Hannah Arendt s character commentary, the three levels of Hannah Arendt s life

Summary. Hannah Arendt discusses the three levels of life: survival, life, and existence.

Survival refers to the level at which people maintain life by satisfying material needs, life refers to the level at which people actively participate in and create the world and obtain more levels, and existence refers to the level at which personal value is realized through thinking, decision-making and action. She believes that life and existence are higher levels, and existence is the ultimate goal of human beings. By jumping between life and existence, people can discover the true meaning of life and embody the social value of human nature.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit more?

Hannah Arendt discusses the three levels of life: survival, life, and existence. Survival refers to the level of human beings who maintain life by satisfying material needs, life refers to the level of human active participation and creation in the world to obtain more levels, and existence refers to the level of realizing personal value through thinking, decision-making and action.

She believes that life and existence are relatively advanced levels, and existence is the ultimate goal of human beings. By jumping between life and existence, people can discover the true meaning of life and embody the social value of human nature.

1. The Collected Letters of Arendt and Heidegger

2. The Letters of Arendt and Jaspers

3. "The Letters of Arendt and Bruucher" (Bruychelle is Arendt's husband for the next thirty years).

4. Arendt and Mary Wheat Cartis Letters

5. Arendt and Kurd Blumenfeld's Letters (Kurd is the person who introduced the Jewish perspective into Arendt's; One of the leaders of the European Jewish organization in the thirties. ）

6. "I Want to Understand: About My Life and Writings".

7. "Augustine's Idea of Love" (Ph.D. completed at Jaspers in the twenties) and two or three other anthologies on the Zionist question, "The Zionist Dilemma: Essays and Commentaries", "Israel and Anti-Semitism", etc., by others.

Arendt has a context of her own, and I'm interested in, is that context axiomatiomatic? The axiomatic basis on which it is based is **? Now it seems, some of her arguments seem to float in the air.

Without delving into her redefinition of vocabulary (e.g., labor and work), the proposition that "man is a being limited by circumstances" seems to be ungrounded and not fully convincing.

Or is it that she mentions in the interview that she is not a philosopher, but in fact implies a rejection of the axiomatic rules of the game?

On the other hand, two of her important events seem to be in the same logical vein as "we can draw important lessons from the experience of people who lived 2,500 years ago." It seems to me that attempts to examine the human mind from a historical perspective (psyche) are in themselves very dangerous attempts, because most intuitive studies of the mind rely on a great deal of observation, personal experience, and experimentation.

It is difficult to say whether the mind of humanity as a whole has changed radically as a result of the rocket lift-off. If this change is true, have the use of fire, the emergence of classes, and the introduction of modern psychology (although the first two are more difficult to classify as events) also brought about such fundamental changes?

If I can't answer this question, I think Arendt's view on this point will be a matter of first taking a position and then selectively extracting the phenomenon, that is, first having her set of contexts, and then picking out some events in the long river of human history as evidence.

Of course I have my own set of worldviews, so from a belief point of view, I don't believe in her point of view, nor do I believe that her point of view is anything higher than belief. I'd love to know how much you believe in her ideas as you study her theories and mirror them with reality. (I tend not to say the word "beconvinced", since there is no axiomatic proof of derivation for Arendt's view).

Whatever your answer, my view is that this mental process of choosing to believe or not to believe is homogeneous with the mental process that Arendt (and other political philosophers) put forward his own theories, and that it is again dominated by emotions rather than by reason.

Julia Kristiva (born Bulgaria in 1941 and emigrated to France in 1966) is currently a professor at the University of Paris VII and an iconic theorist of French feminism. Together with Sisu and Illigre, it constitutes the "new holy trinity of French feminist theory". Her knowledge spans linguistics, semiotics, structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, cultural criticism, literary theory, and literary creation.

His main works include "The Power of Terror: On Despicability", "Pluralistic Logic", "Women's Nature: Life, Madness and Words", etc.

As Heidegger's pupil and lover, Hannah Arendt was always interested in his work, but was liberated from him to become a controversial and indispensable political theorist. We will see how she auscultates Heidegger's "here and now" and replaces Heidegger's feeling of loneliness "abandoned" with the masterful skill of "appearing" in relationships. "Appearing" reveals to each person their own indelible uniqueness, as we see in Arendt.

Banal evil and fundamental evil.

Not long ago, when I read the newspaper, there were two pieces of news that caught my attention: one was that when the two producers and four sellers of the Sanlu milk powder case were tried, the "drug boss" confessed in court and said: I am also a father; Another is to say that "strictly prevent ** from visiting abroad and not returning", so there are four "new measures".

Let's start with the first one. The "drug boss" (Zhang Yujun) said, "I am also the father of three children", and there has been no follow-up since.

What does it mean, "You are the father of three?" It shows that you don't know that "melamine" (protein powder) is toxic, so you also seep lead and make your child eat Sanlu milk powder all the time; Is that so?

If you don't let your child eat this milk powder, what does it mean that you are a father of three? Do you mean that you are a kind and good father who is full of fatherly affection for his children?

I believe this. The question is: Why are these "good people" who have been making and selling melamine for so many years, causing hundreds of thousands of children to suffer for the rest of their lives, and some of them will be miserable for the rest of their lives?