other hand, there are two opposing principles of ethics that still find themselves in heated debate among politicians and philosophers alike today, with these two principles being utilitarianism and Kantian ethics (otherwise known as “deontology”). Meanwhile, The Founding Fathers were also polarized on how to best govern the newly formed United States of America; eventually, they settled on the principles of freedom, democracy, and most interestingly, equality. Fast-forwarding to the year 2081 is a new dystopian United States characterized by physical equality in Kurt Vonnnegut, Jr.’s 1961 satirical short story, “Harrison Bergeron”.

The most alarming thing about Arendt's book is that she is able to make a compelling case that the greatest evils of mankind are committed by ordinary people. Her work forces one to look at the world and realize that the Holocaust was not an isolated incident committed by blood thirsty sociopaths. One must realize that the decision making processes that created an environment accepting of the "Final Solution" is still alive an well today as it has been throughout history. The weight of personal moral choice

This definition can be extended to a definition of politics. Indeed, the idea that “human values” and the “search for orienting theories” (lines 4 and 5) are entangled is clearly expressed. The vision of man that is given suggests that society should promote his innate capacities and put them at the chore of political decisions. “Participation in decision-making” (line19) conjures up the idea of a Participatory Democracy, which was a major theme for elements of the American Left in the 1960’s. This implies a more important influence of the people in the decisions of their society.

The first amendment states that the US has the right to have freedom of religion and speech. The conservatives were highly protective over this amendment because most of them were religious. Conservatives believe that citizens have the right to bear arms and keep guns around. They believe that gun control does not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. The conservatives believe that taxes should be lowered because they create more of an incentive for people to work, save money, invest money, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors.

Hannah Arendt’s begins the chapter with the first part of after the fall of the First World War stating the condition of the stateless people clarified the catastrophe of the nation-state model and the failure of human rights. When the nation-system was created, the people in power in Europe separated the people into 3 major groups which are the state people, the nationalities like the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, and the minorities like the Germans, being the strongest officially economically and in number. The “Minority Treaties” were created by the League of Nations to seek security to the minority groups in the new states. The “real significance of the Minority Treaties” (pg.274) was that currently millions of people were known by the international law since by the nation-states, they have the power to strip down the citizens of that state by banishment or other worse factors. Only nationals could be citizens and

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

According to Rosenfeld Arendt “famously gets a lot of her past wrong” (Rosenfeld 220). However, Rosenfeld’s study of Arendt’s work is not to find error rather depict the history of the writing of the French enlightenment. The “Truth in Politics” written by Arendt “provides a tour of various ancient and early modern thinkers, from Herodotus to Spinoza to James Madison, and of events in the profound and recent past to name a few” (qtd. in Rosenfeld 221).

This complete absence of thinking is what attracted the philosopher’s interest and that is how she started to question the problem of the eventual inner connection between the ability or inability to think and the problem of evil. Hannah Arendt elaborated on the notion of banality of evil through the case of Eichmann. She argues in Eichmann in Jerusalem that Eichmann, far from being a monster, was nothing less than a thoughtless bureaucrat, passionate only in his desire to please his superiors. She describes him in these words: “the unthinking functionary capable of enormous evil” who revealed “the dark potential of modern bureaucratic men”. According to Hannah Arendt, evil would not come from wicked individuals, but from the “nobodies”, from those who do not have the ability to think, and thus cannot tell what is wrong and what is right. As she was influenced by the sociologist Max Weber, who wrote concerning bureaucracies that “It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men clinging to their jobs and striving towards bigger ones”, she elaborates on the danger of bureaucracy and its possible responsibility when it comes to evil. Bureaucracies assign very specific tasks to each individual and these specific tasks cannot be seen as right or wrong by the ones accomplishing them, it is when they are all together that they can be examined this way. Eichmann was simply obeying the rules,

In “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Hannah Arendt analyzes Adolph Eichmann while he is on trial in Jerusalem for the crimes that he committed while being a Lieutenant Colonel in the SS during the Nazi Regime. In the book Arendt talks about how Eichmann’s actions were “banal” in the sense that he seemed to be an ordinary person who just committed acts that were evil. Italian-Jewish Writer Primo Levi, a Holocaust Survivor, states that SS officers like Eichmann lived in their own self-deception that made them believe that their actions were caused by just following their orders in the SS. In this paper, I will analyze the views that both Arendt and Levi had about the Eichmann trial and then compare and state the differences of their views. I will then explain the reasons why both Hannah Arendt’s and Primo Levi’s analysis of Adolph Eichmann that show that the actions that he committed were all truly evil actions.

When it comes to an analysis of twentieth century political thought Leo Strauss and Richard Rorty are two indispensable figures. Rorty was a pupil of Strauss at the University of Chicago, and was always quick to acknowledge the influence that his former teacher had on his writing. In the following paper I will briefly highlight and critique the fundamental arguments presented by the duo. Certainly, Rorty and Strauss share a degree of commonality in their critique of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, I will assert that Rorty’s ‘pragmatic argument’ and Strauss’ ‘esotericism’ share a degree of kinship. However, when it comes to a close examination of the works of the respective scholars, it becomes clear that they had vastly