Ah, I think I understand you better now. It’s an interesting conversation.
To me, that quote from the New Yorker about combing her hair etc supports my view that this was likely some sort of personal issue involving an idealisation of her ex as a person.
considered the best source of insight into Eichmann and Nazi psychology.
I suppose I’ve never regarded her in that light.
She’s a philosopher: she articulates some key concepts that are valuable, but a) philosophers hypothesizing like that isn’t exactly social science and b) I tend to see the Holocaust in the broader historical contexts of genocide and imperialism. Through that lens, Nazi psychology loses its central importance as some sort of unique phenomenon because it isn’t really much different from most of the other genocidal regimes that predate it.
This probably sounds like sacrilege in some quarters (Elie Weissel) but to me the usefullness of Arendt lies in what is generalisable, even if that was in itself rooted in material and historical specificity.
Ah, I think I understand you better now. It’s an interesting conversation.
To me, that quote from the New Yorker about combing her hair etc supports my view that this was likely some sort of personal issue involving an idealisation of her ex as a person.
I suppose I’ve never regarded her in that light.
She’s a philosopher: she articulates some key concepts that are valuable, but a) philosophers hypothesizing like that isn’t exactly social science and b) I tend to see the Holocaust in the broader historical contexts of genocide and imperialism. Through that lens, Nazi psychology loses its central importance as some sort of unique phenomenon because it isn’t really much different from most of the other genocidal regimes that predate it.
This probably sounds like sacrilege in some quarters (Elie Weissel) but to me the usefullness of Arendt lies in what is generalisable, even if that was in itself rooted in material and historical specificity.
Sorry for the typo. I meant interpellation!