Responsibility and Judgment

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was one of best political writers of the 20th. century. Her book THE ORIGINS OF TOLITARIANISM "put her on the map," and her later works such as EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM: A STUDY IN THE BANALITY OF EVIL got both praise and condemnation. Those who condemned the book probably did not reader. Arendt's RESPONSIBILITHY AND JUDGEMENT is a sort of a continuation of EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM, and Arendt showed insight, careful thinking and a serious warning.Jerome Kohn's introduction to this book is worth the price of the book. Kohn gave a good account of Arendt's life and development of her scholarship and thought. As Kohn noted, some of the presentations in Arendt's JUDGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY were written in the midst of the futile Vietnam War. Kohn made the same point that Arendt made that the world's mightiest super power could win a war against a small country who posed no threat to the U.S. As Kohn noted, there was no point in destroying an ancient culture of a small country who was no danger to U.S. citizens.Arendt commented on student protests during the Vietnam War. When some college authorities wanted to use police to stop peaceful protests, Arendt protested that the kids were students and not hardened criminals. Admittedly some of student protests were not peaceful, but Arendt was aware of what was peaceful and what was not peaceful. Arendt also chided "the intellectual society" to avoid popular views and for these people to think for themselves. What bothered Arendt was too many "intellectuals" were so absorbed by moral theory that they avoided examining reality and using practical thought.As Arendt and those with good memories knew, the 20th. century was the bloodiest in history. Those living in totalitarianism regimes were sometimes " forced to do wrong." Arendt knew that most people are not saints, and those with rare courage did dissent often at the cost of their lives. After all, most people have the instinct to survive regardless of circumstances. Those few who dissent and protest against evil are either saints or hypocrites. Arendt cited the Danes who peacefully protested the gathering of Jewish refugees. From the Danish monarch to civilians, the Danes wore the Yellow Star which was supposed to assigned only to Jewish people. As Arendt mentioned in her book EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM, the German authorities in defeated Denmark were frustrated and "showed the few timid beginnings of genuine courage."Another phenomena that Arendt addressed was the naïve slogans and hopes after WW I and WW II. Yet, WW II was followed by a cascade of wars which continue to the present. Arendt expressed concern and sympathy for victims of these wars. Yet, violence has become so common that it is taken as a given and for granted which is a sad commentary. Those whom can be described as war mongers and want war seldom if ever enlist to assume the risks inherent in war. What Arendt alluded to was not what war does to the enemy, whoever that may be at any given moment, but what war does to us-the "victors" if there any.Arendt returned to Eichmann trial. Eichmann was a minor bureaucrat and not necessarily the monster portrayed by the media. Eichmann's defense was his accusers "had to be there" to understand his situation. Eichmann argued that he did his duty, but Arendt wryly noted that "doing one's duty"can become a crime. Arendt also refuted the concept of collective guilt and commented that when all are guilty, no one is guilty. She also disagreed with notion that there was a historical link from Martin Luther's anti-Jewish views to Hitler even though Hitler quoted Luther's anti-Jewish sentiments. In other words, such notions are too easy and avoid basic truths.Arendt mentioned thinkers from Plato to Nietzsche. Those who did not read Nietzsche complained about his phrase, "God is dead" did not realize that Nietzsche argued that God had been trivialized by "cheap grace." People avoided religious convictions to "feel comfortable" about their religion or substituted hypocrisy for basic views of good vs. evil. Arendt's views re Nietzsche are interesting.Another misunderstanding about Arendt was that she was a racist (she was not). Arendt's remarks about public school integration were that opposed integration but that children should not be exposed to a political battle well beyond their control. Parents who were not opposed to integration still had serious concerns about their young children attending public schools with troops present to prevent violence. After all, parents should have a say about their children's education and exposure to such pressure.Much of Arendt's book dealt with Eichmann and German experience with Jewish people. However, anti-Jewish views were not confined to Germany. Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, France's Action Francaise, the Hungarian experience, and other European movements expressed similar views. Arendt could have taken advantage of Stalin's anti-Jewish bias such as the Doctors' Plot in 1953. Yet, Arendt may be excused in that these essays were written over 40 years ago when such knowledge and data were not fully published.In spite of the above criticism, Arendt's book is well worth reading which requires time and thought. She raised important questions which the "apprehensively conventional" do not like. Yet, these questions are important in an increasingly indifferent world with people who have short memories and too self absorbed. Readers should also read Arendt's THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM-especially the last section. Also recommended is Arendt's EICHMANN in JERUSALEM.James E. EgolfMay 13, 2017

Home to Roost, the final essay of this collection, reflecting on the decades preceding the U.S. bicentennial and written shortly before her death, is among the best of her works. It provides relevant lessons for today. For example, she regrets that “Madison Avenue tactics under the name of public relations have been permitted to invade our political life.” And as an example, she notes that “the terrible truth” revealed by the Pentagon Papers that rather than “particular tangible interests” the Vietnam War’s “only permanent goal had become image [as a superpower] itself…” From there she considers the Watergate era and the cumulative effects on the collective American psyche of various political disasters. In considering President Ford’s amnesty of Nixon, she compares them to the Adenauer administration’s whitewashing of the crimes of Nazi officials and Khrushchev’s replacement of Stalin. Her sarcastic conclusion: “not amnesty but amnesia will heal all our wounds.” One cannot help but wonder how harshly she might have judged President Obama’s similar approaches in both the Iraq War and the financial crisis of 2008. She concludes memorably: “When the facts come home to roost, let us try at least to make them welcome. Let us try not to escape into some utopias—images, theories, or sheer follies. It was the greatness of this Republic to give due account for the sake of freedom to the best in men and to the worst.” As we consider how this nation responds to the current abomination in the White House, how the world no longer looks to the U.S. for support, Arendt's final words resonate more than ever.The eight essays, which are divided under the themes of responsibility and judgment were written late in Arendt’s life. The strength of the essays get progressively better as the book goes along. If I were to reread it, I would start with the last essay and work my way back. I would give 5 stars to the final essay, 4 to the others in the final section, and 2 to the first two-thirds of the book.The last third of the book, the judgment essays, are much more readable. Arendt considers issues as varied as school integration in Little Rock, Rolf Hochhuth’s play Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) about the silence of Pope Pius XII about the Holocaust, the German Auschwitz trials of the 1960s and the aforementioned one anticipating the U.S. bicentennial.The responsibility essays, which take up the first two-thirds of the book, are heavy on philosophy and are generally focused in Arendt’s much misunderstood theme of “the banality of evil” that came out of her writings on the Eichmann trial. Arendt fiercely objected to being classified as a philosopher; she considered herself a political theorist. This comes through in the muddled theses of these writings as they meander a bit with repetitive themes.

I'd imagine that every political philosopher knows of Hannah Arendt. Born in Germany in 1906, she moved to France and eventually the USA after Hitler's rise to power. She has written numerous books over 3 1/2 decades and she has taught at places like Princeton, Chicago, and Berkeley. She struggles with and argues ultimately against responsibility of many of the common German people who went with the flow or just followed orders. Responsibility must be focused upon those who had authority and committed atrocities - the so called desk top murderers, like Eichmann and Himmler. She questions how we can set ourselves up to place judgment upon these individuals responsible, in part, for such horrific crimes. Included in this text is her presentation on American responsibility for Vietnam and the uprising of individuals against a war of questionable justice ultimately. She's a brilliant speaker and writer, very heavily influenced by the Kantian school. While the vast majority of this text is very readable, there are a few passages that I had to re-read - "did she really say that?" or "what ...". Since Theory of Justice was published, it sort of makes these books obsolete, but, they are, nevertheless, worth while reading for background. I give this text a solid A. It comes highly recommended.

This was one of most interesting books of Hannah Arendt with which she was trying to depict the moral and ethical condition of human being through the lenses of great thinkers such as Bible, Meister Eckhart, Plato to St. Augustine, Cicero, Kant and many others. "How should we act towards other people without causing distress and harm? What philosophy should we apply, biblical, philosophical ?How is it possible that one human being as Eichman was was capable of conducting such atrocities on Jews could call upon the ethical precepts of Kant? "Ich habe mich an die Lebenspholosophie von Kannt immer gehalten" were the words of Eichmann. Hannah, going through so many works of Philosophy even literature, was citing and indicating that moral and ethical precept can be imputed to all human beings but that under certain circumstances they simply lessen save their inner consciousness vociferously and foremost vicariously is taking the upper hand. As she puts it: "one does not to read all the works of Kant, Plato ... in order to discern bad deed from the good one. One does have this consciousnesses within one self or not. No books can teach or do that for you ...! I found thees words very interesting and stunning given the last most unfortunate wars in former Yugoslavia. I would definitely would recommend this book, for it is well written and interesting to read. In addition as Herbert Marcuse said one has to read Kant much more frequently as Hannah Arendt too and need to inculcate into the minds oformost of politicians to keep to their moral ethical values rather political intrests only! Great book!

Great price for such a skilful essay.

An amazing collection of essays that show you how Arendt built her thought. An excellent introduction to The Life of the Mind, I think.

Libro, come forse tutti della Arendt, magistrale ...con questa tesi, documentata filosoficamente e storicamente con riferimento al processo Eichmann, della responsabilità morale personale non come ferrovecchio di epoche passate ma come il cuore della identità personale di fronte alle sfide non solo dei totalitarismi ma anche e più prosaicamente di ogni concezione dello stato inteso come macchina burocratica.Anche le pagine sul giudizio estremamente stimolanti: il vero giudizio non è innanzitutto un puntare il dito contro qualcun altro ma una esperienza di autentica liberazione e responsabilizzazione del soggetto umano

Excellent!