Similar to other work by [[Hannah Arendt|Arendt]], *The Human Condition* is unfriendly to read - long paragraphs, double negations, frequent French / German / Greek / Latin quotes. The book is self-contained but familiarity in [[Plato's Republic]] (which I don't have) and [[Marxism]] (which I picked up along the way) is helpful. I'm planning to read some Plato afterwards. The framework of [[#Labor]] (toil to sustain life), [[#Work]] (creating permanent artifices), and [[#Action]] (pursuit of the *public realm* i.e. politics) is simple enough. The labor-work distinction is a novel idea (which Arendt blames [[Marxism|Marx]] for conflating). Arendt presents the historical development and their relative order over multiple eras - roughly [[#Greco-Roman]], medieval Christianity, enlightenment and reformation, the modern era, and the contemporary era. Arendt doesn't hide her belief that action is the most human endeavor, but she doesn't scorn labor or work - i.e. Arendt's framework isn't a simple "labor gruesome, work meddling, action actualizing". References: * [[David Runciman]]'s [Talking Politics - History of Ideas](https://www.talkingpoliticspodcast.com/history-of-ideas) is a good one hour introduction to the book. * I found [Polytropy's paragraph-by-paragraph notes](https://polytropy.com/2022/02/24/on-the-human-condition-of-hannah-arendt-1/) to be helpful, but the author unfortunately gave up at the end, which is unfortunate. The last chapter [[#vi. Vita Activa]] is the most nebulous and I would've loved commentaries to guide me. # Framework *Vita Activa* is separated into three hierarchies - labor, work, and action. ## Labor *Animal Laborans*, the condition is *life*. Notable terms: * [[#Property vs Wealth distinction]] Arendt's view on labor is ... complex. With the stacking of *labor-work-action*, Arendt dismisses that she's not planning to take an easy path of dismissing labor. However, a lot of interesting juice has been sucked into *work*; thus it's difficult to know what's there to defend in labor. Arendt criticizes both [[Marxism|Marx]]’s glorification of labor and the [[#Greco-Roman]] disdain of labor and the private realm. Against [[Marxism]], Arendt believes that not everything can be reduced to labor. Against the [[#Greco-Roman]] disdain, Arendt thinks that it prevented further advancement of technology and accumulation of wealth as only sufficient amount of wealth was needed to eliminate the concern of livelihood so one can participate in the public realm. * [link](https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/get-back-to-laboring-2020-05-16) defines labor as *life-affirming activity*. ## Work *Homo Faber*, the condition is *worldliness*. Notable terms: * [[#Instrumentality]] * use product vs consumable * tools vs machines * values - use value, exchange value, absolute value * teamwork, division of labor * "making" humans ## Action *Praxis*. The condition of *politics*, *plurality*. Notable terms: - **Plurality** & **Equality**, not *sameness* - **Natality** - **Unpredictability** and **Irreversibility** of the action's *process*. - **Forgiving** and **Promising** - *Who* vs *What* distinction - Agent & Stories Both the action and the speech between individuals are under the umbrella. There's a lot going on here; Arendt is absolute in her hope in humanity, especially on an individual person and their infinite capabilities. This is also her disdain towards both [[Marxism]], [[Utilitarianism]], and Behaviorism as they syphon human individuality out of us. This is where Arendt's concept of *natality* kicks in - with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world. > [!quote] 24\. The disclosure of the agent in speech and action > > The fact that man is capable of action means that the ==unexpected can be expected== from him, that he is able to perform what is ==infinitely improbable==. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that ==with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world==. Capacity for action distinguishes humans from animals. The [[#Public Realm]] facilitates action. Human equality (that we're engaging on the same footing) allows action to take place. Human plurality (our distinctiveness) makes action meaningful. Actions amongst the sameness would be pointless. Actions always disclose its agent. This is its vital quality; an action cannot be anonymous and is incompatible with the [[#Christian Worldlessness]] (i.e. *do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing*). The *stories* unfolded by them are accumulated in the public realm. However, the story is narrated not by the agent but by the other - most likely by historians after the agent has passed away. This separation between the action, agent, and story adds to action's unpredictability. Action are *unpredictable* and *irreversible*, thus contributing to the human uniqueness. An action may kick off a chain reaction of *processes* that nobody can predict. In this model, the chain reaction can potentially go on forever - how can it be stopped? Arendt turns to *forgiveness*, the only way to stop this never-ending propagation. Arendt credits Jesus of Nazareth for this, singling out forgiveness as one of unique Christian action against the [[#Christian Worldlessness]]. Similarly, *promises* tame the unpredictability of human actions. Note that forgiveness and promises are actions, thus can only happen in the public realm. For Arendt, Self-forgiveness and self-promises are oxymoron. ## Contemplation *Vita Contemplativa*, or *Animal Rationale*. Both the Greeks and Christians had the superiority of contemplation over action. * Greeks * Christians - related to their [[#Christian Worldlessness]]. ## Human Nature vs Human Condition The *Human Condition* is distinct from the *Human Nature*. Human condition is shaped by our current social and scientific understanding and is constantly changing. Arendt's [[#Three Great Events]] - Exploration, Reformation, and Telescope - are highlighted as main events that shaped our human condition. As of writing, the biggest defining property of the human condition of the humanity's earthboundness (see [[#Atomic and Space age]]). Arendt believes that the human condition will materially change once we are no longer earthbound. ## Christian Worldlessness ## Contrasting Labor and Work Easier to talk about these in the same section, as Arendt tries to distinguish between these; * *animal laborans* vs *homo faber* * labor is done with your *body*. work is done with your *hand*. * laboring moves in *circle*, work is rectilinear. [[The Unbearable Lightness of Being#Line vs Circle]]. *Rhythmic* is used to describe labor throughout [[#iv. Work]]. * labor produces products to be *consumed*. work produces products to be *used*. * relative permanence of the *use products*. # Realms ## Public Realm 1. **Shared Reality** - this allows for the realm of "objective" world. [^objective] 2. **Immortal reality** - that survives individual lifespans, allowing people to pursue [[#Distinction of *immortality* vs *eternity*|immortality]]. [^objective]: The word *objective* is taken literally; "the world occupied by the objects". It's a materialistic articulation with more emphasis on the role of humans creating these objects. These two properties allow the product of [[#Work]] to be meaningful in the world. This is fundamentally incompatible with [[#Christian Worldlessness]]. It is also the realm of the political freedom. ## Private Realm From the [[#Greco-Roman]] view, the private realm is the realm of necessity. Historically, family and all constituents - manor, wife, children, servants, and slaves - constituted the private realm and stayed separate from the public realm. However, this boundary disintegrated over time and the concerns of the necessity poured into the public realm. ## Social Realm Social Realm - subsumed both the private and public realm. > [!TODO] Rousseau's intimacy at heart (?) (p39) # Topics ## Greco-Roman Goes deep into the etymology / context behind various political-philosophical terms. Even though it's easy to group them together, they were two distinct cultures with its own languages. There are some historical gotchas that occurred due to this; including the whole "political (greek) - social (roman)" translation distinction. I don't know how serious Arendt's interpretations are; on one hand, it is the Greek's own writing and Arendt's reading of it. But on the other hand, it doesn't seem that different than the [[State of Nature]] arguments. [[#Greco-Roman]] definitions of [[#Action]] which has two versions - to initiate, and to bear: * *prattein* - act * *archein* - rule Arendt is especially obsessed with the Greco-Roman practice of slavery and is used as an example throughout the book. More on [[Property - Slavery]]. --- # Prolog From the future, a very optimistic outlook of the space age; where the humanity is no longer earthbound and becomes a galactic specie. > [!quote] Political question ... too important to be left to politicians Importance of speech and giving our own interpretations; more so than the scientific truths. > [!question] > Want to think more about this; in the era of fake news and angry rhetorics, this feels hopefully optimistic towards the plurality of society. Glorification of labor in the modern world. This is what defines us, and even if we're emancipated, we won't know what we would do without it. # i. The Human Condition The definitions of [[#Labor]], [[#Work]], and [[#Action]]. *Viva Activa* from the Greek perspective. Two different types of political life - *praxis (action)* and *lexis (speech)*. Labor and work are looked down upon, politics being the true elevated activities of free individuals. Slavery allowed the free people to ascend the necessities of life and participate in the [[#Public Realm]]. Plato's elevated view of *contemplation (theoria)* over *action*. ## *immortality* vs *eternity* distinction * *eternity* refers to eternal truths achieved via *contemplation*, philosophical aim. is achieved outside the human realm. * Plato commented that philosopher's pursuit of eternity is incompatible with a pursuit of immortality via *action*. * contemplation "cannot be rendered in speech". * *immortality* means endurance in time; it's what us moderns aspire via *work* and *action*. * On mortality - mortality being the "hallmark" of mankind. This feels very [[Milan Kundera]] esque; Arendt compares animal lives to endless repetitions (circular movements of biological life) whereas mortality moves in a rectilinear line. # ii. The Public and the Private realm > [!warning] Chapter 6 and 7 are not very fun to read. ## More on [[#Greco-Roman]] * misunderstanding of "political" and "social" between Greek and Roman due to translations. * Greek / Roman view of the private and public sphere, which translates to the household and political. * On Recognition; This section made me to understand [[Locke's Second Treatise]] and [[The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns]] better. Equality concerns only between heads of households, which are effectively sovereigns within their own family. Treatment of people under the household - children, slaves, wife - is not a question of concern (Arendt makes a jab at Hobbes; but it does remind me of a Hobbesian sovereign; I also see why [[John Locke|Locke]] dedicated the chapter *On Parental Power* to contrast families and political societies). Equality between these heads of households are defined as "neither to rule nor to be ruled" Arendt also mentions that the modern freedom is in the social realm whereas the ancient freedom is in the political realm. This is a simple world compared to the modern as the spectrum between private and public sphere is gradual. For Greeks, politics didn't concern the "society" but now "politics is nothing but a function of society" (starting from Marx). Family as a sovereign unit breaking down over history (ancient to feudal to modern) - Arendt quotes 1800s Britain, James Mill and [[John Stuart Mill]] era. Comments about Greek's view of slavery - slavery was seen "worse than death", and slaves displayed their unworthiness (and thus deserved to be slaves) by choosing enslaved life over death. It's a bit of catch-22, but this argument lives to [[Locke's Second Treatise]]'s "just slavery". ## Property vs Wealth distinction ### Property * Land; One's location in a particular part of the world. What holds the family unit together. * Extends to some tangible properties afterwards; * Arendt had a section on certain properties outliving their owners; this reminded me of the [[Invisible Cities]] * Property was a prerequisite for both the private life and political participation. Even slaves can have *wealth*, but they don't own property. * Thus, property-based suffrage was the norm ([[Bourgeoisie#Property Qualification]]) ### Wealth * Something that can be consumed to subsist one's life. * In the [[#Greco-Roman]] world, *capital accumulation* never occurred. Arendt points their disdain towards profit-seeking (which is subclass of the life-sustaining) activities. * **thought** - perhaps the fact that wealth was ephemeral (due to war, societal change, or anything that can happen) and capital accumulation wasn’t desirable suppressed the ancients from accumulating wealth beyond certain point. * One just needed enough wealth to free themselves from the necessities of life, so that they can participate in the [[#Public Realm]]. * Arendt also points out how craftsmen weren’t allowed to participate in the [[#Public Realm]] until they renounced their tools, showing the [[#Greco-Roman]] belief that labor and political life are incompatible. Similar to [[Politics as a Vocation]]’s observation on *working from politics*. * Before the modern world, wealth was ephemeral and it was impossible to accumulate wealth outside the property; modern economy allowed the propertyless wealth to be accumulated. Modernity collapsed *property* and *wealth* into one. With the collapse, it required the government to enforce the protection of the property rights. (The previous "tangible" properties could be managed solely in the private realm). ## Goodness Christian goodness' inherent paradox, as * it must be hidden from the others * but it cannot be done in solitude Arendt compares to *contemplation*, but goodness is even more strict. # iii. Labor Arendt justifies her distinction between *labor* and *work* via historical analysis and etymology. In all European languages, *labor* has negative - difficult and painful - connotations. Ancient [[#Slavery]]; it was defended to allow free man to elevate above the necessities of life. Different categorizations of labor; * **productive and unproductive** - [[Adam Smith]] and [[Marxism|Marx]] were primarily interested in those. * **skilled and unskilled** * **manual and intellectual** - modern bureaucratic state elevated the intellectual work.’ More on labor work distinction - bread ~ table distinction is clear, whereas baker ~ carpenter distinction isn’t. Work requires the “permanence and continuation of the world”. ## Eternal Recurrence Arendt makes a similar observation as [[The Unbearable Lightness of Being#Line vs Circle]]; of "human life moving in a circle". Labor produces necessities that are required to continue the circle of life. This is the life of animals. However, human life has a clear beginning and an end (birth and death), telling a story. In that sense, human life can transcend the circle and follow a rectilinear path. Labor and consumption go hand in hand - "almost constitute one and the same movement". [[#Labor]]'s output, unlike the [[#Work]]'s, is consumed. It is also the fight against the "nature's decay", so labor is the process of **resisting the entropy**. ## Ch 14. Labor and life Chapter on how labor became sacred. [[Adam Smith]], [[John Locke|Locke]], and [[Marxism|Marx]] are contrasted; * [[Locke's Second Treatise|Lockean Proviso]] elevated labor into an act of property acquisition. * Adam Smith's theory of labor generating wealth * Marx's view is criticized the most. Marx defines humans as *animal laboran*, yet he believes that after communism humans would be liberated from it. Marx fundamentally saw the product of labor to be *consumables*. Labor to sustain a) oneself and b) one's specie. Arendt praises [[Marxism|Marx]]'s "discovery"; and draws relationships between labor and *fertility*. Labor and "happiness" is discussed further; Arendt recognizes the "happiness" that comes from sustaining one's life; in this case, "pursuit of happiness" is equal to life itself. However, she disdains this simplification of happiness, (mocking utilitarianism). ## Locke's definition of property Arendt digs further on Locke's definition of property; * Life is one's unalienable property (the definition which I still find eerie). * property as "enclosing a fence" for exclusivity. * from this, Arendt analysis life as an exclusive property, including pain and pleasure. > [!note] > I *think* this is where Arendt's defense of labor comes in; how labor contributes to the pain and pleasure of life. Digging deeper into Locke's articulation, and how novel it was. Before this, property was acquired by conquest (this belief - that war is at least *profitable* continues till David Hume's *on public credit*) ## Equating Labor and Work Arendt highlights the equating *work* and *labor* as the source of contradiction; labor's products are fundamentally ephemeral; Locke had to introduce money to get around it, Smith introduces exchanging. These allow the product of labor to be persisted. Arendt criticizes *consumerism* from this angle; that *use products* are no longer sacred; everything is turning into consumable. For Arendt, bread and table are categorically different (labor-product and work-product) but in the modern world, these are both consumed as labor-products (Arendt didn't live to see the era of Fast Fashion, which is an extreme manifestation of such). Arendt points out the contradiction that [[Marxism|Marx]] and others have by missing the concept of work. * Marx's labor-hobby distinction. In the post communism world, we would be engaged in hobbies. * labor-play distinction, where any activity that is not "making a living" is considered play. however, under Arendt's categorization, these will fall under work, action, or labor (pure act of consumption would fall under labor). ## Consumer If Labor is defined as "performing life's necessities", then labor and consumption are two ends of the same coin. Arendt argues that consumption is also labor. In this, Arendt talks about the hypothetical post-scarcity future; even if the ratio time spent between *labor:consumption* nears 0, we are still not free as we're bound by consumption. > [!thought] > This is hitting hard on me because right now, i'm currently not working. Sure, there's a lot of *labor* outside of *making a living*, especially with a child, but even acts of consumption - grocery shopping, cooking food (okay, these are a bit laborous) but also even the mere act of *eating* - has been laborous. # iv. Work Violence of *work*. Use-products and [[Platonic Ideal]] - The original formulation is *literally* concerned with creation of chairs and tables. Work produces use products, tools, and art. Art is a very specific example as it has no utility. ## Instrumentality > [!quote] 20\. Instrumentality and Animal Laborans > > Tools and instruments are so intensely worldly objects that we can classify whole civilizations using them as criteria. Tools shaping the [[#Human Nature vs Human Condition|human condition]] is highlighted, following the [[Historical Materialism]] tradition. Arendt spends time to describe the notion of *tools*, which are permanent (as they're use products) and they shape the [[#Human Nature vs Human Condition|human condition]]. She briefly addresses the circular nature of tools shaping the human condition, and civilization giving birth to new tools, etc. In this analysis, Arendt follows the tradition of [[Historical Materialism]] (Steam Engine - Electricity - "Automation"). Arendt makes the *tool vs machine* distinction. Tools empower the *homo faber*, whereas machines are in the realm of [[#Labor]]. > [!quote] Tools don't exist to make things *easy*. They exist to make things *possible*. > The discussion of the whole problem of technology, that is, of the transformation of life and world through the introduction of the machine, has been strangely led astray through an all-too-exclusive concentration upon the service or disservice the machines render to men. ==The assumption here is that every tool and implement is primarily designed to make human life easier and human labor less painful==. > ... > In other words, *homo faber*, the toolmaker, invented tools and implements in order to ==erect a world, not - at least, not primarily - to help the human life process==. An argument against [[No Pain No Gain]] Writing a bit more @ [[The Human Condition - Making vs Designing]] ## Against [[Utilitarianism]] > [!warning] Chapter 21 is *hard* > [!quote] 21\. Instrumentality and *Homo Faber* > > This perplexity, inherent in all consistent utilitarianism, the philosophy of *homo faber* par excellence, can be diagnosed theoretically as an innate incapacity to understand the ==distinction between utility and meaningfulness==, which we express linguistically by distinguishing between =="in order to" and "for the sake of"==. Arendt also discusses all the notions of value - use value, exchange value, etc. Independent of economics, Arendt believes that values are objective and absolute, and this is the problem of utilitarianism. Kantian notion of *every man as an end on itself, not means*. There's also the question of, [[Plato]]'s "God is the measure of all things" versus Pythagoras's "Man is the measure of all things". Arendt interprets the first as the superiority of the *absolute value*, the second as *relative value*. As explored more in the [[#vi. Vita Activa]], Arendt's against the utilitarian reduction that forces Labor to triumph over Work and Action. ## Fabrication Privacy of fabrication; against *teamwork*, as it is identical to the division of labor. (though, Arendt also mentions that the consumption is done *privately* too, which I do not understand). This reminds me of [[Ayn Rand]]'s heroes, like Howard Roark. # v. Action > [!fail] A lot of definitions in this chapter. > This is the type of philosophy writing I dislike. Picking quasi-synonyms - strength, power, ... and giving your own definitions. Humans as *equal* and *distinct* (different than *otherness*) which makes us *unique*. Unshakeable belief in human individuality - "unexpected can be expected", we are able to perform what is "infinitely improbable". "with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world". All this only makes sense under the human plurality. *Who* vs *What* - *What* refers to the qualitative properties of people; *Who* points back to the above uniqueness. *Who* can be told only by actions. Actions necessitate both the agent and the public realm. In this regard, Arendt is shamelessly egotistical; Humility is distinctly [[#Christian Worldlessness]] value and goes against the *action*. Really like the actor ~ story distinction. This is a topic covered in [[Immortality]] also. ## Ch 31. The traditional substitution of making for acting Historical disdain towards [[#Action]]. Chapter 31, *The traditional substitution of making for acting*, is crucial one. Arendt narrates all disdain towards action, and our desire to "elevate over" politics so that we can focus on what we want. * The [[#Greco-Roman]] argument against democracy is "an argument against the essentials of politics". * On philosopher king - "The trouble with these forms of government is not that they are cruel, which often they are not, but rather ==that they work too well==" ... "But they all have in common the banishment of the citizens from the public realm and the insistence that they mind their private business while "the ruler should attend to public affairs."" * Plato's action-knowledge divide versus the [[#Greco-Roman]] *prattein-archein* divide. > [!quote] > Plato could easily be interpreted as various attempts to find theoretical foundations and practical ways for an escape from politics altogether. Action being replaced by fabrication. > [!quote] Action - 31. The traditional substitution of making for acting > Exasperation with the threefold frustration of action - the ==unpredictability of its outcome==, the ==irreversibility of the process==, and the ==anonymity of its authors== - is almost as old as recorded history. > [!quote] Disdain for action - 31. The traditional substitution of making for acting > The substitution of making for acting and the concomitant degradation of politics into a means to obtain an allegedly "higher" end - in antiquity the protection of the good men from the rule of the bad in general, and the safety of the philosopher in particular, in the Middle Ages the salvation of souls, in the modern age the productivity and progress of society - is as old as the tradition of political philosophy. Actions kick off *processes* that may go on forever. This foreverness can be stopped only by *forgiveness* > [!quote] Plurality - 33. Irreversibility and the power to forgive > Both faculties, therefore, depend on plurality, on the presence and acting of others, for no one can forgive himself and no one can feel bound by a promise made only to himself; forgiving and promising enacted in solitude or isolation remain without reality and can signify no more than a role played before one's self. # vi. Vita Activa > [!thought] > Even though this is the final section of the book, I found the previous part more enjoyable. I.e. I enjoyed Arendt's labor-work-action framework more than philosophical conclusion that she's reaching here. ## Three Great Events Three great discovery; * Discovery of America and circumnavigation of earth - "shrinkage" of the planet. * Reformation - [[Max Weber]]ian Protestant Ethics and the rise of capitalism * Galileo's discovery of the telescope - human condition *outside* the earth. Archimedean Point; "seeing the earth from the outside" ## Alienation * World Alienation * Earth Alienation ch 37. * natural vs universal science * science vs philosophy * idea vs event * galileo, newton, descartes --- ch 45. labor = life. # Other Sentiments ## Atomic and Space age Written in 1960s, there's tremendous amount of optimism (at least in the capabilities of) *space age* and *atomic age*, along with the missing *information age*. Space age, specifically the dream that humans will no longer be earthbound, poses a big question. Arendt sees that it will fundamentally change the *human condition*. In the final chapter [[#vi. Vita Activa]], Arendt's celebration of Galileo's discovery supports this. The sentiment around the atomic age is its sheer energy and violence; we awe and shudder, but imagines the future where the civilization tames this energy for our own good. However, we no longer dream about them. Space is too far and vast; we take the near-space (GPS and satellite images) for granted, but beyond that even the Moon and Mars no longer captivate us. Same goes to the atomic dream. Chernobyl disaster and non-viability of fusion made the public dream of taming atomic power as a pipe dream. After the cold war ended, we don't even think about its capability for total destruction anymore. > [!TODO] Information Age