Arendt pissing Scholem off is funny. Just the concept of women pissing men off is funny to me, for no reason at all. So let’s look at another interaction of the 20th century
Arendt’s The Human Condition may be read both in its structure and in its themes–action, the world, the principle of individuation, the public realm—as a veritable retort and reply to Heidegger. Arendt is likened to the Maid from Thrace, a reference to Plato’s Theaetetus wherein the Maid laughs at the philosopher who, while walking with his gaze to the stars above, falls into a well.
This “interaction” between them is one of the most taboo subjects for our zeitgeist, if you know what I’m hinting at. I’ll be fair and even say it probably tells you something about Heidegger’s conflicted psyche. I know it’s exactly “what the people want” and I’m not getting into that. Arendt WAS the well that Heidegger fell into. Reminds me of you demiurge-enjoyers who talk about khazar milkers. I think I speak for every man when I say that sometimes a pair of breasts makes you contemplate abandoning all your noblest principles. “No, that’s just you, you have been the real monkey all along!” Okay, let’s just move on from this subject now.
This is Arendt describing this Phenomenologist
The rumor, she wrote, that attracted them to Freiburg-in-Breisgau and later Marburg, “had it that there was someone who was actually attaining ‘the things’ that Husserl had proclaimed, someone who knew that these things were not academic matters but the concerns of thinking men
“The ‘things’ like boobs–those ‘things’?” No, the things like purified experience of the world. How to see reality. People thought Heidegger could do that, Arendt among them. I just need to ball this post up at this point, don’t I? No, my readers can be mature, I trust in them.
You might notice the theme of “paradigmatic” here again – Arendt had her own way to “see reality” and attain the things themselves. This is an “ultimate debate”, one between a German man and a Jewish woman, on the subject that is nothing less than What Reality Is.
Aren’t we already at levels of pure poison here?
It gets pretty complex
Durchsichtigkeit (transparency), Gewissen (conscience), Entschlossen-sein
(being-resolute) and Augenblick (moment of vision).
“I don’t care, I’m right and you’re wrong.” Ehhh.
Arendt was in Heidegger’s class on Plato’s Sophist – this is him describing what the Ancient Greeks sought to do
remaining as long as possible within the pure consideration and within the pure presence of what is eternal
This is called sophia. This is what he believed was authentic existence.
Kind of gives you pause when you try to put yourself in the pure presence of what is eternal.
You can feel that when you read Heidegger.
I don’t care if the world is against me, because that’s where I proceed from in my political musings.
The eternal is a somber subject that silences all blasphemers.
Are they too arrogant for this these days?
Heidegger’s course on The Sophist opened up the way for “a set of problems of immediate and urgent importance” for her…
The translators of this course bungled it in my opinion. They don’t even translate the Greek. So it’s mostly still unknown to us.
Heidegger’s corpus is immense and I’m still surprised to find some statements of his – the following for instance I wouldn’t have expected him to say
Admitting that phronesis is the most serious and decisive knowledge, then the science developing in the field of phronesis would be the highest science. And inasmuch as man is a zöon politikon, inasmuch as his Dasein is with others, then authentic sophia would be political science. As a consequence, the philosopher might be the true politician.
This is related to my previous post on practical policies being rooted in the highest reality. Do you think many of our politicians stand in the presence of the eternal?
I bet a jewess reading this has done lots of that, right right wink wink. In all likelihood being a materialist, they probably think the eternal is an empty concept anyway.
She doesn’t even mention Heidegger’s name once in this book, isn’t that precious
Arendt’s analysis of active life in The Human Condition may be considered as the attempt to consider from a fresh perspective all the Platonic and Aristotelian themes reappropriated by Heidegger in the lecture course on The Sophist and subsequently in Being and Time: doxa, rhetoric, work, action, public and private, immortality, eudaimonia.
Her “retort” is on the side of the life of practice over the life of theory–bios politikos vs. bios theoretikos–which are regarded as two types of excellence. Speaking of eternal, this debate seems eternal. Heidegger believed the everyday world was inauthentic, whereas for Arendt the everyday world is the only place authenticity can take place. Try bringing up eternity in the everyday world, you’ll probably look like a sperg. And it’s probably inauthentic people who would judge you thus…
Don’t worry, any day now they’re going to be making a Netflix special on this debate of theirs. Heh, nothing says “everyday world” more than that film they made about Arendt a decade ago.
This debate is probably important to study given the fact that we’re living in a Jewish woman’s world. Perhaps Heidegger was right about some things?
I guess, ironically, people are too busy thinking about “current events” to focus on this. Oooh so now we know the idea of the “theoretical life” and its opposite. Thought you knew what it was only to discover yourself on the same side as a jewess.
Anyway, needless to say, Arendt was bitter about Heidegger’s political decisions
a withdrawal from human plurality and the common world of appearances in which the mortals live, is deemed to be for each one the prelude to sophia
His politics were perceived by her as his idea of “sophia“. I suspect there was some trauma behind her turn to the common world of appearances.
I’ve just given you a glance, there’s lots more to this debate.