The Philosophies Of Hannah Arendt

She talks about power of the masses, stating that power is not attainable by the individual but only by masses. Arendt opens her book by directly saying we are the most violent century known to man, always trying to be bigger and better than another country in this arms race. She talks about the ways in which our society views violence and says humans are naturally violent. Arendt is clearly against war in this book as being unjustifiable and says that war, and violence regarding to politics, is not a means to an end because if we look back in our history we have been fighting war after war with no end. The end will never come; so how then, can one justify the violence of war? In the book, she argues that many of the traits we see in ourselves regarding violence, we see in animals, except animals do not have the ability to reason. Arendt states that, “violence is neither beastly nor irrational- whether we understand these terms in ordinary language of the humanists or in accordance with scientific theories” (62). The author makes is very clear that when we fail to use our ability to reason and instead introduce violence, we are only repeating our past of being a violent being in which the means to our end keeps getting further and further away.

Elie Wiesel’s speech falls into the deliberative genre category, and was designed to influence his listeners into action by warning them about the dangers indifference can have on society as it pertains to human atrocities and suffering. The speech helped the audience understand the need for every individual to exercise their moral conscience in the face of injustice. Wiesel attempts to convince his audience to support his views by using his childhood experience and relating them to the harsh realities while living in Nazi Death Camps as a boy during the Holocaust. He warns, “To be indifferent to suffering is to lose one’s humanity” (Wiesel, 1999). Wiesel persuades the audience to embrace a higher level of level moral awareness against indifference by stating, “the hungry children, the homeless refugees-not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope, is to exile them from human memory”. Wiesel’s uses historical narrative, woven with portions of an autobiography to move his persuasive speech from a strictly deliberative genre to a hybrid deliberative genre.

Totalitarianism diminishes the idea of individuality and destroys all chances of self-improvement, and human’s natural hunger for knowledge. In George Orwell’s famous novel, “1984”, totalitarianism is clearly seen in the exaggerated control of the state over every single citizen, everyday, everywhere. Totalitarianism can also be seen in the book “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, in which humans are synthetically made and conditioned for their predestinated purpose on earth. The lack of individualism will lead a community towards a dystopia in which freedom is vanished by the uncontrolled power of the state.

When it comes to issues that arise that can potentially destroy life as we know it, issues like mass genocide, terrorism, and abuse of power, indifference will lead to the ultimate demise our most simple human characteristic, humility. Denoted as the lack of difference or distinction between two or more things, indifference is the worst response. Not only are you empowering the oppressor and giving them the green light by not checking their actions but you are saying to the oppressed, “Your cries of pain are not heard.” Holocaust Survivor, Elie Wiesel graced an audience with his April 12, 1999 White House Millennium Lecture entitled, “The Perils of Indifference.” Many people hide behind the vail of the bystander effect theory, which is commonly

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

Indifference “elicits no response.” Indifference “is not a response.” Famous author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel in his speech, “The Perils of Indifference” informs the audience about the dangers of indifference. He supports his claim by first giving a dictionary definition of indifference, then talking about his personal experiences and then about examples in history when we were indifference. Wiesel's purpose is to illustrate the dangers of indifference using his own personal experiences and historical examples in order to explain how terrible it is and to persuade us to do something about it. He establishes a serious, somber, and critical tone for the politicians in attendance of the Millennium Lecture Series, which is a series of cultural showcases that highlight the creativity and inventiveness of the ideas, art, and scientific discoveries.

Arendt simply points out that in order for total terror to be inflicted the Nazis had to do away with all opposition. The lack of opposition would give the Nazis, perhaps, a sense of security while they executed millions of people.

Huxley reflects the consequences of totalitarian World State, upon the concern of oppressed citizens. Provoked by Freud and with Mendel’s work on genetic engineering and consumerism early 20th century, Huxley chose a science fiction medium to warn the audience as they venture into the political beliefs and attitudes of the World State and identify its dehumanising effects. The imperative verb, ‘unescapable’ as Huxley states “All conditioning aims at…making people like their unescapable social destiny” (Ch 1) illustrates the loss of freedom due to scientific means which have constrained them into accepting the ideology taught by the World State. Huxley provides ‘John the Savage’ a sense of freedom from the Mexican Reservation where he is given thought, emotions and choice. Although he exclaims “How beauteous mankind is!” in the metaphorical “O brave new world” (Ch8) compared to the Reservation’s society, after seeing the oppression and nothingness of the World State he feels the oppression. This is stressed by the asyndeton of his desires using the personal pronoun ‘I’ in “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin” (Ch 17) as John identifies the powerlessness and mindlessness of the citizens. Though Huxley through John’s anti-thesis “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

Elie Wiesel’s speech “The Perils of Indifference” is a mind opening and emotional speech that prompts the audience to change the indifference that plagues America and many people in this time and age. He expresses to the audience that indifference is the reason appalling and horrifying events, such as the Holocaust, occur and why no one takes immediate actions to help the victims. To get his point across, Wiesel uses his own history and experiences so that the audience can visualize the Holocaust through the eyes of a survivor and to project the feelings of hopelessness and defeat that the victims felt when no one came to end the injustice. In this critique, Elie Wiesel’s rhetorical speech of indifference will show its effectiveness through testimony, emotion, and rhetorical questions; this speech accomplished its goal and without a doubt persuaded most of the audience to call out for change in indifference.

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

efficiently. Arendt argues that Eichmann was thoughtless and that possessing the trait of thoughtlessness contributes to evil

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,

"The sort of person that Eichmann appeared to be did not square either with the deeds for which he was being tried or with the traditional preconceptions about the kind of person who does evil" (Geddes). Throughout the trial, Arendt is conflicted by what she wants to seen when she analyzes Eichmann, and struggles greatly when she finds he does not embody the crude and inhumane thoughts she associated with the history of the Holocaust. It is this absence of the profound hatred of Jews, along with the normalcy he possesses, that creates the emblematic role of banal evil for Adolf Eichmann.

I’ll first talk about Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the Adolph Eichmann and also talk about how his motives for committing the crimes were a “banality of evil”. Viewing the trial first hand, Arendt bases her analysis of Eichmann of the criminal charges that he is indicted on, his motives for the crimes, and how he tried to defend himself during the trial. The way that Arendt perceives Eichmann is by the fact that he was aware of the seriousness of the crimes that he committed at the trial, but he did not have the "evil" motives that would usually be seen in the type of heinous