I’m not allowed to be concerned with Israel fucking around with nuclear reactors and potentially creating a cherbobyl level meltdown illegally bombing them because Iran is a “bad guy”?

What is this “good guy” “bad guy” politics you’re talking about?

I’m not 3 you can use a bigger word.

I think the better way to analyze this situation is as “attacker” and “defender”.

Someone is starting a war, violating an international border, and instigating the first attacks. Who is it?

Oh we’re quoting the IAEA?

Speaking on the final day of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting, Grossi warned that attacks on nuclear sites are in direct violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Agency’s Statute.

“I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities should not be targeted under any circumstances, as this could harm people and the environment. Such attacks have serious consequences for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security,” Grossi stressed.

-Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

https://www.azernews.az/region/243249.html

And are these your own views too? I thought you said you didn’t know what to make of her.

Oh I get that comes across weird, I’m looking all this stuff up as you’re challenging me on it and what I’m finding is starting to solidify my views a bit more.

I have to admit I’m not particularly invested in this issue, but I do think it’s a gross mischaracterisation to say the letters post relationship somehow constitute an ongoing affair. They quite obviously don’t.

That doesn’t seem as obvious to the New Yorker

In 1950, seventeen years after they had last communicated, Arendt and Heidegger met again, when she went to Germany to help track down stolen Jewish cultural treasures. At times, she had been publicly critical of Heidegger’s behavior during his rectorship and afterward, but the renewal of their ties banished all her suspicions. “This evening and this morning are the confirmation of an entire life,” she wrote to him after their meeting. For the next two years, their love enjoyed a brief afterlife, as Heidegger wrote poems about her and told her things like “I wish I could run the five-fingered comb through your frizzy hair.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/01/12/beware-of-pity-Hannah-Arendt

(The author betrays a very obvious bias about what we’re supposed to take away to be fair)

When I quoted her, my intention was simply to communicate that specific idea, with which I agree - not to evoke her as if she were some kind of infallible god.

Yeah I’m with you there.

As far as I’m aware historians have not found any evidence that Arendt was any more aware of the content of the notebooks than anyone else was.

That I’m not sure.

I don’t think I really know enough to have a right to that strong a view when the historical record seems to be changing so recently and most of her letters are lost whole she kept all of Heideggers, but what I’m finding is a bit troubling tbh.

For over half a century she was considered the best source of insight into Eichmann and Nazi psychology.

With new knowledge about her conflict of interest and defence of Heidegger I’m left wondering how much of an expert she should be considered.

It seems from the evidence, Heidegger was a willing and complicit Nazi who wrote about genuinely antisemetic views. In that light, Hannah’s defence of him is surprising.

I’m unsure of what go make of her psychological evaluation capabilities if she had such a glaring blindspot here.

I’m not in favour of abandoning the concepts of ideology and interpretation because Althusser murdered his wife, similarly I’m not going to abandon the concept of the banality of evil because Arendt was deluded about a creepy professor she had an affair with.

Right, neither am I.

That’s why I didn’t abandon it and instead said I am unsure what to make of it.

I’m not trying to come to a black or white conclusion, I think this is a complicated subject.

The romantic choices of many of us between the ages of 18-21 (her age during their actual affair) probably don’t bear scrutiny.

I’m not scrutinizing her for any choices between 18 and 21.

This was a lifelong relationship, Hannah herself reached out and continued writing letters in his defense from the 1950s to her death.

An ex who later became a nazi (and then recanted) is probably an excellent example of how quotidian these kinds of evils can be.

Ex? No.

Recanted? They denied he had any nazi sympathy and claimed it was all a mistake

Later, in a 1969 birthday tribute essay “Martin Heidegger at Eighty,” Arendt penned what has generally been taken as an exoneration of Heidegger. In it, she “compared Heidegger to Thales,” writes Gordon, “the ancient philosopher who grew so absorbed in contemplating the heavens that he stumbled into the well at his feet.”

This was the accepted view of Heidegger until 2014 when the black notebooks came out

But major Heidegger scholars have responded in a variety of ways—including resigning a chairship of the Martin Heidegger Society—that suggest the worst. According to Daily Nous, a website about the philosophy profession, when Günter Figal resigned his position in January as chair of the Martin Heidegger Society, he said:

As chairman of a society, which is named after a person, one is in certain way a representative of that person. After reading the Schwarze Hefte [Black Notebooks], especially the antisemitic passages, I do not wish to be such a representative any longer. These statements have not only shocked me, but have turned me around to such an extent that it has become difficult to be a co-representative of this.

Hannah defends him as just so focused on high philosophy he never noticed the antisemitism

Recalls Adam Kirsch in the Times:

The seal was set on his absolution by Hannah Arendt, in a birthday address broadcast on West German radio. Heidegger’s Nazism, she explained, was an “escapade,” a mistake, which happened only because the thinker naïvely “succumbed to the temptation … to ‘intervene’ in the world of human affairs.” The moral to be drawn from the Heidegger case was that “the thinking ‘I’ is entirely different from the self of consciousness,” so that Heidegger’s thought cannot be contaminated by the actions of the mere man.

https://www.openculture.com/2015/03/martin-heideggers-black-notebooks-reveal-the-depth-of-anti-semitism.html

but I don’t think it’s a case of contagion.

Modern scholars seem to say otherwise

In a long, carefully documented essay, Wasserstein (who’s now at the University of Chicago), cites Arendt’s scandalous use of quotes from anti-Semitic and Nazi “authorities” on Jews in her Totalitarianism book.

Wasserstein concludes that her use of these sources was “more than a methodological error: it was symptomatic of a perverse world-view contaminated by over-exposure to the discourse of collective contempt and stigmatization that formed the object of her study”—that object being anti-Semitism. In other words, he contends, Arendt internalized the values of the anti-Semitic literature she read in her study of anti-Semitism, at least to a certain extent

https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/10/troubling-new-revelations-about-arendt-and-heidegger.html

I still don’t know what to make of her views on nazis given the fact she had a lifelong romantic relationship with the one who ejected her and other Jews from her university.

Did Heidegger not also possess this “banality of evil”? Or was he somehow an acception?

That is outrageous! It’s unfair!

Lmao, k

If the question is things “only” old people say, you have to exclude phrases old people say that were repopularized through media.

“Heavy” (meaning important, grave)

For example this is a really quotable line from Back to the Future, so kids would pick it up.

Yea not serious.

Authority means force.

Your dentist does not have the ability, to force you to do anything. They are an “authority” in the sense they know a lot about teeth so we willingly ask them for help.

That is clearly not the same type of authority being discussed in authoritarianism.

Stop comparing Hitler to your dentist.

What? Take the discussion seriously.

We don’t confer power to them. I am the authority and I consent to the dentist cleaning my teeth but the second I say “no” their ability to operate is taken away.

Try telling “no” to a cop trying to arrest you.

A dentist has no authority over you. If you choose not to brush your teeth they can’t force you to, they can’t do dental work unless you willingly seek them put and consent.

A plumber has not authority to enter your home or mess with your plumbing unless you invite them in.

You’re misusing the word “authority” and applying it out of context.