Arendt

I am doing Oct. 16: On Revolution Ch.s 1-4 & Nov. ! "Civil #iso$edience%
&'1
Arendt has said that she is not a (hiloso(her) she is a (olitical thin*er. And she (uts such an em(hasis
on the loss o+ the (olitical , -e dont have a (olitical e.(erience. /o) critics sa0: oh) the greeks had
(olitical e.(erience , she is 1ust longing +or the gree*s.
/he indeed stresses the loss o+ the (olitical , $ut it is hard to inter(ret.
1. 2odernit0 has reneged on its (romise o+ +reedom) li$ert0) 1ustice) etc . . .
. 3he loss o+ the (olitical as the death o+ 1ustice 4ie totalitarian rule5
6. 3he loss o+ the a$ilit0 to thin* (oliticall0 4action) (olitics) +reedom) (o-er5
4. 3he loss o+ (olitical e.(erience means -e cannot thin* (olitical -ords $ecause -e lost their
originative e.(eriences.
1. 3he conce(tion o+ (o-er has changed 4+rom a (o-er o+ the (eo(le to that o+ governments ,
ma0$e5
7. Action) (o-er) +reedom are lost to the (ast
6. 3he (olitical has al-a0s $een lost) and al-a0s needs rene-ing.
/o) -e ma0 as*) does Arendt have something to sa0 to the (olitics o+ resistance8 9eards-orth thin*s
Arendt is a constitutional democrat.
:lato tied the (olitical to elements that dont stem +rom (olitical e.(erience , he drove a division
$et-een (hiloso(h0 and the (olitical) the command the (olitical +rom the realm o+ ideas. 3hat is
de+initel0 a ;uestion +or her. "#oes (hiloso(h0 o++er an alternative to the -isdom o+ /ilenus8% <hat
can res(ond to the $urden o+ li+e and the +railt0 o+ human a++airs8 Ans-er: (olitics. Not
contem(lation) $ut the vita activa. =o- is action a res(onse to the (ro$lem o+ the +railt0 o+ human
a++airs8
"3he polis is not the cit0-state in its (h0sical organi>ation? it is the organi>ation o+ the (eo(le as it
arises out o+ acting and s(ea*ing together . . . no matter -here the0 ha((en to $e% 4=uman Condition)
@&5. 3he vita activa is the ground out o+ -hich something is $orn over -hich not to be born does not
(revail. 3here is a +reedom that is this-worldly and political. /he -ants to +ind a -a0 o+ thin*ing that
+rom modernit0.
3he (olitical is conceived o+ as action and s(eech) -here action has +or its most im(ortant $eginning:
promising.
,
Aor Arendt) no (olitical action has a cause.
,
3otalitarianism is an utterl0 un(recedented ne- +orm o+ government. In her Origins of Totalitarianism
she does not (ur(ort to reduce totalitarianism to anti-semitism , the (ro$lem is one o+ (olitical +orm.
/o) -hat can (olitical anal0sis $e in relation to -hat is un(recedented. 3he (henomena o+ human
$eings dont have causes) $ecause human $eings arent causes? the0re ca(acities.
In our attem(ts to anal0>e human a++airs) -e tend to $e $ound u( in our rationali>ed conce(tions , and
-e go +or e.(lanation. B.(lanation is not an a((ro(riate anal0sis +or human a++airs 4it is a((ro(riate
+or certain mechanistic ' scienti+ic things5.
Arendt see> the essence o+ totalitarian rule as concentration cam(s. 3he (oint o+ totalitarian rule is
total domination. <hat are -e thin*ing -hen -e thin* total domination8 3here are 6 stages o+ total
domination , the Nurem$erg Ca-s 4the loss o+ the 1uridical (erson5) the loss o+ the moral (erson) the
loss o+ uni;ue identit0. 4our understanding o+ these three ste(s is -hat human $eing means5 <e need to
read her concern +or individualit0 not as individualism. 3otal domination is reali>ed in the cam(s.
<hat occurs is an un(recedented situation -here everything is possible. 3hat is the mind-num$ing
thing a$out these atrocities. "Bver0thing is (ossi$le% includes the inhuman 4eg torture5. 3his motto is
a nihilistic (rinci(le) that the human can $e the utterl0 inhuman.
Arendt as*s: -hat is the nature o+ a moral (rinci(le. I+ -e sa0 that these (rinci(les arise 4eg) the move
+rom (u$lic torture to secret torture5 , ho-8
3otalitarianism is not t0rann0 nor des(otism. /talinism -as not (olit0-rule. 3otalitarian rule is ruled
$0 no one , the death o+ the (olitical. 3he +orm that continues totalitarianism) in a certain -a0) is
$ureaucrac0. , the rigidi+ication o+ the +orms o+ govt. 3here is no sense o+ an authorit0 that one must
+ollo-? onl0 a set o+ rules.
-----
3he modern age has lost a sense o+ tradition. 3here is no authorit0 +rom the (ast , i+ our heritage is not
handed do-n +rom the (ast) ho- do get it) ho- do -e have a relation to the (ast8 Bven a (ast as recent
as 1@6&8
3he Arench li$eration -as the li$eration +rom action) there+ore it is the li$eration +rom (olitics)
there+ore it is the li$eration +rom +reedom. 3hat am$iguit0 is the (ro$lem o+ the relation $et-een (ast
and +uture.
Arendt sees the generation a+ter the e.istentialists as a generation in -hich the relationshi( and
movement $et-een thought and action is a$solutel0 essential. In 1@4!) Arendt and her mother are $oth
(ic*ed u( in Arance as enem0 aliens ---- . . .
"3he gi+t o+ thin*ing (oeticall0% , Da+*a is one o+ those (eo(le -ith the a$ilit0 to thin* -ithout having
e.(erience.
:olitical li+e is not 1ust matter o+ action) $ut o+ thought: "a thin*ing com(letion a+ter the act.%
Arendt -as not a 2ar.ist at least in that she could not agree -ith 2ar. that there is one logic o+
histor0.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
&'& "Origins o+ 3otalitarianism% ? +irst ! (ages o+ =uman Condition
A radical evil that $rea*s do-n all standards. 3he e.ecution o+ the doctrine o+ ideolog0 is too
consistent , it ma*es h0(er-sense. 4#oes Arendt call it Fa$solute evil instead o+ radical evil85
3he process 4not the result5 is intelligi$le. 3he (rocess o+ (roducing living cor(ses can $e made sense
o+) $ut the result 4the cam(s5 is insane. 3he survivors couldnt $elieve -hat the0 -ere reporting a+ter
the event. 3here is no -a0 to intellig$l0 relate the ha((enings o+ the cam(s so as to form a stor0.
<hen Arendt se> Fcommon sense she is $eing e.tremel0 critical o+ li$eralism. <eve got into a ha$it
o+ utilitarianism and e.(lanation , (eo(le -ant explanations o+ totalitarianism in common sensical
terms. 3otalitarianism -as not genocide) not single-(art0 rule) not a re(itition o+ t0rann0.
3otalitarianism -as an un(recedented +orm o+ rule that -as a$le to destro0 unique identity.
/he ma*es a strict distinction $et-een totalitarian movements and totalitarian rule. 3he +ormer has
ideolog0) the latter a (rinci(le and its reali>ation. 3he central institution o+ totalitarianism is the cam(s.
3he process is intelligi$le. 3otalitarianism cannot $e com(leted) the (rocess cannot $e reali>ed. 3here
is an internal contradiction) -here dominance need to dominate , its success is its o-n immediate
de+eat.
/tanding u( -ithin the cam(s -as made im(ossi$le , there -ere things) issues) $ut no -a0 to resist.
3here is no possibility +or ma*ing a di++erence in this totali>es environment.
3otal domination has no need o+ consent or o((osition. 2art0rdom is im(ossi$le.
<e cannot call totalitarianism a system $ecause there are not 1oints) no stems. Ca-s -ould onl0
o(erate -hen the0 are la-s in the (lural.
Rationalit0 is the (ro$lem , the (rocess o+ total domination re;uires a rational methodolog0.
<hat is the individual8 In-dividual , that -hich cannot $e divided) as i+ the o(tion -as there and
halted. A is indivisi$le $ecause it is identical) since its identit0) A G A) cannot $e s(lit. 3he individual
is a center o+ s(ontaneit0.
3he cam(s -ere an attem(t at the trans+ormation o+ human nature into , -hat8 , a s(ecimen. 3he
cam(s -ere a theoretical veri+ication o+ the (rinci(le "ever0thing is (ossi$le.%
9olshevi*s: 9asicall) 3rots*0 se> the (art0 is al-a0s right. /omeones got to $e right) a+ter all. In this
histor0) there is going to $e crime against the la-. /o) 0ou are as*ed) "#ont 0ou $elieve in Class
/truggle8% "Hes o+ course.% "Arent 0ou aligned -ith the (art08% "Hes) I $elieve in the (art0.% "Houve
$ro*en -ith the (art0s histor0 and must $e sent to the cam(.%
Arendt is not a$le to tell a(art 2ar. +rom the "Culture% o+ 2ar.ism , vi>) -here 0ou turn 2ar.s
(olitical anal0sis into the culture) the (rocess.
6 stages:
1: 3o destro0 the 1uridical (erson) a societ0 must recogni>e la-lessness. Conce(ts do not need to (rove
their validit0 through (er+ect su$sum(tion , Arendt remolds the conce(t o+ conce(t as constellation.
. 2urder the moral (erson. 2art0rdom is made im(ossi$le. Conscience has $ecome e;uivocal.
Iictims are not (recisel0 victims.
6. #estruction o+ uni;ue identit0.
3he NJrem$erg Ca-s -ere (art o+ the (rocess o+ the cam(s. 3his (oint) these la-s) un+olded
ine.ora$l0 into the (ro1ect o+ the cam(s $e+ore the cam(s had $een invented. 3he Ke-s -ere not onl0
denationali>ed) the0 -ere not allo-ed to marr0. 3he loss o+ the 1uridical (erson didnt mean 0ou
-erent citi>ens) $ut that 0ou couldnt +uc*. Cove-ma*ing $et-een Lerman and Ke- -as no longer
(ermitted. 90 not $eing -orth0 o+ love) the0 -ere no longer -orth0 o+ li+e. <hats the relation
$et-een se.) love) and citi>enshi(8
--- =uman Condition ,
2an cannot as* -hat he is) $ut -ho. And F-ho can onl0 $e expressed in (olitical action. Aree action.
One mustnt +orget ho- much e.ile is an im(ortant e.(erience +or Arendts develo(ment as a thin*er.
Rights must $e (olitical. Americans guaranteed these rights -ith god , the Arench) (oor +ol*) -ith
nature.
Ca$or is ever0thing that involves nature-li+e. #eathlessness is the li*e the c0clicalit0 o+ the
(erserverance o+ the s(ecies.
<or* creates the between.
3his is not individualism. 3he action is the revelation o+ the -ho to others. Achievements denote what
someone is , action reveals the who. 3he (olis) a+ter all) is the s(ace o+ a((earance. 3he value o+ the
(olis to the Lree*s -as due to the possibility it (rovided +or revealing the who o+ a (erson.
--- Cittle Roc* ---
Isnt she a$solutel0 -rong in her distinction $et-een the social and (olitical8 And -hats -rong -ith
it8 And -h0 does she grou( the (rivate and (olitical together in Cittle Roc*) -hile she *ee(s the
intimate and the social a(art in =uman Condition8 Are the distinctions $et-een (rivate) social) and
(olitical +ormed $0 a Buro(ean e.(erience and 1ust dont a((l0 to the race-;uestion -ith Cittle Roc*8
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@'4'16
=er criticism o+ 2ar. is that his st0le o+ +reeing la$or -ould result in a +alse uto(ia.
<hat is this $oo* a$out , and -h08 Reall0 read the title. What is the human8 I have $ecome a
;uestion to m0sel+. Augustine reali>es that he cannot ans-er that ;uestion? I am onl0 the $eing that
poses that ;uestion. 43hro-nness is not as im(ortant as resoluteness , so she as*s what I am5. <ho -e
are can onl0 $e revealed $0 -hat -e sa0 and -hat -e do) in the conte.t o+ the others.
3he issue in the =uman Condition is an issue o+ $oundaries 4s(ace & (lace5 , loo* at the su$titles -ith
the cha(ter on the (u$lic & (rivate 4Fs(here) Frealm) etc5. 9eing is $eing destro0ed $0 a dissillusion
-ith $ecoming , thats mass la$or. 3he conditions o+ human e.istence re;uire di++erent orders o+
e.(erience. 3he Lree*s didnt count the social activities as +undamental to human nature. 3here is
indeed the (rivate) $ut then the (olitical is essential +or $eing human. <h08
Ca- +or ancient Lree*s: 3he la- +or the (olis is the $oundar0 $et-een the (rivate and the (u$lic.
9oundaries are 1anus-+aced , there is $oth the (rivate and the (u$lic -ithin the F-all o+ the la-. Ca-
is the condition o+ the (olis) -hich is condition o+ the li+e) the human 4not -omen & slaves5. 3he
household realm har$ors things +rom visi$ilit0 , the household la-s are governed $0 la-s o+ the hearth
4the names o+ these gods are in the main Roman5. 3he la- o+ the household is sacred privacy. 3he
sacred lives as a condition o+ human e.istence in the household. /o(hocles se>: Antigone is the eternal
iron0 o+ the communit0.
/acred (rivac0 is not the location , the la- the $ounds a home is s(ace) li*e a no-mans land.
Arendt is arguing +or the constitution. A Grenze that can +lo-) that is d0namic ,
9eards-orth se> that constitutional democrac0 is the sacred +or her.
"Nothing counts that cannot $e seen or heard.%
/egragation must $e -or*ed out -ithin the +rame-or* o+ the (olitical constitution.
#iscrimination is legitimate -ithin the social , its 4di++erences5 emergence into the (olitical is
dangerous. 3he government has a dut0 to ma*e sure that (rivate and social di++erence'discrimination
are not legall0 en+orced.
3he idea o+ the (olitical is that there must $e an us , the I that is a -e) and -e that is I. Aichte -rote
this essa0 called the "Closed trading estate%: -e need a Lerman nation) -ith a hard limit.
<e have t-o la-s: ethics and legalit0. Our (ro$lem is that -ere living the distinction $et-een
moralit0 and legalit0. 20 conscience is active , and 0et I live out-ard in a di++erent -a0. Com(assive
in m0 mind) $ut active in the (olitical realm.
Arendt) in the re+lections on Cittle Roc*) thin*s that the social (recedes the (olitical , -hereas later she
thought that the (olitical must emerge +rom out o+ the social. 3he social is a (lace o+ mutual-
de(endences) right8 I need this -or* to $e done +or me , $e a (ool $o0 ,
/he sees this (rocess) ca(italist accummulation) as ruining the -orld.
Ci+e is necessar0. 3he things that (eo(le go through in order to live.
3o $e res(onsi$le +or ever0thing is the ideal goal. 4a guilt over ones unconscious $ehaviour is onl0 a
+oretaste o+ the call to res(onsi$ilit0 toda05 =o- are -e going to thin* the $oundar0 $et-een the
social) (olitical) and the (rivate , there mut $e an activity a thought+ul navigation. <eve a sedimented
maze no-.
One cannot tal* i+ one is !ust guilty. Hou have to $e a$le to assert) to sa0) that 0ou are not guilt0 i+ 0ou
are going to $e a$le to tal*.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@'11'16
=uman conce(ts $egin -ith $eginning , $irth.
Cadavers , the0 could $e num$ers) $ut -hat (oint -ould there $e to num$ers8
Arendt starts the $oo* -ith the state o+ science) and sa0s that its all ver0 -ell) $ut -here are -e going
-ith all this8 <hat is (ossi$le , this is a (hiloso(hical ;uestion.
<e are al-a0s mourning the dead , oh) -ell) $ig sigh and carr0 on.
<e have as*ed -omen to $ur0 the dead , #e9ouvoir has said that men have (ro1ected the la$or o+
$irth and death onto them.
3he gods must come out o+ the tem(le and $e cogni>ed) se> =egel 4not =eidegger5. <e must
remem$er the gods in order to cogni>e them.
Religion al-a0s gathers truth (rior to (ainting and -riting) $ut -e must $ring this content out o+ the
tem(les.
It comes out through the $od0 , (oor $od0) theres so much to remem$er.
An Arendtian conce(t is a constellation. It does not gather u( , a constellation o+ elements.
3he relation o+ la$or to deathlessness is the continuit0 o+ >oe 4the s(ecies5) not $ios.
3here is a +eeling o+ la$or as routini>ed deathlessness , the la$or dis(laces human recollection)
in-ardi>ation. /a0eth 2ar.: relations $et-een things are li*e relations $et-een (ersons) and vice
versa.
Arendt -ants 2ar.s conce(t o+ la$or to $e work. <e have $odies and -e must la$or , -e -ould
never $e +ree +rom la$or. <e are) ho-ever) alienated +rom work. 3he +actories are not (laces o+ -or*)
$ut o+ la$or.
3he sur(lus-value in a commodit0 is a phantasmagoria) it is =egelian Fillusor0-$eing.
<ithout a ta$le at a sMance) there -ould $e no Fe++icacies o+ grace , -e need the $ed +or the (assage
+rom the mother to the $a$0.
2ar.s uto(ia is too much a uto(ia o+ a (rocess , and -e need (ermanence) -e need ob!ect.
3rust is the su$stance) mostl0 invisi$le) o+ ever0da0 li+e 4Ka0 9ernstein5.
Areedom is a ca(acit0 born of acting. /(eech and deeds $ring the god out o+ the tem(le , the
disclosure o+ the agent in the act , a revelation.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@'1&'16
Intersu$1ectivit0 is not (rior to su$1ectivit0. /u$1ectivit0) the t-o-+old dar*ness) is +ounding +or action.
Action) structurall0) is $et-een (eo(le. Its ver0 rare that one can do this action +rom -ill+ul (ur(ose.
Communit0 has a structure that action does not have? communit0 has normative sta$ili>ations , la-s.
3here are limitations and $oundaries) and these are a *ind o+ (olitical distinction. Grenze is a -all-li*e
$arricade) it is the la-) and these la-s have limits. 9oundaries) schrenke are li*e old virtues.
Action cannot come +rom an0 higher +acult0.
Identit0 is ver0 unsta$le , I can never $e tomorro- -hat I am toda0. <hat -e must thin* a$out -hen
-e thin* o+ action is something -ith the de(th o+ "shall -e ta*e militar0 action against /0ria.% Bver0
action +alls into the -e$ o+ interrelated human involvements , the action cannot +oresee its results. 3he
+uture is intangi$le. An action under these circumstances) -here the outcome is un+oreseea$le) is the
new , the new $eginning. Its ver0 di++icult to do that in the (luralit0 o+ the international. Our
sta$ili>ing la-s are incredi$l0 +rail.
Necessit0 is the c0clical (rocess o+ li+e) and the +act that -e act into nature and -e $egin things there.
/he -ants to introduce a conce(t that -ill give us the realm o+ contingenc0 and the realm o+ +reedom.
"ure contingenc0 doesnt give te.ture or sta$ilit0 to the realm o+ human a++airs. Action is this strange
thing) $ecause in a -a0 it is un+ree as it doesnt *no- -hat result it -ill $ring a$out.
Arendts F+reedom is not (ure a$stract +reedom , -e cant +ull0 *no- -here it comes +rom 4-e cant
*no- our motivations5) -e cant +ull0 *no- -here it goes to 4into the intangi$le -e$ o+ human
relations5. I+ -e did have +ull trans(arent *no-ledge o+ -here our actions go) then -e -ould $e in the
(osition o+ sovereignt0. B(istemic limits) cognitive $oundaries) are necessar0 conditions +or human
+reedom.
<ith Fma*ing) on the other hand) homo +a$er al-a0s has a schema or a $lue(rint , and that is not
+reedom. 3here is no ne- $eginning in this res(ect , -hereas the +reedom o+ action $egins something
radicall0 ne-.
Action is al-a0s (ossi$le +rom the fact o+ $irth. Action is the actuali>ation o+ the human condition o+
(luralit0.
3hin* a$out +orgiveness , one could not expect +orgiveness) or antici(ate it. One can not set ones
-atch on +orgiveness? this -ould $e a sel+-de+eating as(iration) +or it -ould remain tied-to the (ast o+
its rec*oning and continuous (rocess. Action leaps out o+ (rocess.
:rocesses get a-a0 +rom us) and s(in out conse;uences -hich can onl0 $e sto((ed $0 action. No-)
these da0s) actions are rarel0 sta$ili>ing , $ut -e can still remem$er them and -itness them as
e.em(lar0. Arendt se> -e cant +orgive ourselves , $ut) 9eards-orth se> -e can +orgive ourselves.
<e) Americans) shade together intimac0 and (olitics) and thin* o+ ourselves as not e.actl0 (olitical.
Arendt se> -e cant a((ear to ourselves in the -a0 that -e a((ear to others (oliticall0. 3he agent o+
action does not tell its o-n stor0 , it is the historical stor0-tellers -ho loo* $ac*.
Arendt is tr0ing to dredge out o+ the !
th
centur0 a conce(t o+ +reedom , +reedom involves insta$ilit0)
and thats (art o+ its (o-er. It has the inherent ca(acit0 +or desta$ili>ing (olitical'(rocessual structures.
:romising is -ithin the (olitical tradition -ithin the various +orms o+ the (olitical contract 4even $ac*
to the #rito $ "-hat do 0ou mean no-8 #o 0ou mean to destro0 us8% se> the Ca- to /ocrates5.
:romising is not) so to s(ea*) (re-(olitical) $ut is the emergence o+ the (olitical realm. /ocial contract
theor0 in its classical sha(e o$viousl0 constrains the (romise ma*ers to keep their (romises hell or high
-ater. <e mustnt thin* o+ (romising li*e that , it cannot ground the rest o+ our +uture , there must $e
a contingenc0 in (romising) in some res(ect. 9ut there must de+initel0 $e sta$ilit0 o+ (romising) or else
the (o-er o+ +acult0 -ould disa((ear. :romises set u( islands o+ securit0 -ithin the ocean o+
uncertaint0.
Areedom is not something that -e have.
Hou can read :lato in t-o -a0s) and she goes +or the moment o+ domination) ie using the ideas as the
measure +or the cave.
/o) introducing contingenc0 into the realm o+ (olitics) is reall0 tr0ing to $e true to the (rinci(les o+
e;ualit0 and +reedom.
Rousseau as*ed Fho- can -e have 1ustice as -ell as utilit08 =o- can -e have +reedom -ithin the
$od0 (olitic8 <e must not shac*le ourselves to our catastro(hes. 9ut) must -e -ait +or a +orgiving
colleague to +orgive and there$0 unshac*le us8
3he condition o+ (luralit0 means untold de(endence u(on others. /he -ants the (olitical to $e in
relationshi( to the $od0 (olitic) the +rail realm o+ human a++airs) -ith the realm o+ la-s , along -ith the
strength to acce(t the un+oreseea$le e++ects o+ conse;uences) and the (rinci(le o+ sovereignt0.
/overeignt0 -ill al-a0s $e in a relationshi( o+ master0 and su$1ection.
=o$$es se> that the (o-er o+ rule does not have authori>ation over the authorit0 o+ the (eo(le. =o-
can there $e citi>enshi( that does not +all into su$1ection to rule8 =o- can there $e (o-er that does not
over(o-er the authorit0 o+ the (eo(le8 <here is our res(onsi$ilit08
3he ;uestion Arendt -ants to as* is: -ell) -here is our s(ace o+ a((earance8
Arendts theor0 o+ individualit0 is a theor0 o+ the sel+ in the act that is +or--e 4+or the the -e-that-is-I
and the I-that-is--e5) not for me not for %. 3he disclosure o+ who someone is does not sho- what
someone is. In the disclosure o+ who some$od0 is has nothing to do -ith -hat the0 are. 3his does not
arise out o+ an0thing to do -ith gender) race) ethnicit0) or territorial conte.t. =er (oint is that action is
this contingent ne- $eginning that is (receded $0 the ;ualities o+ what someone is 4the (rivate and the
social5) and discloses who someone is. 3here is an a-spect o+ an action that transcends its conte.t , she
reall0 does mean ne- $eginning. Who someone is is singular , ;ualities are general. #eed) -ith us
loo*ing $ac* on it. An auto$iogra(h0 can onl0 $e -ritten $0 one -ho is inactive.
All a-a(riori terms arise out o+ the (olitical engagement among us.
<e need a conce(tion o+ the human that has purpose that is in some sense sta$ili>ing and -orld-
creating 4not -orld-ma*ing5. <e are s-am(ed $0 necessit0) instrumentali>ation) and utilit0.
Who someone is is the s(ring o+ creativit0) regardless o+ what that (erson ma*es.
What is a $od0-(olitic8 =o- does it arise8 It seems idealistic i+ -e sa0: there has to $e a ne- $od0
(olitic. 3his -ill incur ver0 ver0 a$stract uto(ian ideali>ation.
Cets thin* o+ :latos dialogues) and $ehind those) /ocrates s(eech. <ithout the o$1ecti+ication $0
:lato) -e -ould not *no- o+ /ocratess (hiloso(h0 , $ut :lato does not give us the li+e-stor0
o+ /ocrates. 3his li+e-stor0 comes through the o$1ecti+ications. /ocrates $egain it) as the su$1ect) the
actor and su++erer) $ut -e -as not the author.
3here is no author o+ histor0) no authorit0 that controls or vouchsa+es develo(ment. =istor0 is a stor0
o+ actions and deeds) not o+ trends nor +orces & ideas. =istor0 is (olitical. &uthorship is im(uted onl0
-ith a categor0 error. 3he uni;ue li+e-stor0 o+ the agent is not revealed to the agent) $ut the $ac*-ard
glance o+ the historian.
Is the Ira; -ar histor0 alread08 Can it give a lesson o+ histor08 Or are -e still living it) still holding it
in our hands) or at the read0) -ithout 0et assimilating it to the te.ts o+ histor0 in the dead sense. =o-
-ide o+ a tem(oral $and-idth can our culture maintain8 7 0ears8 N8 18
Contingency of action per se is a principle of freedom.
Narratives are (o-ers o+ sta$ili>ation.
Courage is di++icult $ecause it ris*s sel+-certaint0 , nevertheless) onl0 courage can (rovide an
o((ortunit0 +or +illing the sel+ o+ -hich it is certain. 3imidit0) hiddenness) has no sel+ o+ -hich to $e
certain. /el+-disclosure according to Arendt could onl0 occur i+ someone has the courage to e.it the
house) enter the -orld o+ re(resentation) gain the symbolic. =o- does the realm o+ re(resentation
maintain the -e$ out o+ -hich the ne- meaning might arise.
=egel -as tr0ing to sa0 , i+ 0ou have a (ure conce(t 4li*e Dant5) the (ure conce(t must e.ternali>e
itsel+. No-) a conce(t is something understood. 3his stands in Dant as understanding) com(osed o+ the
(ure categories. /urel0 the categories have a histor0. =egel sa0s) have the courage to go out o+ 0our
conce(t into #asein) into e.istence. Into a (oem) e.(erience) into a science. <ithin this conce(t o+ the
conce(t) the understanding goes outside o+ itsel+. 3here is no su$1ect o+ the conce(t) the conce(t-action
comes out o+ the agent revealed in the action , and that doesnt belong to the actor) it $elongs to the
stor0.
9eards-orth thin*s that Adorno has a stronger sense than Arendt a$out ho- -e are enclosed or tra((ed
in the (rocesses o+ ma*ing. Adorno doesnt give us an0 sense o+ ho- -e can $e citi>ens in the -orld.
<e must in a +ull ethical ' (olitical sense) $e citi>ens in the (u$lic realm. Adorno gets to ho- +ugitive
the moments o+ ethics are.
9ac* to Arendt: (romising stabilizes in a -a0 that (o-er doesnt.
Animal la$orans alone has no -orld? i+ I am sim(l0 living in relation to necessit0) I am not in relation
to others) I am 1ust struggling.
:o-er (reserves the s(ace o+ a((earances in e.istence , there is a force o+ mutual (romise or contract
-hich *ee(s them together.
Revelation & act. <hat are the t-o (ro$lems -e are dra-ing on8 O & O. 9eing & 3ime. #irem(tion
o+ Reason & Revelation. <hat is grey8
Bthics & (olitics. :s0che & la-.
:hiloso(h0 and <riting are Acts.
1!''16
<ho has cut the thread o+ tradition8 3o com(rehend the modern age is to com(rehend the $rea*ing o+
the thread.
3he $rea* in the thread is the divorce o+ thought and $eing. 9ut) -e must not get lost in her meta(hors)
+or her -or* is o+ (olitical thought , the realit0 she is addressing is a political realit0.
Bvents and instances disru(t a (ast that (resses +or-ard , the0 are not 0et e.(erience. =o- can -e
com(rehend an0thing -hen all the categories o+ com(rehension have no ans-er. Act I) the
e.istentialists lost the a$ilit0 +or as*ing meaning+ul ;uestions in and through -hich the0 could ma*e
sense o+ our e.istence. =egel re(laces all authorities o+ tradition -ith the (hiloso(h0 o+ continuous
histor0 , D.2.N. /ho- us that in +act -e donPt even have that continuit0.
Is Action a conce(tual +rame-or* through -hich -e can regain our sense o+ remem$rance.
Da+*aPs =B is not $et-een t-o events ,
Action enters into the -e$ o+ human relationshi(s , -ePve lost this inso+ar as the modern age ' modern
-orld acts into nature or histor0) -hich set o++ endless (rocesses that are meaningless. 2odern
scienti+ic acts do not have a revelator0 character) the0 do not reveal the (erson o+ the actor or can $e
ta*en u( in a stor0. <e are in a (redicament that lac*s a connection to the (ast) and there+ore an
articulation o+ the (ast-+uture relationshi(. Action) remem$rance) and understanding are needed +or
meaning. B.(erience is an un+olding) undergoing) -hich -e no- lac*. <e have events.
3o ta*e an initiative 4-ithout the ;uest +or societal mas*s5 +eels so much li*e +reedom. That is -hat
she -ill eventuall0 call (olitics. 3a*ing the initiative in such a -a0 that +reedom could a((ear. It is not
necessaril0 an action) $ut an enacted event.
<e need to regain a -a0 to thin* a$out the events.
3he divorce o+ thought and realit0 is a tem(oral (ro$lematic , the Arench resistance 4Act II5 is in an in
$et-een (eriod -herein the truth ma0 a((ear.
Da+*a is the 6
rd
act in the develo(ment o+ modern mind.
=istor0 is the galler0 o+ images) and s(irit must recollect the -ealth o+ its o-n e.(eriences.
3he loss o+ the (olitical dimension is the loss o+ meaning in our e.(erience. <h08
Da+*a has a +antas0 to rise u( a$ove the $attleground o+ the (ast and +uture) $ut -e cannot do this , o+
course -e cannot. 3here is an inner structure to this con+rontation) and that is the hidden (rocess o+ the
mind.
3here is a +ighting e.(erience -hich is an e.(erience in thin*ing , and it can $e -on) li*e all
e.(erience in doing something. =er $oo* is an e.ercise intending to gain e.(erience in thin*ing.
3hought) e.(erience) remain $ound to incidents in living e.(erience. I+ -e ma*e sense immediatel0)
then -e are not thin*ing.
3he reason that I am una$le to still +eel +ree) +eel alive) in ;uantitivel0 more events in m0 li+e) is that
IPve $uilt u( m0 o-n tradition) m0 o-n testament) and a((roach the ne- -ith a $aggage o+ (recedent.
9ut the (ast is not sim(l0 $aggage. 3he drive +or un(recedented e.(erience could come +rom the
addiction to +reedom.
<e start in medias res) -ithout even *no-ing -hat res is. 3he dar*ening o+ :latoPs clear s*0 , -e
encounter our situation through a glass dar*l0.
B.(erience , is it (rivate8 2a0$e not , I have seen man0 movies a$out <<II? -hat has that done +or
me8 <hat is there to remem$er) i+ the cinema cannot su++ice8 Could it $e said that our cultural
memor0 is $eing ta*en care o+ $0 the cloud8 NoQ0es8 Aor one) there is no interiori>ation -ith this
ram(ant digital e.teriori>ation.
Remem$er: (u$lic ha((iness) (u$lic +reedom are shared ;ualities. 3he0 are not a matter o+ a single
(erson. Imagine that i+ -e reall0 did +eel li*e -e can march on <ashington and change things , that
-ould $e the immense +eeling o+ +reedom) o+ (u$lic ha((iness. 3he -ord public , -hat the meaning o+
that is , is something -ePve lost. 3he e++ort o+ thin*ing is) something li*e) to recover the e.(erience o+
the loss o+ (olitics.
3he (ro$lem o+ understanding is that -e donPt have the +rame-or* +or remem$ering an event.
<e must $e a$le to s0nthesi>e (ast-(resent-+uture.
No-) -ePve lost the meaning o+ (olitics as -hat it once -as) -hat it had. In all o+ this) -ePve lost the
notion o+ action , the e.change o+ ideas is o+ idealogies.
On to Cha(ter 1) 3radition and the 2odern Age)
D.N.2. /ho-ed us the meaning o+ modernit0 , the0 revealed to us -hat it is that -ePre e.(eriencing)
in their ver0 vehement re$ellion against tradition. Arendt never sa0s that thought alone is res(onsi$le
+or the catastro(hes o+ the !
th
centur0. 3hought is not a cause li*e this , it is not the source o+ these
things. Incidents and events cause things to ha((en.
=o$$es se>: reasoning is rec*oning -ith conse;uences. 3here -as a shift that she calls the modern age)
and that shi+t is a shi+t in our ca(acit0 to hold on to the notion o+ truth that -e have had throughout the
(hiloso(hical tradition. ItPs accessi$le $0 the instruments -e -ield) so -e can onl0 *no- -hat -e
made.
N.9. 3hat nature and histor0 are not even di++erent an0 more.
An em$lem o+ the (ro$lem o+ $eing -ithin the ga() is that the conce(ts -e use in order to get a gri( on
the situation) our conce(ts are em(t0 4li*e the grave5 , -e are gras(ing at stra-s. <hereas science acts
into nature , the (rocesses that science initiates get a-a0 +rom it and melt the ice ca(s.
ItPs more concrete to -al* on onePs head , it is most a$stract to re(eat cliches) though that ma0 +eel
concrete. A$stractness does not mean conce(tual.
1!'@
Rather than having histor0 as tradition , -e need to +ind a -a0 to generate meaning out o+ action.
<here she $egins) in the =uman Condition) is -ith general dou$t regarding) not moral) $ut e(istemic
sus(icion. Another issue is that -e have strong conce(ts o+ truth and +alse) and then -e dou$t that our
senses & reasons are a$le to gras( these. Radical dou$t is the method devised to deal -ith this. 3he
in-ard turn and e.(erimental ma*ing. #escartes too* the sel+-certaint0 o+ himsel+ as the measure o+
indu$ita$ilit0. 2an can at least *no- -hat he ma*es himsel+.
=o$$es is incredi$l0 im(ortant +or Arendt , he (ut in the (re-(olitical s(here the central issue o+
distrust. 3here are onl0 reasons to distrust) never reasons to trust. 3rust in elders never had reasons , it
-as in the +orm o+ tradition. =o$$es gives us the notion that -e distrust others) not 1ust the -orld. 3he
-a0 he un+olds this is on the e(istemological grounds o+ modern science. <e live in a -orld in -hich
reason is onl0 rec*oning +rom conse;uences , there are no reasons +or trust) and so -e need a
Ceviathan to (unish us) there$0 giving something a rec*oning reason can get a hold on.
Acting into nature is not (olitical action , +or it does not reveal a P-hoP nor can it $e ta*en u( in a stor0.
3radition -as not 1ust a handing do-n) $ut a selective relation to the past that is handed do-n.
3he Romans vulgari>ed gree* thought) the too* it on and made it their authorit0) $ecause the Romans
-ere so intent on +inding tradition. <hat the0 -ere doing -ith the ta*ing on o+ Lree* (hiloso(h0 -as
tr0ing to articulate their o-n (olitical e.(erience.
<e havenPt lost the (ast) $ut -e are in danger o+ +orgetting. <h0 do -e see* -a0s to re(lace memor0.
A telltale sign o+ the loss o+ authorit0 is ho-) at the $eginning o+ an0 argument) one must de+ine onePs
terms) and then -e 1udge the cogenc0 o+ the argument on the $asis o+ consistenc0.
<hat could $e (olitical +or us8 Action as +ounding) (romising) and +urther acts that *ee( in e.istence
the continuit0 o+ (ast acts. 3here must $e +urther acts that *ee( this in e.istence , there are at least
reminders) here and there.
Remem$er: (romising is not mere -ords) itPs action. <hen I (romise) I act. And so) (romising is
(rocessual) and it is un(redicta$le and ne-. All it can $e is $eginning , then re-actions or
conse;uences +ollo-.
ItPs im(ortant) +or authorit0) is that ever0one $u0s into the validit0 o+ the hierarch0.
1!'16
In the :ostscri(t to 'ichmann) she almost teeters o++ the edge o+ her o-n conce(ts , -hat is 1ustice to
do -ith these (henomena8 In ever0 modern 1ustice s0stem there must $e motivation) and in the case o+
3otalitarianism) there are criminals -ith no motivation to do the crime. <e have to rethin* legalit0 as
such , in the a+termath o+ the holocaust and in relation to -here -e are toda0.
<e are -al*ing into a situation in -hich -e no longer have a conce(tion o+ humanit0 , -ePve lost the
sense o+ humanit0. No-) that sense shi+ts) it is historical , it reall0 gained traction in the 1&
th
centur0)
-here o+ course it got muddled u( in rationalism) $ut it -as also -here civil status -as universali>ed to
human status.
3he thing that is looming in 3ruth and :olitics as -ell is the danger o+ losing a sense o+ humanit0. 3he
(ro$lem o+ legalit0 & moralit0 needs to $e -or*ed out.
Arendt is getting ver0 ver0 close to some issues that she canPt deal -ith in her o-n discourse , she
might need (s0choanal0sis) -hich she re1ected. 3here are t-o ver0 di++erent realms occu(ied $0
legalit0 and (s0choanal0sis. No-) clearl0 there -as a s0stem o+ 1ustice (rior to a sense o+ humanit0.
<h0 -ould the (olitical realm need men in institutions that are not under (olitical (o-er8 9ecause the
(olitical does not 1ust o(erate under needs and desires. 3he academ0 is +or the (olis) $ut not . . .$08 . . .
the (olis.
=er thin*ing is al-a0s +or (olitical reasons. /he sa0s -e must delimit) -e must limit) -hat is the
(olitical realm) so -e can see -hat it essential structure is.
3he ;ualit0 o+ an o(inion is im(artialit0) it $elongs to the realm o+ +reedom) it is trans(arent.
Aacts are indestructi$le $rutall0 elementar0 data.
3he issue toda0 is that +acts have $een trans+ormed into o(inions) and no- there are not strict
distinctions $et-een +acts and o(inions) so our (olitical de$ates are not a$out o(inions.
In the modern su$1ect there is a direm(tion $et-een inner-+reedom and outer-un+reedom? an inversion
o+ intentions and institutions. B.g.) good intentions $ecome social actions $ecome $ad deeds , this
threatens the su$1ect -ith a constant return to an stric*en conscience.
Bichmann is res(onsi$le +or -hat he did ,
Cegalit0 needs not to $e divorced +rom moralit0 ,
3o 9eards-orth the limit nightmare o+ modernit0 is that human dignit0 -ill disa((ear) or the
destruction o+ humanit0 , trans+ormation into s(ecimens.
No-) there are certain +eatures o+ totalitarianism that resem$le modern societ0. Recall that
totalitarianism -as a solution to a ;uestion as*ed $0 modernit0.
3he di++erence $et-een the traditional lie and the modern lie is that $et-een hiding and destro0ing.
3he sense 49edeutung5 -ith -hich -e ta*e our $earings in the real -orld is $eing destro0ed.
1!'6!'16
:o-er can onl0 $e chec*ed $0 (o-er.
3he di++erence $et-een the interest o+ a single nation , and the endurance o+ a $od0-(olitic. =o- is
that to $e made clear8
3he constitution is the (romising that ma*es the (romising e.(licit as the setting o+ the terms o+ our
li+e together.
No-) the general -ill is a theoretical su$stitute +or an a$solute monarch0.
3here is a principle o+ revolution that is not shared $0 -ar , itPs all there in the Arench revolution) in
(rinci(le) $ut the Arench revolution +ailed to $ear it out.
<ith the #eclaration o+ Inde(endence) there -as a (o-er o+ action great enough to create its o-n
monument. A monument is a ver0 s(eci+ic +orm o+ memoriali>ation -hich is not strictl0 connected to
the (ast) $ut $reathes a ne- s(irit into the (resent. 3he monument has the (o-er to carr0 +or-ard the
s(irit o+ a (ast act.
No-) the men o+ the revolution -anted the (ursuit o+ (u$lic ha((iness. =a((iness is +idelit0 to the
Constitution. Bven (u$lic -el+are doesnPt necessaril0 mean m0 (ersonal (articular right to more cand0.
Ke++erson -as unclear a$out -hat he meant , i+ he meant private welfare) then the (ur(ose o+ the
government is to (rotect (rivate (ro(ert0. 3he $ourgeois $od0-(olitic is the (rotection o+ li+e) not
li$ert0.
Ci$ert0 is a manner o+ a certain *ind o+ action , -ords and deeds in concert.
<hatPs remar*a$le a$out the American constitution is that it is the result o+ an assem$l0 -hich has no
authorit0 over the constitution. 3he tem(oralit0 o+ the constitution is a grounding -ithout a ground , it
is the tem(oralit0 o+ return) not o+ origin.
3he constitution is a document , -hereas the #eclaration o+ Inde(endence is a monument. 3he
constitution is a -a0 to maintain (o-er -ithout authorit0.
Arendt suggests that the tension $et-een the (art and the -hole) state rights and +ederal la-) -here a
serial logic o+ delegation hands on the (o-er) generates a logic o+ (o-er.
=o$$es sorted it out in such a -a0 that the (eo(le authori>es the ruler) -ho has the sta++ o+ legitimac0
and s-ord o+ (o-er. =o$$es ma*es the (eo(le the source o+ government? this is -hat the Buro(eans
got -rong. 3he source o+ legitimac0 and the source o+ legalit0 are not $oth $uilt u( out o+ unanimous
(eo(le. Rousseau) again) ma*es the -ill o+ the (eo(le the $asis o+ legalit0. Dant thought that Rousseau
-as cra>0) and $ased legitimac0 on reason.
Aor Rousseau) the (eo(le are the general source o+ (o-er) and the general -ill is the source o+ legalit0.
No-) +or 9eards-orth) an act o+ return is not an original +oundation. Constitutions are acts o+
+ounding. "3he (rinci(les had $een +ormulated and discussed prior to the revolution.% 3he
constitution made mani+est) as the second tas* o+ the revolution) the (rinci(le o+ (romising , and that is
not the social contract. 3here are t-o sides) +issured in the social contract: the consent to $e ruled) and
the esta$lishment o+ one (eo(le-$od0. All 0ou can get out o+ these t-o u(shots o+ social contract
theor0 is another s0stem o+ sovereignt0.
4:aine se>: the (eo(le $esto- the constitution on the government.5
ItPs eas0 to +all $ac* into a (olitics that res(onds to su++ering , the (ro$lem is that it $ecomes unethical
or immoral and instead $ecomes a (olitics o+ (art0 (o-er. 3he (olitics o+ (it0 cannot $e the (olitics o+
+ounding.
3he normative authorit0 o+ the constitution is (romising.
<e canPt get over the insta$ilit0 o+ (romising , so letPs not -orr0 a$out the insta$ilit0) letPs -orr0 a$out
return. 3he -orr0 +or insta$ilit0 results in (ro+essional (oliticians resolving on making a government
rather than (romising one.
=o- are -e to ma*e +reedom not contingent and ar$itrar08 I+ it +alls into ar$itrariness) it is no longer
+reedom as decision.
=o(e is something 1usti+ied and +ear is instilled.
3he logic o+ return does not esta$lish (aradise. 3he return o+ revolution might $e in the guise o+ a
re+orm.
3o understand ho- the (eo(le have (o-er , -ell) the0 are (otentiall0 (o-er+ul , re;uires ta*ing into
account the +acult0 o+ ma*ing and *ee(ing (romises. <e do not have "the (eo(le% an0more , there are
(eo(le.
3his tem(oralit0 o+ return is not a tem(oralit0 o+ (recedence , itPs a sur(rise ever0 time. 3he +all o+ the
9erlin <all -as a sur(rise. A sur(rise never -ears its meaning on its sleeve , it is not magic. 2agic
is the im(ossi$le. 3here are no signs that ma*e an event (redicta$le) thatPs -h0 she s(ea*s o+
constellation and cr0stali>ation.
<hat is 1udgment in the midst o+ $od0-(olitic8 Is 1udgment a t-o--a0 relationshi( $et-een the
general and the (articular , mediated $0 the imagination8 Is that the -a0 to understand /chelerPs three
aims o+ *no-ing8 Redem(tive *no-ledge com(letes the s0llogism8 Dno-ledge o+ the general is the
essential *no-ing) o+ the (articular) o+ an0 given (articular) is the *no-ledge o+ realit0. And
redem(tive *no-ledge is imaginative middle term.
3he logic o+ return ta*es into its account an irrevoca$le contingenc0 , that is -h0 the (o-er o+
(romising is a grounding -ithout a ground. A 9aron 2unchhausen moment . . .
3he (ro$lem o+ the Occu(0 2ovement is that it didnPt develo( into a serial logic o+ (o-er.
<hat are -e concerned a$out8 B;ualit08 B;ualit0 o+ -hat8 &ccess(
3he (olice are 1ust as un+ree , the0Pre serving the man) and the man is societ0.
:o-er is the alternative to violence ,
Landhis (rinci(les couldnPt $e ours. Landhi se> that resistance must al-a0s $e non-violent.
ArendtPs criticism o+ modernit0 is that it instrumentali>es (olitics. :romising is not a means to an end ,
it is the condition +or the (ossi$ilit0 o+ means-ends. 3he -orld is +ar too dominated $0 instrumental
s0stems and $ureaucrati>ation.
=er (olitical thought ma*es no sense unless 0ou recall that her historical (henomenolog0 is meant to
reconstruct conce(ts on the modern stage.
Classical social contract theor0 does not unite +reedom -ith (o-er.
11'6'16 On Revolution 7&6
Is historical time ob!ectively continuous8 #oesnPt nature tend to use u( its time and aim to-ard +inal
rest8
Is the a$solute a Pdivine (rinci(leP , -hat is it +or a (rinci(le to $e divine8 <ould immortal $e
su++icient8 Is ever0thing that is eternal also universal8 Can there $e eternal (rinci(les -hich are not
there$0 universal.
3he social contract o+ Coc*e'Rousseau $inds laterall0 , it gives authorit0 to the (eo(le as a -hole. In
the Arench Revolution) (o-er -as (laced in the hands o+ a natural +orce. Rousseau coined the Pgeneral
-illP in order to account +or the authorit0 o+ the (eo(le -ith regard to la-s. It is "the -ill o+ the
individual shared -ith others as aiming at the general good.%
Arendt $elieves that the general -ill is the re(lacement o+ the old a$solute sovereignt0. /he se> there
never -as a (rinci(le o+ sovereignt0 in the American revolution. /overeignt0 is not the (rinci(le. 3he
(rinci(le is a com$ination o+ +actors that eventuall0 resolves into this ne- conce(t o+ (o-er. 3he
notion o+ the act o+ +oundation +or the Aounding Aathers is nothing li*e the Roman +oundation , it is a
ne- Rome.
/o) what is the act of foundation) =o- can there $e a revolutionar0 s(irit that is a ne- $eginning that
has a lasting institution88 3here must $e a lasting s(ace o+ a((earances in -hich each and ever0 (erson
can come out into the o(en and act ,
2aterial transactions see* an e;uili$rium) no matter the e.(ense to an0 initial varia$le , economic stu++
shi+ts and +ree>es according to an invisi$le hand -hich is unseen $0 (rinci(le) $ecause it is onl0 ever a
+orce $ehind its e.(ression. 3he +acult0 +or novelt0) +or natalit0) is the something o+ a sel+-moving
lode-stone) it is the missing element that $0 its natural a$sence (recludes (er(etual motion. 9ut it is
real , action is a$le to leave the -e$ o+ human a++airs and get an im(ossi$le $reath o+ +resh air) in order
to (lunge $ac* in to the -e$ and e.hale.
=o- do 0ou balance sta$ilit0 and novelt08
:o-er is not !ust there. 3here can $e a state o+ no (o-er. It is not automaticall0 conserved. *orce is
1ust there.
3he (o-er o+ (romising is the groundless ground , this is -h0 it is unthin*a$le to me , it seems li*e it
must $e re(lenished) again and again) lest it +alls to (ieces.
A((earing in the (u$lic realm to tell onePs stor0 as a once-o$scured (eo(le. Is this not the concern -ith
the PmainstreamP , the PmainstreamP.
<h0 do -e su++er the +eeling o+ $eing insincere8 <e are too concerned a$out certaint0 , -e donPt act.
3he +eeling o+ insincerit0 , the a++ect o+ the di++icult0 $et-een our inner and outer selves.
<hat a$out) instead o+ o$1ective truth) there is e.em(lar0 validit08 A (rinci(le can $e eternal $ut not
universal , it is e.em(lar0.
11'!'16
#oes (o-er rule , is that itPs de+inition8
Is -ar senseless violence8 <ell) violence has not $een investigated as such. ItPs $een something that
has $een considered to $e either (art o+ a (olitical or economic (rocess , she sto(s short -ith regard to
-ar & violence.
:o-er is not (art o+ the command-o$edience structure , $ut it ainPt relational as Aoucault does. /he
thin*s o+ (o-er as support for la-) $od0 (olitic) s(ace o+ a((earances.
/he -ants to sa0 that violence is instrumental , and it is a means o+ destruction.
Iiolence is onl0 1usti+ied +or short-term goals , $ut it is never legitimate. Iiolence can never $e
derived +rom (o-er) and it cannot create it.
:o-er needs no 1usti+ication , -hat it needs is legitimac0.
3he state is o$e0ed -hen it has (o-er) $ut not $ecause it commands , o(inion is -ith the state.
/he gets negativit0 into her thought -ith Civil #iso$edience $ecause negativit0 has a (ositive e++ect.
/hePs still a =o$$esian , a (rocess =o$$esian. Resistance) violence) re$ellion , the0 are never
legitimate) $ut -ho cares8 Re$el i+ 0ou must. #onPt $other -ith loo*ing +or it.