Hannah Arendt Final Paper


Hannah Arendt was a very influential political theorist of German American. She was greatly known as a philosopher though she did not like that title giving reason that philosophy is mainly concerned with man in the singular. She considered herself a political theorist because she believed that men, not man inhabit the world as they live on earth. Most of her works dealt with the nature of power and topics on authority, totalitarianism and politics. In her book, ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’, she reports of the Eichmann New Yorker trial, which evolved into Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the Banality of evil (1963). The ultimate aim of this paper however, is to analyze her final paper by providing precise answers to the following questions (Benhabib, 2003). This is like a summary of her major works, which talks about the books; Eichmann in Jerusalem, the life of the mind and the Origins of totalitarianism.

What does Arendt mean by ‘Amor mundi’ (love of the world)? Is the idea behind it valid, or naive?

In order to understand the meaning of Amor Mundi as portrayed by Arendt, it is important to consider the case in Eichmann in Jerusalem where her argument is shaded and strong which had been responsibly defended and criticized by several people. The main question that she raised in the book is, is evil radical or a function of thoughtlessness where there is the behavior where ordinary people obeying and conforming to mass opinion without considering what consequences it might have on their action or inaction (Young-Bruehl, 1982). In short, the monstrous deeds of Eichmann were evil deeds. This leads to considering the fact that normal though not innocent people can engage in mysterious evil acts. Her argument on the actions of Eichmann was that the man deserved to be hanged and she was much consistent with the judgment of the court in Jerusalem. However, she also disagreed with the court on one thing; she argued that Eichmann was wrongly convicted of the aiding and abetting crime. She felt constrained by the law and thought it was powerless to do such a thing.

This entry was posted in Philosophy Essay and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.