The Human Condition- Hannah Arendt

[cambria1295]

Recently I have started The human Condition by Hannah Arendt and I am perplexed at the complexity of this book. I have just gotten into reading seriously but an artist I like talks about her all the time, so I researched her on google and decided to read a book of hers. (Just some back round info on why I chose this)

I Have read the first five to six chapter and I believed I picked up the bare minimum and am looking for a place where I can discuss this book with others in order to get my point of view on what I read across and to discuss what the initial poin of the book was. Basically a discussion of the book so I can get the full experience and knowledge out of this.

So far I have found that vita activa means labor, work and action. Action to her is the most important. While discussing labor she seems to relate humans to animals ,and if we just perform labor, i think she means as jobs working for others we are not far from what we despise,being thee animal, because we use animals as a resource of getting our labor done, for example oxen and horse to plow fields, (not any more of course but for the sake of argument) and if we become tied to labor for other men we are merely their 'animals' or 'slaves'.
Work she defines as something that has more significance than labor, although today it may be inexchangable. Work in her eyes is not working for others but working for ones self in order for existence or survival. That part I believe I have somewhat correct.

She then discusses enternity and immorality. I looked some of this up but She says we cannont be neither nor but as humans we strive to be. Although in this day and age we cannot 'really'become those we look for other ways to fill in those areas. Our thoughts we create and the words we speak are eternal and is not affected by time. We take 'action' to make ourselves as much immortal as we can by creating thing. artifacts, houses, building and monuments in order to leave a lasting impression of "We were here" and I believe we do this subconsciously because we are 'conditioned' by labor,work,and action; conditioned to survive.

Ill start with that because I would like to see if that is right before I type more. Please right if you have any views to open up for discussion. I am very interested in learning as much as I can about this book. Thank YOU!![:

[cambria1295]

Anyone read this and is willing to discuss the book!??

[Gahlen]

I read this last year, but I'm struggling to remember the details. I'll have to look at it again. The Human Condition is the only book by Arendt I've read, and like you I found it really complex and a bit confusing at times.

If I recall correctly, though, her distinction between labour, work and action is based on the product of each kind of activity. "Labour" is what we need to do in order to survive as a biological species: we plant and harvest and hunt and so forth. I can't recall if procreation and childbirth fall into that as well, but they might (she is interested in "natality", I remember). So I think you're right: labour is the area we have in common with (other) animals. "Work", however, sets us apart from animals, in that it's about creating artificial objects, specifically objects that surround and outlast us. The house I build will (hopefully) still be there after I die. As for "action" … does action even have a product? It might just be speech or politics, so not actually making anything as much as influencing the way people behave. I'll have to look at her chapter on that and the part on immortality again. But does that more or less correspond to what you've read?

[cambria1295]

Well I stopped after those to chapters because I was waiting to find someone I can disscuss the book with because I felt if I read it and didn't discuss it and receive other peoples views I wasn't getting the most out of the book. so in the meantime I have read other books. So I have forgot what the chapters were about but I am going to start back up as soon as school starts and take notes as I read, starting the whole book over.. If you would like to discuss the book more just let me know we can find an easier way of communication, but I understand you already read it so you prob don't want to go back to it lol. But if you are interested we can read the book at the same pace and discuss it;
which I think would be really cool. Just let me know(:

[Heidy]

Recently I have started The human Condition by Hannah Arendt and I am perplexed at the complexity of this book. I have just gotten into reading seriously but an artist I like talks about her all the time, so I researched her on google and decided to read a book of hers. (Just some back round info on why I chose this)

I Have read the first five to six chapter and I believed I picked up the bare minimum and am looking for a place where I can discuss this book with others in order to get my point of view on what I read across and to discuss what the initial poin of the book was. Basically a discussion of the book so I can get the full experience and knowledge out of this.

So far I have found that vita activa means labor, work and action. Action to her is the most important. While discussing labor she seems to relate humans to animals ,and if we just perform labor, i think she means as jobs working for others we are not far from what we despise,being thee animal, because we use animals as a resource of getting our labor done, for example oxen and horse to plow fields, (not any more of course but for the sake of argument) and if we become tied to labor for other men we are merely their 'animals' or 'slaves'.
Work she defines as something that has more significance than labor, although today it may be inexchangable. Work in her eyes is not working for others but working for ones self in order for existence or survival. That part I believe I have somewhat correct.

She then discusses enternity and immorality. I looked some of this up but She says we cannont be neither nor but as humans we strive to be. Although in this day and age we cannot 'really'become those we look for other ways to fill in those areas. Our thoughts we create and the words we speak are eternal and is not affected by time. We take 'action' to make ourselves as much immortal as we can by creating thing. artifacts, houses, building and monuments in order to leave a lasting impression of "We were here" and I believe we do this subconsciously because we are 'conditioned' by labor,work,and action; conditioned to survive.

Ill start with that because I would like to see if that is right before I type more. Please right if you have any views to open up for discussion. I am very interested in learning as much as I can about this book. Thank YOU!![:

Wow, you are brave reader LOL
I didn't read that book and i don't think i will. But i studied Hannah Arendt at school and i liked it so much.
Hannah Arendt suffered so much because she was a jaw and everyone knows what happened to jaw during the twentieth century. So it's normal that she was so angry with German people but when she went to Eichmann trial she looked at this man....and she understood that he was just a man. This and her sad-life made her overthink about human condition.
She thinks man is a sort of victim, bad people too

Awaiting your answers
Greetings by Italy :hat:

[Gahlen]

I'm fine with revisiting this, although I have a fairly heavy schedule (= a full-time job :smile5:) and wouldn't have a huge amount of time to devote to it. I've not ever discussed a book on an internet forum before, so I'm open to suggestions, but what would you think about working out a reading-plan of some kind (e.g. three or so chapters a week, that would mean 15 weeks; would that be too slow?) and then running it like a college seminar (or at least like the seminars I used to attend when I was at college): each of us—and anyone else who wants—signs up for certain blocks of chapters at the beginning (if it's just us, then maybe we take alternate blocks) and then posts his or her thoughts about them to the forum here at the beginning of the week for those chapters, and then other people can comment, ask questions, disagree etc. in the course of the week? Then on the following Monday, say, the next person posts about the next block of chapters and the discussion continues. I think it makes more sense to have a regular "starting-off post" that people can use as a springboard than, for example, simply saying, in this week we're going to talk about chapter x, who has any thoughts?