📚 If you'd like to LEARN MORE ABOUT HANNAH ARENDT and her political philosophy. Check out my playlist on the works of Hannah Arendt 👉 ua-cam.com/play/PLsrUuITxFGJ0a7GqQ3YjY2zMHe0hA85ig.html
Does she get deeper? This argument seems a bit superficial. For example people can experience the same events but with different perspective come out with different facts on the events. Or even if you agree on the facts your narratives might be different.
@@zombiedeathrays8862 Astute observation, Zombie Deathrays! Arendt goes much deeper into this question in a number of her works. The problem of achieving objective knowledge of human events is one of her abiding concerns. Think of how different people might interpret an argument at a party differently. The next day participants and spectators would have different views of what happened. Nevertheless, if someone asserted, "that argument never happened" we would respond, that "that's not true" or "that's incorrect," or "that's a lie." Arendt's concern is that people in power try to make just this argument -- no one really knows what happened, no one can say with authority what happened. And by doing this they can get away with doing whatever they want and then denying they ever did it. That's a recipe for political evil. It's possible that it's impossible to achieve perfect or even "mathematical" knowledge of human events. But we still seem able to know things with a degree of accuracy. We can disagree about exactly what happened, or exactly how things happened. But it does seem possible to have better or worse knowledge of these things. One mistake people make is to say, "We can't have perfect knowledge of human events; therefore no opinion is better than any other. Anything can be anything." But when we think about this, it's not really true. The example Arendt gives in "Truth and Politics" concerns WWII. She says, historians will debate the causes of WWII, what exactly happened, but it's clear that no one will say, "Poland invaded Germany." She talks more about this problem and how we have historically grappled with it in The Human Condition and in her essay on Socrates.
i really appreciate the hard work you put into your channel ! thank you for helping me prepare my presentation on Hannah Arendt. All of your video along the bibliography are solid resources to cite. Thanks again and God bless.
I'm currently reading 'The Path to Mass Evil; Hannah Arendt and Totalitarianism Today', by Michael Hardiman (Routlege, 2023). It might interest those who are trying to pay attention to the current iterations of Mussolini's definition of fascism as the marriage of state and corporate power. “Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born.” Aneurin Bevan, who also witnessed the horrors of industrialised savagery masquerading as the pinnacle of civilisation.
Happy to find your page here by a link in twitter.Exactly the subjects I love to hear about..is there any way to have access to the transcripts of your videos?
@@GreatBooksProf No, I am writing an article on truth-telling (parrhesia) and flattery (both are Michel Foucault's concepts) in current politics, and my professor recommended Arendt's several pieces of writings including this one! Her ideas are profound and deep, so it was quite difficult for me to grasp on the first try :D
so valuable, thanks a lot. Seems today en vogue, to have facts appear as opinions and organized lying occurring everywhere, also here in Germany from left and right!
This is wonderful! I know a little bit about Arendt's work -- one of my professors wrote a book about her political theories, which I read. If I were to start reading her stuff, with some basic understanding of her, where should I start?
Thanks for your comment. If you're just starting out or looking to get a basic understanding, I think this essay "Truth and Politics" in Between Past and Future is a good place to start. You might also look at Pt. II of her short book On Violence. Eichmann in Jerusalem about the trial of Adolf Eichmann is perhaps her most famous work. Chapters 2, 3, and 8 of that book are also good for an introduction to the central problem Arendt was wrestling with throughout her career.
Sum: 1) Rational Truth (Science, mathematics , philosophy) have a certain kind of durability in that they are NOT based on unique events, but logical connections. If we lose , say, the rational truths of arithmetic, future generations can more or less reconstruct it arriving at the basic rules of say addition and subtraction etc. 2) Facts or "Factual Truth" is much more vulnerable-- esp. when it collides with political power structures. Why? Once we lose documentary evidence of events (chronicles, histories of the deeds and misdeeds of political actors, wars, etc.) it cannot be reestablished by the intellect like mathematical principles. Thus it is extremely vulnerable, and once obliterated (say by means of repression, censorship, book burnings etc.) it is GONE unless future generations can find archival evidence that survived. It's existence DEPENDS on records and not reason. 3) Thus it is something of a truism that when factual truth clashes with political power structures, it does not fare well (in Arendt's essay at beginning). The recorded facts are often at odds with the agendas and interests of those in power. They often conceal, destroy, or alter facts whether by "organized lying" (Arendt) or less systematic ways. "Once they are lost no rational effort will bring them back. Perhaps the chances of Euclidean geometry or Einstein's theory of relativity, let alone Plato's philosophy would have been reproduced in time if their authors had been prevented from handing them down to posterity are not very good either... Yet they are infinitely better than the chances that a fact of importance once forgotten, or more likely LIED AWAY will one day be rediscovered." 4) Thus she's mostly concerned with Truthtelling vs. Lying here. The biggest threat to facts are not false beliefs (even crackpot theories per se) but Organized Lying = biggest threwat. It is the coordinated and concerted effort to undermine or obliterate facts that threaten those in power for one reason or another. Why? 5) FACTS function as a check on power, and so public institutions like archives, clearinghouses, academic libraries and institutions and those experts and gatekeepers who insure that the quality of records is high serve a critical function to as CNN puts iti "keep them honest" so citizens know what has been done (action) and neglected by those in power. We must guard against politicians setting out to obliterate or dispute the basic facts of history and society without which no serious engagement with the political realm can be sustained ("Everything is possible and nothing is real") 6) The function of POLITICAL LYING is not to replace a set of facts with some substitute-- though that may be the apparent goal as with the attempt to instil conspiracy theories in the minds of citizens etc. But that's only a proximate and not the ultimatae goal. The ultimate goal is to LIE facts out of existence (perhaps using crackpot theories repeated so often that even if not believed, the public record is ultimately undermined. HOW? Well once rationalizations for censorship and other means of obliterating factuaL truth are found, we see things like "history laws" (e.g. Poland you can't say Poles ever collaborated with Nazis; i6'e ottiiwlly "untrue"; Turkey, you can't say there was Armenian Genocide--- it neer happened officially,; China -- Tianeman never happened. Can't be discussed, (see United Srates of Amnesia for account of the brutal treatment of those who witnessed it and spoke out). All this is organizwed lying-. So the goal is to undermine the "FActual character of realirty" and "TO MAKE FACTS SEEM LLIKE OPINIONS" (C.F. IDEA OF ALTERNATIVE FACTS). ONCE FACTS ARE LEVELLED OUT AND TREATED LIKE MERE OPINION, THERE IS NO LONGER THE POSSIBILITY FOR SHARED UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY SERVING AS A BASIS FOR DEBATING AND DISCUSSING POLICIES AS RESPONSES TO SITUATIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT ARE AGREED UPON ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC RECORDS, JOURNALISM, SOCIOLOGY ERTC. THEN THE DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETY AND ITS PROBLEMS AND NEEDED POLICIES NO LONGER RESTS ON SHARED KNOWLEDGE BUT BECOMES MALLEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO FABRICATE, PREVARICATE ETC. IN ORDER TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON SOCIETY. THIS IS THE HEART OF THE FASCIST PROJECT. SHE WRITES: "THE RESULT OF A CONSISTENT AND TOTAL SUBSTITUTION OF LIES FOR FACTUAL TRUTH IS *NOT * THAT LIES WILL NOW BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHS, AND TRUTHS DEFAMED AS LIES, BUT THAT THE SENSE BY WHICH WE TAKE OUR BEARINGS IN THE REAL WORLD--AND THE Categprua OF TGRUTH VS. FALSEHOOD IS AMONG THE MENTAL MEANS USED TO THIS END-- IS BEING DESTROYED." I.E. THE GOAL IS TO DISORIENT US, AND RENDER US SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE ARBITRARY REFASHIONING OF THE PUBLIC STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH POLITICAL ACTS AND DECISIONS ARE BASED. POWER DETERMINES ALLEGED FACTICITY, AND SHORT CIRCUITING THE POSSIBILITY OF CRITIQUE, DISSENT, OR SIMPLY HOLDING AUTHORITIES TO ACCOUNTS BASED ON ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE. FASCIST REGIMES TREAT FACTS AS ENEMIES WHENEVER THEY THWART THE WILL TO DOMINATION AT THE HEART OF THE FASCIST AND AUTHORITARIAN PROJECTS. IF GOV'TS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT FACTS THEY BECOME"SAYS LECTURER, "RADICALLY FREE." E.G. THEY CAN SAY THINGS AND THEN CLAIM THEY NEVER SAID THEM. THEY CAN REWRITE HISTORY IN SERVICE TO THEIR OWN INTERESTS. THEY CAN CATEGORIZE CERTAIN GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS AS "CRIMINALS" OR "PUBLIC ENEMIES" WITH NO OBJECTIVE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AT ALL. THIS OFTEN INCLUDES MINORITY GROUPS SCAPEGOATED, AND ALSO POLITICAL OPPONENTS. THUS WE MUST ACTIVELY SEEK TO PRESERVE THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT GATHER AND DISSEMINATE FACTUAL TRUTH RESPONSIBLY.
? Gore Vidal was a polemicist who also had a loose hold on historical fact. Fascists were not alone in disappearing fact as "politically incorrect", unless you consider Lenin, Mao and Pol-Pot fascist. Humans are imperfect, so it follows any civil framework will be imperfect. Best one so far? The American system of a slow, deliberate and distributed power structure rooted by (informed) People. Our struggle right now is our speed of light communication system is in conflict with this slow, deliberate, distributed system. Marshall McLuhan predicted that conflict more that 50 years ago.
@@nuqwestr Arendt doesn't say only fascists obliterate facts, but "totalitarian" regimes, which would include those you mention. I believe I was summarizing the video which concludes with a consideration of fascism. You're right that it could just as well apply to Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, et al. As for our current "struggle" with factuality in Western Liberal Democracies, that's a complex and difficult topic which is certainly exacerbated by changes in communications tech, but probably not reducible to them, imo.
I do like the video and I think you hit upon some really important points about the importance of facts but the essay itself is also much more complicated and nuanced than I think your presentation might allow for. Her emphasis on 'opinion' and 'quality opinion' in the essay and how opinion is actually the proper mode of political speech as it relates to politics seems to have not been emphasized as much other than a small allusion you make to debating which facts are important, etc. I do understand you were only highlighting one aspect of the essay but it seems to leave one with the impression that Arendt is somehow of the view that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'
Thanks for the informative... and terrifying... video. 'Between Past and Future' really crystallised the essence of modernity for me; but it does not make comfortable reading sometimes. XD
@@GreatBooksProf Honestly, I found your video by browsing after I did my own video this week on The Crisis in Education (this channel). I'm just some rando so forgive the presumption, but if you have 10 minutes to check out the "executive summary" and tell me if I'm way off... ^_^
This is a really interesting question. Arendt's major works were published just a bit before post-modernism really began to grow in influence. In many ways, I think the problems she identifies in "Truth and Politics" and in other places, like The Human Condition, are the same problems (or at least similar to the problems) that post-modernists were grappling with. Arendt's sense that truth as we have come to understand it politically is not as reliable or as durable as we would like is also, broadly speaking, the great insight of post-modern thinkers. Arendt seems to dedicate her time to developing political theoretical strategies for maintaining a system of meaning and a means of establishing truth in the face of an eroding confidence in reality. The post-modernist thought that develops in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is perhaps more interested in following through the implications of the idea that stories, language, and laws don't have stable meanings.
? I see the "Organized Lie" described by Hannah as coming from the DNC, not Trump. The organized lie about Biden's cognitive competence, then the organized lie about Harris' qualifications to be President. I'm a registered Dem in California, where the organized lie is disappearing the facts everyday, like what a woman is.
📚 If you'd like to LEARN MORE ABOUT HANNAH ARENDT and her political philosophy. Check out my playlist on the works of Hannah Arendt 👉 ua-cam.com/play/PLsrUuITxFGJ0a7GqQ3YjY2zMHe0hA85ig.html
Should also look at Jeffrey Talmon The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1961, I believe)...
Very good video-hopefully it won’t someday be scrubbed from the internet and said to have never existed!
Really great exposition. Clear, lucid, succinct. Not too long, no unnecessary excursions. Extremely helpful. THANK YOU!
Thanks for watching! I’m glad you found the video.
Listened to your videos to study for a political theory final exam. Appreciate the great summaries!
Good luck on your exam!
Please make one on Immanuel Kant. Love the way you break the concepts down and bring lucidity in understanding.
Highly underrated video
Fantastic explanation!! I needed this for a presentation for my Philosophy class. Thank you so much!
Just did a reading of the book, a lot of important points are very well explained in the video, great job
Thanks so much! Glad it was helpful!
Does she get deeper? This argument seems a bit superficial. For example people can experience the same events but with different perspective come out with different facts on the events. Or even if you agree on the facts your narratives might be different.
@@zombiedeathrays8862 Astute observation, Zombie Deathrays! Arendt goes much deeper into this question in a number of her works.
The problem of achieving objective knowledge of human events is one of her abiding concerns.
Think of how different people might interpret an argument at a party differently. The next day participants and spectators would have different views of what happened. Nevertheless, if someone asserted, "that argument never happened" we would respond, that "that's not true" or "that's incorrect," or "that's a lie."
Arendt's concern is that people in power try to make just this argument -- no one really knows what happened, no one can say with authority what happened. And by doing this they can get away with doing whatever they want and then denying they ever did it. That's a recipe for political evil.
It's possible that it's impossible to achieve perfect or even "mathematical" knowledge of human events. But we still seem able to know things with a degree of accuracy.
We can disagree about exactly what happened, or exactly how things happened. But it does seem possible to have better or worse knowledge of these things. One mistake people make is to say, "We can't have perfect knowledge of human events; therefore no opinion is better than any other. Anything can be anything."
But when we think about this, it's not really true. The example Arendt gives in "Truth and Politics" concerns WWII. She says, historians will debate the causes of WWII, what exactly happened, but it's clear that no one will say, "Poland invaded Germany."
She talks more about this problem and how we have historically grappled with it in The Human Condition and in her essay on Socrates.
One of the most helpful videos I've seen! Really helped me in class, thank you!
So glad to hear the video helped you out with the material!
your channel deserves more views and subs
Thank you! That's very kind of you to say.
i really appreciate the hard work you put into your channel ! thank you for helping me prepare my presentation on Hannah Arendt. All of your video along the bibliography are solid resources to cite. Thanks again and God bless.
Thank you. Good luck on your presentation!
amazing how well an accessible synthesis is done here
Thank you.
The New species example you mixed in some allégorie de la caverne in your drawings. Awsome
Thanks. I have her book but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I will now that I seen your video.
Thanks for watching!
great video! I suggest this book in the same line of the "Truth and Politics" - "Myriam Revault d’Allonnes, Brittle Truth"
I'm currently reading 'The Path to Mass Evil; Hannah Arendt and Totalitarianism Today', by Michael Hardiman (Routlege, 2023).
It might interest those who are trying to pay attention to the current iterations of Mussolini's definition of fascism as the marriage of state and corporate power.
“Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born.” Aneurin Bevan, who also witnessed the horrors of industrialised savagery masquerading as the pinnacle of civilisation.
Happy to find your page here by a link in twitter.Exactly the subjects I love to hear about..is there any way to have access to the transcripts of your videos?
I like this Hannah. She explains what my country suffers.
"The Organized Lie"?
thank you so much!! Now I understand it much better thanks to your video
Happy to hear that! Are you studying Arendt in a class?
@@GreatBooksProf No, I am writing an article on truth-telling (parrhesia) and flattery (both are Michel Foucault's concepts) in current politics, and my professor recommended Arendt's several pieces of writings including this one! Her ideas are profound and deep, so it was quite difficult for me to grasp on the first try :D
@@secretyouth5925 That sounds really interesting! Good luck with your research. I’m glad you found the video useful.
@@GreatBooksProf Thank you so much!!
beautifully illustrated! thank you!!
Thank you for the kind comment! I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
so valuable, thanks a lot. Seems today en vogue, to have facts appear as opinions and organized lying occurring everywhere, also here in Germany from left and right!
This is wonderful! I know a little bit about Arendt's work -- one of my professors wrote a book about her political theories, which I read. If I were to start reading her stuff, with some basic understanding of her, where should I start?
Thanks for your comment. If you're just starting out or looking to get a basic understanding, I think this essay "Truth and Politics" in Between Past and Future is a good place to start. You might also look at Pt. II of her short book On Violence. Eichmann in Jerusalem about the trial of Adolf Eichmann is perhaps her most famous work. Chapters 2, 3, and 8 of that book are also good for an introduction to the central problem Arendt was wrestling with throughout her career.
Thanks for the video!
You’re welcome!
Sum:
1) Rational Truth (Science, mathematics , philosophy) have a certain kind of durability in that they are NOT based on unique events, but logical connections. If we lose , say, the rational truths of arithmetic, future generations can more or less reconstruct it arriving at the basic rules of say addition and subtraction etc.
2) Facts or "Factual Truth" is much more vulnerable-- esp. when it collides with political power structures. Why? Once we lose documentary evidence of events (chronicles, histories of the deeds and misdeeds of political actors, wars, etc.) it cannot be reestablished by the intellect like mathematical principles. Thus it is extremely vulnerable, and once obliterated (say by means of repression, censorship, book burnings etc.) it is GONE unless future generations can find archival evidence that survived. It's existence DEPENDS on records and not reason.
3) Thus it is something of a truism that when factual truth clashes with political power structures, it does not fare well (in Arendt's essay at beginning). The recorded facts are often at odds with the agendas and interests of those in power. They often conceal, destroy, or alter facts whether by "organized lying" (Arendt) or less systematic ways. "Once they are lost no rational effort will bring them back. Perhaps the chances of Euclidean geometry or Einstein's theory of relativity, let alone Plato's philosophy would have been reproduced in time if their authors had been prevented from handing them down to posterity are not very good either... Yet they are infinitely better than the chances that a fact of importance once forgotten, or more likely LIED AWAY will one day be rediscovered."
4) Thus she's mostly concerned with Truthtelling vs. Lying here. The biggest threat to facts are not false beliefs (even crackpot theories per se) but Organized Lying = biggest threwat. It is the coordinated and concerted effort to undermine or obliterate facts that threaten those in power for one reason or another. Why?
5) FACTS function as a check on power, and so public institutions like archives, clearinghouses, academic libraries and institutions and those experts and gatekeepers who insure that the quality of records is high serve a critical function to as CNN puts iti "keep them honest" so citizens know what has been done (action) and neglected by those in power. We must guard against politicians setting out to obliterate or dispute the basic facts of history and society without which no serious engagement with the political realm can be sustained ("Everything is possible and nothing is real")
6) The function of POLITICAL LYING is not to replace a set of facts with some substitute-- though that may be the apparent goal as with the attempt to instil conspiracy theories in the minds of citizens etc. But that's only a proximate and not the ultimatae goal. The ultimate goal is to LIE facts out of existence (perhaps using crackpot theories repeated so often that even if not believed, the public record is ultimately undermined. HOW? Well once rationalizations for censorship and other means of obliterating factuaL truth are found, we see things like "history laws" (e.g. Poland you can't say Poles ever collaborated with Nazis; i6'e ottiiwlly "untrue"; Turkey, you can't say there was Armenian Genocide--- it neer happened officially,; China -- Tianeman never happened. Can't be discussed, (see United Srates of Amnesia for account of the brutal treatment of those who witnessed it and spoke out). All this is organizwed lying-. So the goal is to undermine the "FActual character of realirty" and "TO MAKE FACTS SEEM LLIKE OPINIONS" (C.F. IDEA OF ALTERNATIVE FACTS).
ONCE FACTS ARE LEVELLED OUT AND TREATED LIKE MERE OPINION, THERE IS NO LONGER THE POSSIBILITY FOR SHARED UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY SERVING AS A BASIS FOR DEBATING AND DISCUSSING POLICIES AS RESPONSES TO SITUATIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT ARE AGREED UPON ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC RECORDS, JOURNALISM, SOCIOLOGY ERTC. THEN THE DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETY AND ITS PROBLEMS AND NEEDED POLICIES NO LONGER RESTS ON SHARED KNOWLEDGE BUT BECOMES MALLEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO FABRICATE, PREVARICATE ETC. IN ORDER TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON SOCIETY. THIS IS THE HEART OF THE FASCIST PROJECT. SHE WRITES:
"THE RESULT OF A CONSISTENT AND TOTAL SUBSTITUTION OF LIES FOR FACTUAL TRUTH IS *NOT * THAT LIES WILL NOW BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHS, AND TRUTHS DEFAMED AS LIES, BUT THAT THE SENSE BY WHICH WE TAKE OUR BEARINGS IN THE REAL WORLD--AND THE Categprua OF TGRUTH VS. FALSEHOOD IS AMONG THE MENTAL MEANS USED TO THIS END-- IS BEING DESTROYED." I.E. THE GOAL IS TO DISORIENT US, AND RENDER US SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE ARBITRARY REFASHIONING OF THE PUBLIC STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH POLITICAL ACTS AND DECISIONS ARE BASED. POWER DETERMINES ALLEGED FACTICITY, AND SHORT CIRCUITING THE POSSIBILITY OF CRITIQUE, DISSENT, OR SIMPLY HOLDING AUTHORITIES TO ACCOUNTS BASED ON ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE.
FASCIST REGIMES TREAT FACTS AS ENEMIES WHENEVER THEY THWART THE WILL TO DOMINATION AT THE HEART OF THE FASCIST AND AUTHORITARIAN PROJECTS.
IF GOV'TS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT FACTS THEY BECOME"SAYS LECTURER, "RADICALLY FREE."
E.G. THEY CAN SAY THINGS AND THEN CLAIM THEY NEVER SAID THEM.
THEY CAN REWRITE HISTORY IN SERVICE TO THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
THEY CAN CATEGORIZE CERTAIN GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS AS "CRIMINALS" OR "PUBLIC ENEMIES" WITH NO OBJECTIVE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AT ALL. THIS OFTEN INCLUDES MINORITY GROUPS SCAPEGOATED, AND ALSO POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THUS WE MUST ACTIVELY SEEK TO PRESERVE THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT GATHER AND DISSEMINATE FACTUAL TRUTH RESPONSIBLY.
? Gore Vidal was a polemicist who also had a loose hold on historical fact. Fascists were not alone in disappearing fact as "politically incorrect", unless you consider Lenin, Mao and Pol-Pot fascist. Humans are imperfect, so it follows any civil framework will be imperfect. Best one so far? The American system of a slow, deliberate and distributed power structure rooted by (informed) People. Our struggle right now is our speed of light communication system is in conflict with this slow, deliberate, distributed system. Marshall McLuhan predicted that conflict more that 50 years ago.
@@nuqwestr Arendt doesn't say only fascists obliterate facts, but "totalitarian" regimes, which would include those you mention. I believe I was summarizing the video which concludes with a consideration of fascism. You're right that it could just as well apply to Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, et al. As for our current "struggle" with factuality in Western Liberal Democracies, that's a complex and difficult topic which is certainly exacerbated by changes in communications tech, but probably not reducible to them, imo.
@@silverskid Agreed, tyranny knows no political party, it is non-partisan.
I do like the video and I think you hit upon some really important points about the importance of facts but the essay itself is also much more complicated and nuanced than I think your presentation might allow for. Her emphasis on 'opinion' and 'quality opinion' in the essay and how opinion is actually the proper mode of political speech as it relates to politics seems to have not been emphasized as much other than a small allusion you make to debating which facts are important, etc.
I do understand you were only highlighting one aspect of the essay but it seems to leave one with the impression that Arendt is somehow of the view that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'
ty this helps for my political theory class
Thanks for the informative... and terrifying... video. 'Between Past and Future' really crystallised the essence of modernity for me; but it does not make comfortable reading sometimes. XD
Thanks Adam! That's a good description. Arendt is quite prescient, sometimes so prescient it's chilling.
@@GreatBooksProf Honestly, I found your video by browsing after I did my own video this week on The Crisis in Education (this channel). I'm just some rando so forgive the presumption, but if you have 10 minutes to check out the "executive summary" and tell me if I'm way off... ^_^
This video is amazing, helped me a lot ! Thank you so much!
You’re welcome! Are you studying Arendt for a class?
really helpful video, thank you a lot!!
Hey Fernanda, Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!
Fact: This is a good video!
🤯 Amazing.
Haha. Thanks Jane. I appreciate that!
Amazing content!
Glad you enjoyed it! Have you been reading Arendt recently?
❤❤❤
excellent
👍
Can we call this a post-modern thought of Hannah Arendt?
This is a really interesting question. Arendt's major works were published just a bit before post-modernism really began to grow in influence.
In many ways, I think the problems she identifies in "Truth and Politics" and in other places, like The Human Condition, are the same problems (or at least similar to the problems) that post-modernists were grappling with. Arendt's sense that truth as we have come to understand it politically is not as reliable or as durable as we would like is also, broadly speaking, the great insight of post-modern thinkers.
Arendt seems to dedicate her time to developing political theoretical strategies for maintaining a system of meaning and a means of establishing truth in the face of an eroding confidence in reality. The post-modernist thought that develops in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is perhaps more interested in following through the implications of the idea that stories, language, and laws don't have stable meanings.
@@GreatBooksProf Thanks for a wonderful explanation Professor.
Thanks from India 🇮🇳
Very pertinent in the era of someone like Trump.
? I see the "Organized Lie" described by Hannah as coming from the DNC, not Trump. The organized lie about Biden's cognitive competence, then the organized lie about Harris' qualifications to be President. I'm a registered Dem in California, where the organized lie is disappearing the facts everyday, like what a woman is.
I love you that's it ❤😊
I am writing a paper about Donald Trumps lies and lying in politics. This video was very helpfull :)
who's gonna tell her that history repeats itself. 😂
emerging left wing fascist: Western world.
emerging right wing fascist: Eastern world.
History does not repeat itself, but DNA does. Yes, the fascist left is disappearing the facts everyday, like what is a woman.