The Human Condition (notes)
"Should the emancipation and secularization of the modern age, which began with a turning-away, not necessarily from God, but from a god who was the Father of men in heaven, end with an even more fateful repudiation of an Earth who was the Mother of all living creatures under the sky?"
Right away Arendt is going after the Enlightenment and it’s rejection of the loving, immanent God in exchange for the calculated, necessary being that helped form the basis of scientific advancement. The problem is not the science, but the lack of ethics in connection to sceience and technology. The new humanism becomes a dehumanization of humanity that could ultimately lead to absolute and total annihilation of people and other life on earth.
"This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians."
Arendt seems to use “politics” as a term for basic human connection and ethics. Politics is human acting in relation to each other. I actually very much like this definition of politics. In this sense Jesus and Paul become political activists in the call to love the neighbor. Arendt is questioning the political, and therefore, ethical implications of a purely “objective” science that can potentionally be devastating towards real people in the world. Where are the ethical boundaries upon science and technology?
"If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is."
“Know-how” is a Heideggerean term for knowledge in relation to practical application. Know-how is not thought; it’s simply the knowledge in relation to a tool. Heideggar famously refers to know-how in terms of learning how to use a hammer (the ability to use the hammer to hammer a nail). Thought is beyond know-how. Arendt is concerned that all pursuits of knowledge in the modern world focus on know-how, in terms of technology, as opposed to thought, which would be related to politics/ethics.
"However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain consequences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being."
I haven’t thought about this before but I suppose it would be true. I know that Derrida worked with Arendt’s thought and this would seem to be something he would be interested in. Arendt is going to go deeper in regards to this with her exploration of how mathematical symbols have gotten to the point of being beyond speech.
"If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present statuts of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a “language” of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech."
Fascinating. Not sure what all the implications of this are. But she is going to go on to say that some scientists have been irresponsible in their pursuit of technological advancement.
"The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of “character” - that they did not refuse to develop atomic weapons - or their naivete - that they did not understand that once these weapons were developed they would be the last to be consulted about their use - but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevant to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves."
Here she condemns lack of character and ignorance in the development of technology (in this case the atomic bomb). How many other technologies could we add to this? She still has not spoken about “objectivity” in terms of “free markets” in economics or in criminal justice and law. These deceptions of objectivity lead to a cover up for all manners of political/ethical injustice in the world. How can we speak about science, technology, government, law, and economics in terms of justice and love? How can we bring all of this together? Wouldn’t this be the goal of a society? If the final question becomes “How does this help me love the neighbor today?” then all of our pursuits in terms of science, technology, government, law, and economics would shift. And if that is not the final goal of society than what are we really attempting in our communities across this world?
"This is the advent of automation, which in a few decades probably will empty the factories and liberate mankind from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of laboring and the bondage to necessity. Here, too, a fundamental aspect of the human condition is at stake, but the rebellion against it, the wish to be liberated from labor’s “toil and trouble,” is not modern but as old as recorded history. Freedom from labor itself is not new; it once belonged among the most firmly established priviliges of the few."
Right away I think of Kierkegaard and his emphasis on the intrinsic need for both the necessary and the possible. Arendt is concerned about humanity attempting to lose certain aspects of itself that have always been true: the connection to the earth, the need to labor, and the reality of speech, and the political responsibility towards the other. In this case science and technology pursue the end of labor through automation. But is this truly desirable? Is the goal of a person to not labor? Where does this idea come from? At the same time the 20th century saw mass movements endorsing communism, socialism, and Marxism which all honor the working class. She wisely points out that this escape from labor has always been connected with the most priviliged and powerful in a society. I would add that these people, kings and tsars and dictators, have been the examples of the worst in our world in all of human history. Why would we want to imitate them? Arendt doesn’t understand why modern humanity hates being human so much.
"The modern age has carried with it a theoretical glorification of labor and has resulted in a factual transformation of the whole of society into a laboring society. The fulfilment of the wish, therefore, like the fulfilment of wishes in fairy tales, comes at a moment when it can only be self-defeating. It is a society of laborers which is about to be liberated from the fetters of labor, and this society does no longer know of those other higher and more meaningful activities for the sake of which this freedom would deserve to be won. Within this society, which is egalitarian because this is labor’s way of making men live together, there is no class left, no aristocracy of either a political or spiritual nature from which a restoration of the other capacities of man could start anew. Even presidents, kings, and prime ministers think of their offices in terms of a job necessary for the life of society, and among the intellectuals, only solitary individuals are left who consider what they are doing in terms of work and not in terms of making a living. What we are confronted with is the prospect of a society of laborers without labor, that is, without the only activity left to them. Surely, nothing could be worse."
Arendt later distinguishes between three things: labor, work, and action. Labor has to do with necessary-ness associated with survival as a human being. Work has to do with unnatural “worldly” work that we create artificially. Action has to do with political action that is related to community as opposed to a single human being living in isolation. She is concerned about the modern world where there is labor without labor (work?) that is divorced from action (political/ethical responsibility towards the other). This leads to a spiritual destitution that creates political climates ripe for totalitarian governments. This is an obvious next step once individuals are divorced from their political responsibilities towards each other. Power (responsibility) is given up to a dictator.
"What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing."
And here Arendt asks the same question that I have been thinking about in relation to politics in recent years: What are we doing and why? The book will be exploring that question going forward. And I am stoked to engage with her on this all-important subject!
