4 ms·

> these intellectual and cultural giants of that time are argued to have not really _defined_ the thought of that time, but rather were elevated and canonized a

> these intellectual and cultural giants of that time are argued to have not really _defined_ the thought of that time, but rather were elevated and canonized according to the needs of Cold War politics. I've often felt this, specifically with Arendt. Even though I have heard her referenced 100 times or more this was the first time I realized she was Kantian. I had actually just assumed she was an important voice in feminist philosophy that I just hadn't dove deep into, like a proto Judith Butler. I admit I am just ignorant of that vein of Western cultural philosophy. But she is positioned so often as an expert on the cultural philosophy of WW2, especially the holocaust (again, another subject I'm not very read up on). When that characterization pops up I cynically assume that her intersectionality is the reason, since she is both Jewish and a woman which leads to a different perspective than found elsewhere. I started to resent my own cynicism and I have always had in the back of my mind the intention to actually read something by her, just to see if she is being tokenized or if there is really something there. This article was more like gossip to me than a good introduction to Arendt. After reading it, I still don't know if there is much to gain from her thought outside of her unique perspective on the tragedy of the holocaust and some salacious talk about her affairs with Heidegger.

DiscourseFan 3y ago
Its difficult to say who has the best "voice" on the holocaust (I would say, tentatively, Adorno), but its impossible to ignore Heidegger's analysis, especially the late Heidegger ("Question Concerning Technology"), in considering the technorationality of the SS. The trouble with Arendt is not that she is a Kantian, its that she is a very bad Kantian, and one who fails to see how Kant as phenomenological, via Schelling and Hegel, was instrumental in Nazi politics; only Heidegger was able to elucidate properly this problematic of Kantian "Freedom," especially political Freedom, which could be seen by later thinkers like Foucault and Deleuze & Guattari as in fact only an instrumental freedom, freedom to be instrumentalized in a grander machine. But there are many people who like Adorno better since he seems to offer something more than an elucidation of the unfreedom of freedom; his "negative dialectic" contains within it the possibility of redemption.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  That is some good context, thank you. I wasn't planning on reading Arendt specifically for her take on the holocaust - more for her general views. Adorno is another philosopher I hear brought up a lot in this context and I'm mostly unfamiliar with his positions. I have at most a rudimentary understanding of that Frankfurt school of critical theory. One of the problems of being an amateur is that I don't really follow a systematic path through material. Critical Theory is probably the most contemporary connection in the timeline of philosophy that I am drawn to (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger) although I am probably more interested in American Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Rorty). Postmodernism is a bit beyond me at this point, it just gets too political with its connection to Marx. I honestly would prefer to stay in the meta-physical.

DiscourseFan 3y ago

Its difficult to say who has the best "voice" on the holocaust (I would say, tentatively, Adorno), but its impossible to ignore Heidegger's analysis, especially the late Heidegger ("Question Concerning Technology"), in considering the technorationality of the SS. The trouble with Arendt is not that she is a Kantian, its that she is a very bad Kantian, and one who fails to see how Kant as phenomenological, via Schelling and Hegel, was instrumental in Nazi politics; only Heidegger was able to elucidate properly this problematic of Kantian "Freedom," especially political Freedom, which could be seen by later thinkers like Foucault and Deleuze & Guattari as in fact only an instrumental freedom, freedom to be instrumentalized in a grander machine. But there are many people who like Adorno better since he seems to offer something more than an elucidation of the unfreedom of freedom; his "negative dialectic" contains within it the possibility of redemption.

zoogeny 3y ago
That is some good context, thank you. I wasn't planning on reading Arendt specifically for her take on the holocaust - more for her general views. Adorno is another philosopher I hear brought up a lot in this context and I'm mostly unfamiliar with his positions. I have at most a rudimentary understanding of that Frankfurt school of critical theory. One of the problems of being an amateur is that I don't really follow a systematic path through material. Critical Theory is probably the most contemporary connection in the timeline of philosophy that I am drawn to (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger) although I am probably more interested in American Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Rorty). Postmodernism is a bit beyond me at this point, it just gets too political with its connection to Marx. I honestly would prefer to stay in the meta-physical.