I think ultimately what I got from The Human Condition will be determined in the weeks, months and years to come. Arendt's ideas about the erosion of the public and private spheres and the rise of labor as our primary mode (and animal laborans vs homo faber), among others, are likely to lurk in my subconscious as I continue to read, think and update my model of the world and our place in it. The extent to which they ring true will probably vacillate over time.
Nietzsche and Marx are on my future TBR list, and I know that her distillations of their ideas in the book will influence my reading of their works as well. This book has definitely prompted me to explore theories of private property and really explore my own views on the topic.
Another specific idea that really intrigues me is her distinction between acting and behaving towards each other, and the notion that these days we mainly behave and rarely act. I will definitely be pondering this more.
More immediately, I already have some Alfred North Whitehead on my reading list this year, prompted by a desire to explore process philosophy/theory, and Arendt's frequent references to Whitehead have me pretty excited about digging in to his work.
Arendt offers some penetrating comments along the way but I feel there is something fundamentally wrong about her whole approach:
1) not once does she actually provide evidence or feel the need to do this. No data, no statistics of any form. Do we just believe her because she is Hannah Arendt? Why should we?
2) whenever she says "man" she is talking about a small intellectual elite and seems to think they can represent everyone else. When she says that action has replaced contemplation, etc, etc, she is talking about a few intellectuals that in fact only represent themselves. It is the same sort of bubble problem that afflicted the NY Times, etc, in recent times.
If you are talking about the "human" condition you are obligated to explore all that is human, not just West 67th Street. Others have done this better than she did.
I was wondering if you could make more videos about your experience observing the failing model of college education in the US? One of your insights that really resonated with me was this idea of universities focusing on selling an (extremely expensive) product—an experience—to their students, effectively their customers. I think it’s really a fascinating idea, and quite sad, that the aim of major American institutions is to be revenue generating resorts for young people to have a good time for four years: the facilities, clubs, partying, traveling the world, attractive girls, sporting events, etc.
I am a victim of the marketing. I hated my college experience because I felt like I was trying to use the “product” for what it was advertised to me as and wasn’t getting much enjoyment out of it or success, namely partaking in the social aspect. Which is really a commentary showing how problematic the system is when the actual purpose of schooling, getting an education, falls by the wayside. I realized too little too late I should have focused more on my studies and putting together a solid plan for how attending college would shape my future instead of trying, and failing miserably, at having “the best four years of my life,” which turned out to be the loneliest and most dissatisfying. We need to think about how we are positioning this experience to our youth. There’s a lot to be said about universities abroad, especially in Western Europe, that are devoid of all the pointless, flashy, and cashgrabby elements of American college life. I can’t stop thinking about how much time I wasted trying to live the stereotypical amazing college life that I was brainwashed into thinking I was supposed to have at the complete expense of doing well academically. It demonstrates how the far off the messaging of what college is supposed to be about is from the actual purpose of what it SHOULD BE, the core of what it was MEANT FOR, when academics werent even at the forefront of my mind—having a good time was.
Not to mention the lie we’re sold on that having a bachelor’s in anything is enough to get a decent job. I majored in one of the liberal arts and all I’ve been able to get is retail. I think that students who major in humanities should have to sign a WAIVER that if they don’t know what they’re doing with their degree (teaching, law, med, double majoring with something practical, internships), they should understand that their credential is equivalent to a GED in the eyes of employers.
I think ultimately what I got from The Human Condition will be determined in the weeks, months and years to come. Arendt's ideas about the erosion of the public and private spheres and the rise of labor as our primary mode (and animal laborans vs homo faber), among others, are likely to lurk in my subconscious as I continue to read, think and update my model of the world and our place in it. The extent to which they ring true will probably vacillate over time.
Nietzsche and Marx are on my future TBR list, and I know that her distillations of their ideas in the book will influence my reading of their works as well. This book has definitely prompted me to explore theories of private property and really explore my own views on the topic.
Another specific idea that really intrigues me is her distinction between acting and behaving towards each other, and the notion that these days we mainly behave and rarely act. I will definitely be pondering this more.
More immediately, I already have some Alfred North Whitehead on my reading list this year, prompted by a desire to explore process philosophy/theory, and Arendt's frequent references to Whitehead have me pretty excited about digging in to his work.
Arendt offers some penetrating comments along the way but I feel there is something fundamentally wrong about her whole approach:
1) not once does she actually provide evidence or feel the need to do this. No data, no statistics of any form. Do we just believe her because she is Hannah Arendt? Why should we?
2) whenever she says "man" she is talking about a small intellectual elite and seems to think they can represent everyone else. When she says that action has replaced contemplation, etc, etc, she is talking about a few intellectuals that in fact only represent themselves. It is the same sort of bubble problem that afflicted the NY Times, etc, in recent times.
If you are talking about the "human" condition you are obligated to explore all that is human, not just West 67th Street. Others have done this better than she did.
I was wondering if you could make more videos about your experience observing the failing model of college education in the US? One of your insights that really resonated with me was this idea of universities focusing on selling an (extremely expensive) product—an experience—to their students, effectively their customers. I think it’s really a fascinating idea, and quite sad, that the aim of major American institutions is to be revenue generating resorts for young people to have a good time for four years: the facilities, clubs, partying, traveling the world, attractive girls, sporting events, etc.
I am a victim of the marketing. I hated my college experience because I felt like I was trying to use the “product” for what it was advertised to me as and wasn’t getting much enjoyment out of it or success, namely partaking in the social aspect. Which is really a commentary showing how problematic the system is when the actual purpose of schooling, getting an education, falls by the wayside. I realized too little too late I should have focused more on my studies and putting together a solid plan for how attending college would shape my future instead of trying, and failing miserably, at having “the best four years of my life,” which turned out to be the loneliest and most dissatisfying. We need to think about how we are positioning this experience to our youth. There’s a lot to be said about universities abroad, especially in Western Europe, that are devoid of all the pointless, flashy, and cashgrabby elements of American college life. I can’t stop thinking about how much time I wasted trying to live the stereotypical amazing college life that I was brainwashed into thinking I was supposed to have at the complete expense of doing well academically. It demonstrates how the far off the messaging of what college is supposed to be about is from the actual purpose of what it SHOULD BE, the core of what it was MEANT FOR, when academics werent even at the forefront of my mind—having a good time was.
Not to mention the lie we’re sold on that having a bachelor’s in anything is enough to get a decent job. I majored in one of the liberal arts and all I’ve been able to get is retail. I think that students who major in humanities should have to sign a WAIVER that if they don’t know what they’re doing with their degree (teaching, law, med, double majoring with something practical, internships), they should understand that their credential is equivalent to a GED in the eyes of employers.
I'm working on something.
great thinking, tz, thank you. Higher ed is in shambles most places