The Life of the Mind by Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt’s The Life of the Mind—left unfinished at her death in 1975—explores what it means to live a reflective human life. Though only the first two volumes, Thinking and Willing, were completed, they show how our minds work, how we deal with thinking and willing.  If death had not taken her, we would know much more about the process of judging, of looking into our own experience and evaluating the world around us. In addition to defining the modes in which our mind works Arendt wanted to look deeper into what she had seen in the trial of Adolph Eichmann, to ask why thoughtlessness could coexist with education and intelligence. Her answer was to return to the activity of the mind itself: thinking, willing, and judging.

In his lectures on The Life of the Mind at the Hannah Arendt Center, Roger Berkowitz said the key sentence of the entire book is in the Introduction on page 15 of the paperback edition:

The need of reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning. And truth and meaning are not the same.  (These words are italicized in the book.)

Thinking as Interior Dialogue

For Arendt, thinking is not problem-solving or information processing but a withdrawal from the world into an inner dialogue. This is her Socratic inheritance: the “two-in-one” conversation where I, as thinker, am alone in the company of myself. This dialogue is a withdrawal from the world. Thinking refers to the present, to the here and now of existence, but in a way that suspends action. It is an activity that strips away worldly entanglements and confronts the mind with meaning rather than facts. Arendt insists that thinking is not about producing results; it is about keeping oneself in dialogue, preventing the collapse into thoughtlessness.

In thinking, Arendt says we are not searching for truth, but for meaning.  This search for meaning is individual and unique.  It may or may not lead to truth. 

In the context of Eichmann, this withdrawal is central. She believed Eichmann’s evil was thoughtless precisely because he lacked this inner two-in-one. He conformed, he obeyed, but he never withdrew to examine whether what he was doing was right. To think is to interrupt the chain of command within oneself, to stand back and confront reality in the present tense.

Willing as the Struggle with the Future

If thinking is rooted in the present, willing is oriented toward the future. It is the inner effort to control what is not yet, to choose between possibilities, to force action upon the world. Arendt describes willing as a divided, restless power: the will affirms and denies at once. Unlike the serenity of the thinking dialogue, willing is conflictual, almost violent. We both want and do not want; we command ourselves and resist our own commands.

Where thinking withdraws from the world, willing strains against it. It is the mind’s way of asserting itself against time, against the uncertainty of what comes next. For Arendt, this tension is central to understanding political action: willing is the seed of freedom, but also of frustration. We are never at peace with the will because the future is never securely ours.

Thinking, Judging, and Willing

Arendt’s tripartite scheme assigns each faculty a temporal orientation. Thinking deals with the present; judging, with the past; willing, with the future. Judging, which she did not live to write, she connected to Kant’s Critique of Judgment and his idea of reflective judgment—how we make sense of past events, how we discern meaning after the fact.

Together, they give us three aspects of our inner life: thought that withdraws from the world, judgment that brings the past into evaluating the present, and will that looks to the future. The activity of the mind found in this temporal triad, is always in motion, changing and subject to chance as is all life.

The Christian Inheritance of the Will

The most striking feature of Willing is Arendt’s deep dive into the Christian tradition. She traces the genealogy of the will not to Greek philosophy, where the concept is largely absent, but to the New Testament. In Saint Paul she finds the first language of inner division: “the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.” The will appears here as torn between flesh and spirit, desire and command.

Augustine, whom Arendt calls the first Christian philosopher, builds on this Pauline insight. For him, the will is not simply choice but the innermost movement of the self toward or away from God. In Confessions, Augustine describes the paralysis of a divided will, torn between sin and obeying God. Arendt shows this is the decisive turn: the will becomes the core of human subjectivity, the theater of inner conflict.

Aquinas later systematizes the will into scholastic doctrine, aligning it with reason and natural law. Here the will finds its place within a rational order, no longer pure division but an instrument that can be directed toward the good. Arendt is less enamored with Aquinas than with Augustine, but she acknowledges the power of this tradition: Christianity gave the West the very concept of a faculty oriented to the future, an inner command that makes freedom both possible and perilous.

Along with Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, Arendt writes at length about Duns Scotus, a scholastic thinker who accepts contingency in life and through contingency shows that we truly have free will.  The first time I read The Life of the Mind I was unaware of Scotus.  In reading Arendt, I am delighted to find people and ideas I had never encountered. 

The Life of the Mind is brilliant. Arendt writes not as a metaphysician spinning systems but as a thinker who wrestles with the facts of experience and the inheritances of tradition. Her exploration of the inner dialogue of thinking shows why reflection matters in a world of conformity. Her analysis of the will uncovers both its torment and its promise: the divided power that enables freedom but guarantees restlessness.

That she died before completing the volume on Judging is a loss, but the fragments we have are enough to make her point. To be human is to be suspended between past, present, and future, always in dialogue with ourselves, never fully at rest. Arendt’s book is not a manual but an invitation to return to that dialogue, to resist thoughtlessness, and to confront the responsibilities of freedom.

The Bureaucrat of Death: Adolf Eichmann and the Machinery of the Holocaust

(This post is edited and improved by ChatGPT. The original version is here.) 

In 1932, Adolf Eichmann was an unemployed Austrian drifting through a country in political and economic chaos. Desperate for work, he crossed into Germany and joined the rising Nazi Party—more out of need than ideology.

Eichmann soon found employment in the Nazi campaign to make Germany Judenrein—free of Jews. Between 1933, when Hitler rose to power, and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the regime's goal was deportation, not yet mass murder. During this period, the Nazis expelled Jews from the Reich, often forcing them to navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy that made escape painfully slow.

Eichmann, however, had a talent for logistics. He centralized the deportation process by bringing all necessary agencies under one roof. What once took months now took days. But the streamlining came at a cost: Jews were stripped of their assets and left with barely enough to reach their destinations. Many ended up in British-controlled Palestine, Spain, or other countries the Nazis never conquered. Though they lost everything, they escaped the coming catastrophe.

Once the war began, deportations largely halted. For over two years, Eichmann and others involved in Jewish expulsion waited as the Nazi leadership decided on a new direction. In the meantime, local massacres claimed the lives of millions of Jews, carried out near their homes by bullets rather than gas.

Then came January 1942. At the infamous Wannsee Conference, the Nazi regime formally adopted the “Final Solution”—the systematic extermination of Europe’s Jews. Eichmann’s organizational prowess, once used to deport Jews out of the Reich, was now repurposed for industrial-scale murder. He managed the transportation of victims to Auschwitz and other death camps with cold precision.

By 1944, his methods were devastatingly efficient. In Budapest, working with the cooperation of certain Jewish leaders, Eichmann deported nearly half a million Hungarian Jews to their deaths in just three months.

Eichmann was no mastermind of evil in the comic book sense. He was a functionary—a man of forms, files, and timetables. When the orders were to deport, he deported. When the orders were to kill, he ensured the trains ran on time. He was an amoral bureaucrat who helped send over three million Jews to their deaths, not out of personal hatred, but out of dutiful obedience.

After the war, Eichmann disappeared. He hid in Austria before escaping to Argentina through the infamous “Rat Line” — a network assisted by Catholic Bishop Alois Hudal. At the time, Pope Pius XII, whose papacy has been heavily criticized for its silence during the Holocaust, remained in power. In Argentina, Eichmann lived under an alias but eventually bragged about his role in the genocide.

In 1960, Israeli agents captured him and brought him to trial in Jerusalem. He was convicted and executed in 1962.

I've read and reread Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt’s account of his trial. Her concept of the “banality of evil”—that horrific crimes can be committed by ordinary people who simply follow orders—remains controversial. Many critics of her work, both then and now, have not actually read it.

I strongly recommend all of Arendt's works, several of which I've summarized briefly in other posts. Among them, The Origins of Totalitarianism stands out as the most essential for understanding the ideological and structural roots of the Holocaust.

---

Recommended Works by Hannah Arendt:

• 📘 Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin Modern Classics)

• 📗 The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest/Harcourt)

• 📕 The Human Condition (University of Chicago Press)

• 📙 Between Past and Future (Penguin)

• 📒 On Revolution (Penguin)

• 📓 Responsibility and Judgment (Schocken)

These books provide not only a window into Arendt’s profound political thought but also a vital lens on totalitarianism, moral responsibility, and the capacity of ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes.

Tribe by Sebastian Junger -- The Ancient Roots of Many Problems of the Modern World

In October, I went a conference on Tribalism and Cosmopolitanism.  The first and featured speaker was Sebastian Junger, author of seven books that, in part, describe the lives of modern tribes in America including soldiers, commercial fishermen, and others who risk their lives in their work.  Junger said, "The real and ancient meaning of tribe is the community that you live in, that you share resources with, that you would risk your life to defend."

He is also the co-director with Tim Hetherington of the documentary Restrepo, the record of a year with soldiers on one of the most dangerous outposts in Afghanistan. The soldiers of Battle Company, 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team are the definition of a tribe.

Humans as a species are tribal.  Forming tribes and living as tribes describes most of human history. In the book, Junger shows that people who live without tribes, without the community and deep connections tribes afford, are adrift and often unhappy without knowing why.  

Junger said it was a commonplace in frontier America that people who went from civilization to Native American tribal life did not come back.  Whatever civilization could offer, those who left would not return. 

As I read the book, I felt I was learning the secret code of my life--the yearning for a tribe.  I grew up in a Boston suburb in the 1950s and 60s, not connected to extended family or religion or even a sports team.  I joined the military shortly after high school graduation in 1971 and loved being part of a group with a mission. I got out after being blinded in a missile explosion, but healed completely and re-enlisted within a year.  

After three years as a tank commander on the East-West border, I got out, went to college, got a professional job, then a quarter-century later re-enlisted and deployed to Iraq for a year.  That deployment ended 15 years ago this month.   

In an odd twist, I saw Restrepo right after it was released in late June 2010 in an NYC theater, a few months after I returned from deployment.  I walked out of the theater and wanted to go to Afghanistan.  

Belonging to a tribe has been normal for we humans in all of recorded history and before.  The cosmopolitan drive in us allows great learning, great invention, modern medicine and all the wonders of the modern world, but it does satisfy our need for deep human connection.  Tribes do that. Tribe, the book, explains the history and present reality of the tribal impulse in our lives.

Hannah Arendt Center Conference 2024: Tribalism and Cosmopolitanism, 1st Morning

 

On October 17 and 18 the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College held its annual conference. This year's topic was Tribalism and Cosmopolitanism: How Can We Imagine a Pluralist Politics? 

Hannah Arendt Center Founder and Academic Director Roger Berkowitz introduced the topic of the conference. He began with his own tribal connections: his family, his Jewish faith, and other close-knit groups. As a cosmopolitan he has "passport stamps from many countries" where he has friends and family and colleagues in addition to writing books and articles and being part of intellectual communities: a cosmopolitan with many tribes.

He then talked about the conflict between those committed to a cosmopolitan view of the world and those who see humans through a tribal lens.  I would try to summarize, but the opening speech of the conference is the latest episode of the Reading Hannah Arendt podcast so anyone so inclined can listen to the Roger's opening remarks.

The first speaker was Sebastian Junger, like Berkowitz, embodies the title of the conference.  

As a cosmopolitan, he has written seven books, earning #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list, and numerous articles earning a National Magazine Award and a Peabody Award and a Peabody Award.  His documentary film Restrepo (with co-director Tim Hetherington) won a Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and was nominated for an Academy Award.

But the central subject of his writing is tribalism. His book Tribe explores the lure of tribalism and its place in modern life. Junger said the definition of a tribe is "What happens to you happens to me."  The willingness to die for fellow tribe member is another mark of a tribe.   

War and the film Restrepo show the life of an Army company defending the most exposed outpost in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan. Soldiers form a tribe. In Restrepo one of the soldiers says that guys who hate each other's guts would risk their lives for each other. 

I saw Restrepo just after returning from a year's deployment to Iraq in 2010.  I have not seen a better or more candid documentary of war, any war, than Restrepo. 

Just after the conference I read Junger's book The Perfect Storm the story of the commercial fishing boat Andrea Gail lost with all hands in a terrible storm in 1991.  Junger describes the tribe of the people who fish for a living and the dangers they face.  We also see the rescue services of the Coast Guard and the Air National Guard saving the lives of doomed boats in the terrible storm. We also learn about the rescuers lost and terribly injured during the rescues. The end of the book follows those dealing with the loss of loved ones in that terrible storm.  War and disaster always have this long tail of family and communal suffering. Junger shows us the many struggles of thos left behind.

I will have to leave the rest of the conference for another post.  This post is already very long and long after the event.

The Concept of History, Chapter 2 of "Between Past and Future" by Hannah Arendt

When we say history is written by the victors, we are assuming or accusing the historians of writing propaganda.  But as Hannah Arendt makes clear in the 2nd chapter of Between Past and Future history began with Homer's impartial view--writing about greatness and courage on both sides of the tragic war that lead to the founding of Rome by the defeated.  

Here is Arendt on impartiality in history in Ancient Greece:

Impartiality, and with it all true historiography, came into the world when Homer decided to sing the deeds of the Trojans no less than those of the Achaeans, and so to praise the glory of Hector no less than the greatness of Achilles. This Homeric impartiality as it is echoed by Herodotus who set out to prevent “the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory,” is still the highest type of objectivity we know. Not only does it leave behind the common interest in one's own side and one's own people, which up to our own days characterizes almost all national historiography, but it also discards the alternative of victory or defeat which moderns have felt expresses the “objective” judgment of history itself and does not permit it to interfere with what is judged to be worthy of immortalizing praise. Somewhat later, and most magnificently expressed in Thucydides, there appears in Greek historiography still another powerful element that contributes to historical objectivity. It could come to the foreground only after long experience in polis-life, which to an incredibly large extent consisted of citizens talking with one another. In this incessant talk, the Greeks discovered that the world we have in common is usually regarded from an infinite number of different standpoints, to which correspond to the most diverse points of view. In a sheer inexhaustible flow of arguments, as the sophists presented them to the citizenry of Athens, the Greek learned to exchange his own viewpoint, his own “opinion”—in the way the world appeared and opened up to him δοκει μοι, “it appears to me,” from which comes δοξα, or “opinion”—with those of his fellow citizens. Greeks learn to understand—not to understand one another as individual persons, but to look upon the same world from one another's standpoint, to see the same in very different and frequently opposing aspects. The speeches in which Thucydides makes articulate the standpoints and interests of the warring parties, are still a living testimony to the extraordinary degree of this object activity.

The Concept of History, Chapter 2 of Between Past and Future by Hannah Arendt, pg. 51-2

I wrote about the Preface of Between Past and Future here.

Quoting Hannah Arendt: Not Easy, but No Excuse for Fake Quotes

On Friday, 6 September, the Virtual Reading Group of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College, will begin the discussion of "Between Past and Future" first published in 1961. 

Recently, Roger Berkowitz, founder and academic direct of the HAC, wrote an excellent essay about the problem of made up quotes of Hannah Arendt and by extension all authors.  He is right. Read it here. 

Last month an insightful essay on this book was published on the HAC site.  It begins with a quote from Arendt's preface to the work that I marked as "theme" in the margin.  Here is the essay by Mark Aloysius, S.J.

The opening quote on the essay shows why quoting Arendt can be so difficult.  The 70-word sentence has three independent clauses, with three dependent clauses. Reading this sentence made me glad I am old enough to have diagrammed sentences in elementary school. The quote is an entirely appropriate opening for an essay on the HAC web site, but not the kind of thing that would get likes on TikTok or Snapchat. 

Here is the quote:

Seen from the viewpoint of man, who always lives in the interval between past and future, time is not a continuum, a flow of uninterrupted succession; it is broken in the middle, at the point where ‘he’ stands; and ‘his’ standpoint is not the present as we usually understand it but rather a gap in time which ‘his’ constant fighting, ‘his’ making a stand against past and future, keeps in existence.”
(Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. Edited by Jerome Kohn. New York: Penguin Books, 10).

One of my many reasons for being a member of the HAC is the discussions that guide the reading of Arendt's complex thought.  After reading Arendt's preface, I transcribed the paragraph that the above quote is in. The 263-word paragraph has just five sentences. One is a simple16-word sentence quoting William Faulkner.  The other four have 60, 36, 70 and 81 words.  

The relatively snappy 36-word sentence has two dependent clauses.  The closing 81-word sentence has two independent clauses and four dependent clauses.  Arendt was not writing for social media.  

In a decade and a half of reading Arendt, the former ad writer in me has never found her quotable, but I have been able to discuss with enthusiasm what she has said with people who care about the human condition (to make a pun) in all of its complexity.

Here is the paragraph I transcribed:

"The first thing to be noticed is that not only the future—“the wave of the future”—but also the past is seen as a force, and not, as in nearly all our metaphors, as a burden man has to shoulder of whose dead weight the living can or even must get rid of in their march into the future. In the words of Faulkner, “The past is never dead. It is not even the past.” This past, moreover, reaching all the way back into the origin, does not pull back but presses forward, and it is, contrary to what one would expect, the future which drives us back into the past.  Seen from the viewpoint of man, who always lives in the interval between past and future, time is not a  continuum, a flow of uninterrupted succession; it's broken in the middle, at the point where “he” stands; and “his” standpoint is not the present as we usually understand it but rather a gap in time which “his” constant fighting, “his” making a stand against past and future, keeps in existence.  Only because man is inserted into time, and only to the extent that he stands his ground does the flow of indifferent time break up into tenses; it is this insertion—the beginning of a beginning, to put it in Augustinian terms—which splits up the time continuum into forces which then, because they are focused on the particle of the body which gives them their direction, begin fighting with each other and acting upon man in the way Kafka describes."

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt seemed a very different book this year than when I first read it the first time in 2011.  Twelve years ago, I had never visited a Nazi Death Camp. I had not even visited a Holocaust museum. Since 2017 I have visited ten death camps in four countries.  The book was much more vivid in this reading. 

Since 2018, I have been a member of the Virtual Reading Group of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. Over the past three months, I have listed to weekly 30-minute introductions of the chapters of the book by Roger Berkowitz, the director of the Hannah Arendt Center.

The book is a compilation of essays first published in the New Yorker magazine in 1963 in five parts.  Later in the year the essays were published as a book.

Arendt reported on the trial for the New Yorker and considered both her essays and the later book as a work of journalism. The "journalist" in this case was a philosopher of considerable renown and a Jew who narrowly and early escaped the Holocaust.  She was a refugee in France before finding her way to America.  

The essays and the book cover the trial and give background on the life of Adolf Eichmann as well as a country-by-country accounting of the Holocaust. Arendt makes clear that Eichmann's role in transporting Jews to death camps required the  cooperation of Jewish leaders to be as terribly effective as it was.  

In Bulgaria and Denmark, the Nazis got very little cooperation from Jews or the government and most Jews survived the war.  In the countries conquered by both the Soviets and the Nazis, the Jews were almost completely wiped out. Less than one percent of the Jews in the Baltic Republics survived the war. Poland was not much better.  More Jews survived in Germany than in the worst countries in the east.  

Eichmann was most effective in Hungary where cooperation by Jewish leaders made possible deportation of a half million Jews in less than a year.  Arendt makes clear that Eichmann was a mid-level Nazi bureaucrat with a talent for logistics who was able to move three million people to death camps. He was a horrible person who deserved death, but he was not a titanic evil person with a plan like Adolf Hitler.  

The waves of criticism that crashed on Arendt after the publication of the book had much to do with the portrayal of Eichmann as a shallow functionary rather than a personification of evil.  The controversy that began in 1963 continues today as evidenced by comments in the Virtual Reading Group from people who strongly disagree with Arendt on Eichmann.  Some of the discussion were heated (but polite).

The reading group is recorded and available in the podcast "Reading Hannah Arendt with Roger Berkowitz" hosted by Jana Mader, the Director of Academic Programs at the Hannah Arendt Center.

Breakout Sessions at the Hannah Arendt Conference 2023: Friendship & Politics

In addition to the general sessions at the 2023 Hannah Arendt Conference, I enjoyed the breakout sessions. I wrote about some of the general sessions at the conference here.

Jana Mader

The first was a session titled: Is Reading a Poem an Act of Friendship? led by Ann Lauterbach and Jana Mader.

Ann Lauterbach

The session began with Ann Lauterbach talking about her work, particularly her eleventh collection of poetry Door published this year.  She also read from her work. 

Jana Mader, Director of Academic Programs at the Hannah Arendt Center, guided the discussion on poetry as an act of friendship. I chose this breakout session because of the group I formed on Camp Adder in Iraq 2009 to read Inferno and Aeneid.  

Mader is also the host of the new podcast "Reading Hannah Arendt with Roger Berkowitz. 

After the breakout session, I talked with Stephanie Frampton, a literature professor at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Her research area is Ancient literature so she was delighted to talk about soldiers reading Virgil and Dante. 

Nelly Ben Hayoun-Stépanian

I went to a second breakout session titled: Friendships and Federations of Care: Forms, Alliances, and Multiverses led by Nelly Ben Hayoun-Stépanian, an award-winning designer of experiences, creative director and director.  During a discussion about spaces we learn and teach in someone asked about unusual places in which we have taught classes.  

I was the only one in the room who had taught a class inside a tank turret.  

My classroom in 1976 an M60A1 Patton tank on 

the south gunnery range, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Friendship & Politics: 15th Annual Conference at the Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College

Two of my favorite subjects in life and in philosophy are Friendship and Politics. 

So I was delighted to attend the 15th Annual Conference at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College. This year’s title was: 

Friendship & Politics.

Roger Berkowitz

The opening talk was by Roger Berkowitz, director of the Hannah Arendt Center. He talked about Arendt's view of friendship as the center of a good life and critical to functioning politics.  

Esther Perel

There were so many good discussions, all in person and available on Zoom.  The one that most filled Olin Hall was on Friday morning.  Psychotherapist, international best-selling author and popular TED talk presenter Esther Perel discussed the Power of Friendship with psychologist and professor Marisa Franco, also a best-selling author and popular TED talk presenter.  Several groups of students filed in just before the Perel and Franco spoke.  

Marisa Franco

Franco talked about her recent book Platonic. She talked about the importance of friendship then Esther Perel asked the audience questions about their relationships and the importance of friendship in their lives.  

Niobe Way

Niobe Way made another high-energy presentation about her work on the crisis of connection in modern life and the crisis of masculinity.  She Professor of Developmental Psychology and the founder of the Project for the Advancement of Our Common Humanity at New York University. 

Earlier this year I attended the Summer Social at the Hannah Arendt Center. 

I went to two of the several breakout sessions.  More about those in the next post. 

Masha Gessen Wins 2023 Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thinking

 

Masha Gessen at the annual conference of the 

Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College 

Activist and writer Masha Gessen has won the 2023 Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thinking. I heard Gessen speak at the Hannah Arendt Center and at the University of Pennsylvania. I read her articles in the New Yorker. She has been a leading dissident voice in Russia for almost two decades, barely escaping Russia after criticizing Vladimir Putin.  She has been warning the world about Putin at the risk of her life. The official announcement follows:

Following the win last year by the Ukrainian writer Serhiy Zhadan, the Hannah-Arendt Prize for Political Thinking in Germany today (August 4) has named journalist, author, translator, and activist Masha Gessen the winner of its 2023 Prize for Political Thought.
The formal presentation of the honor is set for December 15 in Bremen, and the award carries a purse of €10,000 (US$11,013), the accolade to be presented by the Hannah Arendt board, the Bremen senate, and board members of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. A round-table discussion with Gessen is scheduled for the following day, December 16, its focus to be “The Search for the State in Totalitarian and Autocratic Societies.”

In its announcement today, the program notes the sheer breadth of topical and thematic concern reflected in Gessen’s work, its rationale reading, “For years, Masha Gessen has been describing political tendencies and conflicts in American and Russian society.
“Gessen reports on power games and totalitarian tendencies as well as civil disobedience and the love of freedom. Masha Gessen writes about the arduous everyday life, cultural conflicts and the struggle for democratic self-determination.
“In a time characterized by autocratic erosion in the United States, war-ready totalitarianism in Russia, and serious conflicts between the great powers, understanding is becoming a civic duty. With books as well as essays in The New Yorker and a strong public presence, Gessen opens up new perspectives that help to understand a world in accelerated change.”

Hannah Arendt Center Summer Social: Preview of Fall Conference on Friendship and Politics

This week I went to the Summer Social at the Hannah Arendt Center on the campus of Bard College.  The campus is set in rolling wooded hills on the east bank of the Hudson River between Albany and New York City. I arrived just after a short downpour so the weather was cool and cloudy. Tables had been set up for dinner outside, but the wet tables meant the event was indoors.

Christine Gonzalez Stanton, 

Executive Director, Hannah Arendt Center

As soon as I entered the large old dwelling that houses the HAC I was greeted by Christine Gonzalez Stanton, Executive Director of the HAC and the kind of enthusiastic person every organization would love to have in charge of operations.  She signed me up for the book raffle and pointed me toward the appetizers and drinks in the kitchen. 

As soon as I entered the kitchen I met Ken Landauer in person.  We had been in one of the smaller Zoom groups discussing Hannah Arendt's lectures on Kant.  Ken makes zero-waste furniture in a nearby town.  The website of his company FN Furniture lists Ken as "Chairperson" of the business noted for making things to sit on. In person he is even more dryly funny as he is on Zoom.

Ken Landauer in one of his chairs

I have been a member of the HAC for several years and attended three annual conferences in person. Since 2018, I have joined weekly meetings of the Virtual Reading Group of the HAC.  As many as 200 people participate in these 90-minute calls on Friday afternoons year-round with seasonal breaks.  At the the Summer Social and the Annual Conference I have met many people who were only faces on Zoom.  

The VRG format is a 20-30 minute introduction of the reading followed by a discussion. The discussion leader is the Founder and Academic Director of the HAC Roger Berkowitz.  I sometimes stay on line for the discussions, but I always listen to Roger's introductions of the reading.  Here is a short clip of Roger welcoming us to the social:

After the introduction, we walked through the woods up a small hill to the Bard College Cemetery. Hannah Arendt and her husband Heinrich Blucher are buried there and have small markers next to each other.  

Hannah Arendt's grave in the Bard College Cemetery. 

We all placed stones on Arendt's grave. As with so many things in Arendt's life and work, her death was controversial. She wanted to be cremated, not a usual practice in 1975 for Jews. Her wishes were carried despite resistance from a relative. Her ashes are interred in the Bard Cemetery.  

------

After the walk to the cemetery, we went to the library. Arendt's personal library is in a special collection in the Bard Library.  Four scholars connected to the Bard and the HAC made short presentations about their work.  

Jana Mader, with some of the books 

from Arendt's library.

First was Jana Mader, Lecturer in the Humanities at Bard. She will present at the HAC fall conference on the friendship between Arendt and the poet W.H. Auden.  Arendt credits Auden with teaching her English and helping to edit the works she wrote in English. The poet Robert Lowell was also a friend of Arendt. Mader put books with inscriptions to greetings to her by the poets on display. 

Born in Germany, Mader teaches literature at Bard and is a writer and artist.  She just had a book published that made me wish (again) that I could read German fluently. Her book Natur und Nation cooperatively analyzes 19th century literature inspired by the Hudson River with texts inspired by the Rhine River. In October her curated walks to women's history in New York City will be published, this one in English.

------

Next Nicholas Dunn spoke about Hannah Arendt's lectures and writing about Emmauel Kant.  He talked about a conference he is hosting on June 20 with the author of the book Hannah Arendt's Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy, Ronald Beiner.  

Nicholas Dunn, postdoctoral fellow at HAC

Dunn talked about the way unique Arendt looked at Kant's thought and some of the response to her views.  Dunn is the Klemens von Klemperer Postdoctoral Fellow at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College. He will also teach courses in the Departments of Philosophy and Political Studies and for the Bard Prison Initiative. 

-------

Jana Bacevic is a visiting scholar at the HAC. She led a conference at the HAC earlier this month on the Social Life of the Mind.  She explained Arendt's reading of and view of the The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System by Milovan Dilas, a Yugoslav intellectual. As with the Kant volume, Arendt had a unique perspective on Dilas and his work.  Dilas was jailed when the book was published in 1958 because he sent it to western countries for review.  Foreign Affairs magazine published a one-paragraph review of the book in 1958 that said: 

The manuscript of this book was sent abroad for publication and the author is now in prison as a consequence. It is important both for the quality of its thought and for the fact that it is a root-and-branch criticism of Communism, including Titoism, from within the Party itself. Since he was formerly one of the ranking Party leaders in Jugoslavia, his picture of the Communist monopoly of power is particularly telling, and the indictment is made with a typically Montenegrin lack of restraint. 

 ------

Thomas Bartscherer, the Peter Sourian Senior Lecturer in Humanities, was the final speaker.  He announced that his volume in the series Hannah Arendt--Complete Works. Critical Edition will be published this year. He was so happy about the firm publication date that he had the audience chant a call and response of 

"When?"  
"This year!"

He told us each volume of the critical edition includes images of works in Arendt's library that she used for reference in her works.  Underlines, notes, starred items, are all included in the published book along with the text itself. His volume is on Arendt's The Life of the Mind, her last and uncompleted work. She died on the week she was to begin the third volume on judgement.   

Bartscherer talked about some of the complexities of finding and compiling annotations.  Arendt had five copies of Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics: two in Greek, two in English, one in German. She made notes and underlined passages in all of them, on different passages in each book.

-------  

After the library we went back to the HAC building and ate dinner together, a buffet meal set up in the kitchen.  During the dinner I met more people who read and admire Hannah Arendt.  I am very much looking forward to returning for the conference on Friendship and Politics in the fall and possibly the event on Kants lectures next month.  

The Last Interview and Other Conversations by Hannah Arendt: Book 26 of 2022

Hannah Arendt was very much a public intellectual. She was willing to speak and be interviewed on radio and TV and in public settings.  The interviews collected in this book are from the last decade of her life.  

The first interview occurred on October 28, 1964, with the German TV personality Gunter Gaus. World War II and the Holocaust ended with German Surrender just 19 years before the interview.  Twelve years before that, Hannah Arendt fled to France when persecution of Jews began with Hitler's rise to power.  

The interview covers Arendt's life in Germany, life as a refugee, and as an American scholar.  Arendt and Gaus also talk about the Eichmann trial and Arendt's very controversial reporting on the trial.  

On the rise of Hitler to power she said, 

People often think today that German Jews were shocked in 1933 because Hitler assumed power. As far as I and the people of my generation are concerned, I can say that is a curious misunderstanding. Naturally, Hitler's rise to power was very bad. But it was political. It wasn't personal. We didn't need Hitler's assumption of power to know the Nazis were our enemies! That had been completely evident for at least four years to anyone who wasn't feebleminded. We also knew a large number of the German people were behind them. That could not shock or surprise us in 1933.

Gaus then asks,  

You mean that the shock in 1933 came from the fact that events went from the generally political to the personal?

Arendt responds,

Not even that. Or that too. First of all, the generally political became a personal fate when one emigrated. Second...friends "coordinated" or got in line. The problem, the personal problem was not what our enemies did but what our friends did.

Arendt describes an "empty space" that formed around her and other Jews as "friends" followed the Nazi Party and abandoned her and other Jews. 

In an interview in October 1973, shortly before Arendt's death in 1975, she was interviewed by Roger Errera or ORTF TV, France.  In the interview, which covered many topics and was filmed over several sessions, Errera made a comment that Arendt answered and I could see why I was so taken with Arendt's thinking and felt compelled to read all of her major works.

Errera:  

Our century seems to me dominated by a mode of thinking based on historical determinism.

Arendt:  

We don't know the future, everybody acts into the future, and nobody knows what he is doing, because the future is being done. ... Action is a "we" not an I...Now this makes it look as though what actually happens is entirely contingent, and contingency is indeed one of the biggest factors in all of history. Nobody knows what is going to happen simply because so much depends upon an enormous amount of variables; in other words on simple hasard.  On the other hand, if you look back through history retrospectively, then you can--even though all this was contingent--you can tell the story makes sense. How is that possible? How is it possible in retrospect it always looks as though it couldn't have happened otherwise? All the variables have disappeared, and reality has such an overwhelming impact upon us that we cannot be bothered with what is actually an infinite variety of possibilities.

There is much more in these interviews.  If you have already read one or more of her books, these interviews will give you more perspective.   

I first read Hannah Arendt after I returned from deployment to Iraq in 2010. A new friend Sara Rouhi who was studying philosophy said, "You have to read Arendt." I did. Became obsessed and read all of her major works.  Sara was one of the people I was thinking about when I recommended making friends of all ages.

I wrote about her here.  

Books 8 and 20 in the list below are by Arendt. 

I brought up Arendt at a conference I attended in June on the subject of claiming territory in space.

Just before COVID, I went to my first conference at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College.

First 25 books of 2022:

Galapagos by Kurt Vonnegut

The Echo of Greece by Edith Hamilton

If This Isn't Nice, What Is? by Kurt Vonnegut

The War That Made the Roman Empire: Antony, Cleopatra, and Octavian at Actium by Barry S. Strauss. 

Civil Rights Baby by Nita Wiggins

Lecture's on Kant's Political Philosophy by Hannah Arendt

Le grec ancien facile par Marie-Dominique Poree

The Netanyahus by Joshua Cohen

Perelandra by C.S. Lewis

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay

First Principles by Thomas Ricks

Political Tribes by Amy Chua 

Book of Mercy by Leonard Cohen

A Brief History of Earth: Four Billion Years in Eight Chapters by Andrew Knoll

Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall

Understanding Beliefs by Nils Nilsson

1776 by David McCullough

The Life of the Mind by Hannah Arendt

Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson

How to Fight Anti-Semitism by Bari Weiss

Unflattening by Nick Sousanis

Marie Curie  by Agnieszka Biskup (en francais)

The Next Civil War by Stephen Marche

Fritz Haber, Volume 1 by David Vandermeulen

Where Does Politics End? On Earth? How Far Into Space?

Gloria Maritza Gomez Revuelta, 

a PhD candidate at El Colegio de Mexico

At the conference on science diplomacy since World War II, one fascinating presentation was on a group of equatorial countries who in 1976 decided to claim the territory directly above their countries in space. These countries in South America, Africa and Asia were among the many non-aligned states who did not take the side of either the western democracies or the communist world.  

Pointing to a mercator map with the countries proposing the pact highlighted, Gloria Maritza Gomez Revuelta, a PhD candidate at El Colegio de Mexico, said the United States and Russia were both launching satellites into geosynchronous orbits for communication and surveillance.  The satellites travelled in space at the same speed as the earth's orbit so they remained in position until they fell from orbit.  As this band of space filled with satellites, the countries with land underneath the satellites wanted to control the space above their land.

The pact never became reality. In the discussion after the talk, several people discussed the issue of what a country can claim as sovereign territory. Where does space begin? At the limits of the atmosphere? Higher?  Gomez Revuelta said Hannah Arendt said politics is part of life on earth. 

Arendt opens her book The Human Condition by saying it was an event “second in importance to no other.”  Sputnik meant that human beings had taken a real step toward actualizing a long-wished-for goal: to escape the earth. In Arendt’s telling of the story, earth alienation is part and parcel of the all-too-human dream of freeing ourselves from our humanity. Sputnik’s launch thus signified not simply the lowering of humanity’s stature, but humanity's destruction of humanity itself. (from the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College)

The discussion continued raising serious issues, and also the issue of how far into space could an equatorial country claim territory? The solar system? The Milky Way?  The entire universe? 

The discussion continued at lunch about Hannah Arendt and space and the Cold War and world politics today.