Richard Bernstein on the Film "Hannah Arendt" | The New School
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 09. 2013
- Dick Bernstein, Vera List Professor of Philosophy (www.newschool.edu/nssr/philosophy) at The New School, comments on the film "Hannah Arendt".
The New School, a university in New York City, offers distinguished degree, certificate, and continuing education programs in art and design, liberal arts, management and policy, and the performing arts.
THE NEW SCHOOL | www.newschool.edu
Location: Orozco Room, Alvin Johnson/J.M. Kaplan Hall
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 8:00 pm
I had two seminars with Dick B on Arendt and another on Pragmatism. He had many interesting anecdotes on Arendt, most memorable was his description of her apartment. Upon entering she had two portraits, one of Nietzsche, the other of Heidegger.
I couldn't get through her books, any of them, entirely... but that is not her fault, it's mine! I am just not deep enough to absorb Hannah. I respect her so much!
Jerjer B that happens to everyone at one time or another. just keep reading it over
Eichmann in Jerusalem is a short read. Good place to start.
Please , can anyone tell me: "the banality of evil", this sentence was itself a title of a book or an expression Hannah coined and was present in one of her books..in this case the frase is in "the origins of totalitarism" or in another book ?: Thanks a lot for anyone taking the time to answer me. :-)
"The Banality of Evil" is the last sentence of "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and became later the subtitle for "Eichmann in Jerusalem". "Origins of Totalitarianism" is a different book.
Why the director found it necessary to emphasize her German accent, over and above the actress speaking
in English that would have been better for English audiences. I had difficulty understanding what was said
by the actress. We see 'the banality of evil" taking over the judicial system in the United States. Max Blumenthal
was arrested Oct 2019 in D.C. The judge in Maria Butina case reflects the lack of morally responsible personhood,
in the figure of the judge, not the defendant, so we see the system, not merely the manifestation as in Eichmann.
at 13:14: " Laura managed an approach between Hannah and Hans Jonas as long as they didn't talked about the book"...What book are Berenstein refering to? Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer me.
dionisio454
"Eichmann in Jerusalem"
Very interesting.
My heroine Hannah Arendt, brave exceptionally intellectual….miss her mind.
I am perturbed that all speakers butcher Hannah Arendt's name. It is pronounced Ahhr-und, with emphasis on the first syllable. It means Eagle. Please, try harder....
Speaker is just fine, imho. Also his "Heidegger" is perfect. On the meaning of Arendt: The etymology in Dutch, not so much in German, probably. Arendt's family history goes back to being an old family from Königsberg (Kaliningrad today). While she was born in Hannover.
Which film were they watching?
The film "Hannah Arendt."
Evil is on a number line...where do I fall?
Priceless video. It's kind of a shame the audience (are they professors?) is so blasé and apparently unfamiliar with H.A.'s work. I could have listened to Prof Bernstein for another hour.
trustees of the new school
Gosh, these guys know nothing about her.
Why do English speakers pronounce her name as ehRENT, where her name is AAHrent. It means Eagle. Is is like pronouncing EAgle like eGULLLL! Sounds strange.
Would "The banality of evil" have caused as much controversy if it had come from a man?
I think Hannah Arendt tought and legacy has more important subjects to be discussed than feminism!
João Fernandes really? what makes that question "feminist"? I absolutely believe that it is a relevant question - I invite you to a discussion on the very topic: www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_critical_design_approach_need_to_reconsider_Heidegger_as_a_reference
Wow!!!
In Hannah Arendt's series of articles, "Eichmann in Jerusalem", she shows how for Eichmann it was not simply a matter of "following orders," but rather how if he had disobeyed orders (Hitler's in this case) he would have not only been defying the entire population of Germany and many other countries, but his family and friends. But that's not all. He would have been defying his own conscience that told him that it was right and good to get rid of the Jews at the behest of "the Leader," Hitler, who was himself speaking for the people and what was "holy, just and good." Not for nothing did Nazis proclaim, "God is with us." In the early years of this century it became more and more possible to forget the Holocaust, the Shoah. It seems that God wants to remind us. Masks, distancing, coerced injections and lockdowns are not the Holocaust but they do remind us that people will do terrible things to their neighbors and call it righteousness and believe in their hearts that not only is it the right thing to do but that they would be unrighteous if they fail in cruelty. How do we explain the repeated advice of the New York Times to rat out one's neighbors if they failed to properly mask, distance and all the rest? How do we explain the New York Times chief ethicist urging children to report their own parents to the proper authorities if their parents are insufficiently isolated from society, if their parents dare to actually have guests over and to stubbornly continue to visit with relatives? How do we explain the words of the normally even-tempered President Biden excoriating the unvaccinated or numerous officials (like Pritzker governor of Illinois) declaring the unmasked to be the enemy? "You are the enemy." How do we explain the concentration camps in Australia, the lockdown of the unvaccinated in Austria, the utter capitulation of Trump and the Republicans to the status quo? How do we explain the attacks on the unmasked in the US, in Australia, in England and many other countries? All those who acted in this manner were doing things that all society, their family, friends and their own consciences told them was righteous and to act otherwise would have made them "bad," and "wrong." This time of strange regulations imposed from within and without, is nothing like the Holocaust but it makes us remember it. Moreover, this strange time from '20-'22 and beyond uncovers something that was suppressed about those years '33-'45, namely, that most everyone was for Hitler and loved him and exalted him to the position of "Leader" because the deportation and killing of the Jews was a parallel and in some ways more important war than the war fought against the Allies. Even, the Jewish people, as Hannah Arendt points out were complicit. Without their organization, their active participation , their selection of which neighbors were to be deported the Nazis could not have killed so many. Without the orderliness provided by Jewish leaders, the Holocaust as we know it today could not have happened. Arendt's conclusion is devastating. Not only was Shirer and so many others completely wrong about the popularity of Hitler, they actively suppressed the truth that all had helped to delusion to grow strong. Moreover, the Jewish people too were under the same delusion; they too were in thrall, seduced to participate in their own torture and destruction. I am praying that we will now learn about our weakness as humans and that we will learn how to fight for the truth and against delusion.
Good thing that we didn't take Arendt's advice on a binational state. We'd be toast by now.
G-d forbid...
yeah right, cuz now you have a really wonderful country :sarcastic: ;)
Because the two state solution is really viable?
well, firstly, Israel has spread 50% more than it had permission to do so in 1947 when there were initial negotiations, and only thanx to a serious link with certain world power they managed to get away with it. so I don't see how it has right to say who is to have or not to have a national state.
secondly, to be honest, we tried on the middle east everything but the two state solution - so maybe it's time to try the obvious choice.