Ruminations on Arendt: Five Takes

0

Ruminations on Arendt: Five Takes

Stephen A. Jones

11 July 2021

1

FOREWORD

This collection of loosely-connected pieces is the product of seeking to engage with ideas and

arguments put forth by Hannah Arendt that I found especially stimulating and provocative. The

items appearing here were whittled down from a much larger initial list of possibilities. The aim

of the project was not to achieve mastery of what Arendt is saying or to contribute to Arendtian

scholarship but to try to understand enough of what she is saying to affirm or appropriate it,

consider how to springboard from it, and to imagine possible applications of it. The project may

turn out to be a “creative misreading” of Arendt at best, but it might still be useful.

The tone varies among the five takes, from serious to less serious and from accepting to

defensive to downright whimsical, and none of the takes is developed to the nth degree. The first

three consider the world as portrayed by Arendt, the value of a sense of ‘wonder’ in her account,

and some attributes of the polis as she describes it. The fourth is a proposal to revive vita

contemplativa along Arendtian lines. The final take is an out-and-out fantasy centered on an

imagined corporation, WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with Ambitions!™, that is seeking

employees to fulfil its mission. This piece reflects an effort to come to terms with Arendt’s

typology of animal laborans, homo faber, and the ideal person of thought, speech, and action.

The main sources for the project were The Human Condition (1998), The Promise of

Politics (2005) and Essays in Understanding 1930-1954 (1994), which formed the agenda of the

Hannah Arendt Virtual Reading Group in 2020-2021. Also consulted was The Life of the Mind

(1978). Page references to the texts are not included because a fully footnoted document with so

many lines flagged would quickly become tedious. However, the exact references can be supplied

upon request.

*****

CONTENTS

I The Word According to Arendt 2

II The Wonder of It All 5

III Meet Me in Arendtopolis! 7

IV Vita Contemplativa Redux 9

V WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with Ambitions!™ 12

2

I

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO ARENDT

Why Is the World So Valuable?

For Hannah Arendt, the world is born out of human activity—the vibrant panoply of fabricated

things, the humanly cultivated land, the body politic, and so on. It is the arena for exercising human

capacities and newness, and the forum for politics and the vita activa. It is both “given” to us

(through history) and “created” by us (through action in the present). It comes into being between

people and celebrates their plurality, becoming larger and richer with “the more peoples … who

stand in some particular relationship with one another.” The world “endures beyond” the

generations; it is the only thing that can bestow “a measure of permanence and durability” on

human life. Yet it is fragile: it can be destroyed by an annihilating war that erases “the in-between,”

the “space” between people that cannot instantaneously be reconstituted, because it is not a

manufactured product but is birthed out of “action and speech created by human relationships.”

Overall, the world as Arendt paints it is an attractive place—indeed, the only place—for

humans to be. That’s why it is so precious and ought to command our total commitment and

allegiance. I agree with her premise that without the world humanity would be lost and that, as

Robert Frost put it, it’s “the right place for love: I don’t know where it’s likely to go better”

(“Birches”). That said, the discussion below centers on what actually follows from Arendt’s

conception of the world and what difficulties arise in her account.

Comments and Concerns

1. The public realm, a core part of the world, certifies what will be taken as “real.” Anything

seeking entry there must be “transformed, deprivatized and deindividualized” if it is going to be

allowed in. This means that private experience is forbidden a priori. For instance, great bodily

pain wins no recognition: it is “so subjective and removed from the world of men and things that

it cannot assume an appearance at all.” This standpoint, which Arendt both reports and seems to

endorse, may underlie her adamant refusal to permit love, a totally private and personal matter

according to her rubric, to play any role in the marketplace of ideas or political action. She regards

all “loves” (except for amor mundi, interestingly) as essentially inward and intimate, only good

for pairing off individuals to become couples. This leads to her misidentifying or mischaracterizing

other forms of love, such as compassion, care, and fellow feeling as mere sentimentality or perhaps

inferior expressions of eros and romance, and hence ruling them out. I suggest this banishment

deprives the world of something it greatly needs and imposes cruel and unusual punishment on it.

2. Arendt is worried that love in its overwhelmingness, its all-consumingness, weakens and

blurs crucial distinctions, gauzing over sharp outlines. Because love breaks down barriers (think

of Romeo and Juliet and their respective warring households) and disrespects boundaries, that

means it doesn’t see persons as individuals and fails to uphold their distinctiveness. These features

are non-negotiable. If that’s what love does, then the political realm is right to ban love from

entering in. But that’s not all that love can do. Love, understood as agape, not as eros, is precisely

3

what does recognize the dignity and distinctiveness of people and sees them as autonomous

persons with unique potentials and capacities. In fact, it may be the only attitude that can do this.

So, love must be ruled in, not out.

3. Arendt pays a lot of attention to the Christian stance towards the world, a matter of lifelong

interest for the represent writer. Unfortunately, her account is deficient for two reasons: (1) there

never was, nor is there today, one dominant stance; rather, there are competing stances; (2) the

world-rejecting monastic stance she focuses on is only one of them. Granted, the New Testament

can admonish Christians, “Do not love the world, or the things in the world” but it also asserts that

the Christian God so loved the world that he went to extraordinary lengths to save it, and that Jesus

called his followers to “go into all the world” to share the good news. Clearly, there was at least

some creative tension from the very outset. Yet Arendt concentrates on just one stance, taking the

monastic movement and other withdrawal practices to be paradigmatic for Christianity’s

relationship to the world. The reality was, and is, bigger and more complex than that, and more

amenable to her own view than she realizes.

4. Additionally, Arendt claims that Christianity retreated to the private realm after the

Reformation, withdrawing even more from the world and the public realm, and thus forfeited

exerting influence there. If this were true, it would have deprived the world of a vital source of

energy, ideas for reform, and innovative actions for the common good. But it was not in fact true.

Centuries after the Reformation, to offer one example, John Wesley could claim the whole world

was his “parish” and act on that basis. Generations of social justice activists operating on a

Christian foundation since then say and act the same. The world for them is front and center, and

they act in it, concretely. Some are even known to have given up their lives for it. (Note that I am

only trying to restore a balance to Arendt’s picture, and not ignoring or excusing the horrific moral

blotches, mistakes, errors, and crimes that also mark church history.)

5. It is true that early Christian believers identified themselves as members of a body or a

family. They made a “totally new, religiously defined, public space, which, although public, was

not political,” Arendt observes. They could not be “political” in her strict terms, since she rules

out family and kinship ties, both literal and non-literal, from politics. It is also true that they did

believe that the world would last. Paradoxically, that did not impair many of them from

energetically spreading a message of hope across the known world and ministering to the sick,

lost, and alienated. Of course, some did retreat, waiting for an apocalypse that stubbornly refused

to arrive on time. Others pushed forward, even into politics, seeking to be the salt that would give

the world its needed savor. Arendt’s picture again needs rebalancing.

6. Arendt is not entirely wrong about one element in early Christianity: “the contrast between

what one wanted to show the world by allowing it to appear in public and what could exist only in

seclusion and therefore had to remain hidden.” However, she overstresses Matthew 6:1 (about

practising piety in secret) and overlooks other sayings of Jesus, not about personal piety, that thrust

followers headlong into the world and did not sanction hiding in the clefts of the rocks, fleeing to

the catacombs, or proceeding into the desert. Given Arendt’s understanding of the polis and the

4

public square as the venue for the fame, recognition, ego satisfaction, and whiff of immortality

that free men allegedly seek to the exclusion of everything else, it is not surprising that she can’t

picture people who possess an “other-worldly” orientation and try to live out self-denying virtues,

as playing a meaningful role there.

7. The “bond of charity” that Christians proclaimed and sought to spread was discovered to

be “incapable of founding a public realm of its own,” and that discovery fed into a “principle of

worldlessness.” If this principle is the antithesis of its opposite—world-full-ness, perhaps?—I

must agree. But the early Christians did not generally abandon the world. However, they did

certainly turn their backs on loving it as an object of desire, which makes the world just another

idol, another false god, of which there were already plenty. Nevertheless, they could fully “love

the world” but not as object of desire.

Tentative Acceptance

In light of the above comments and concerns, which I trust are not so much skeptical as critical, I

can tentatively accept Arendt’s concepts of the world and even amor mundi if they:

• prove not to be idolatrous,

• recognize that much in the world is neither lovely nor lovable in the sense of desirable,

• invest love with connotations of agape, not eros,

• clarify what amor mundi precisely calls for, and

• are prepared for unrequited love (Help! I love the world, but it doesn’t love me back!)

It’s an interim acceptance because questions remain. How should Arendt’s followers today

practice amor mundi? While “Amor Mundi” is a succinct, pithy slogan, slogans are simplifications,

notoriously unsubtle and necessarily un-nuanced for the sake of impact—on a t-shirt, for instance.

What is it, really, to act out of “love of the world”? What sort of love are we talking about? What

exactly about the world should be loved, and why? What can make the world difficult to love? I

continue to ponder these and related questions.1

*****

1 I realized late in the process of working on this piece that Arendt’s profound discussion of love and the

world in Love and Saint Augustine would be a useful lens, perhaps even a required one, for accurately

assessing her conception of the world. Her interpretation of Augustine’s comments on certain New

Testament passages could be particularly instructive. Based on a quick scan of the book, I saw that her

understanding of amor mundi, for instance, is much more nuanced than I had expected, that she may have

made the distinctions I’m trying to draw, and that her final settled view, if it could be ascertained, may well

encompass and reflect subtleties and insights that she developed over the decades. Or, it might totally veer

away from them. However that may be, rather than abandon or overhaul what I’d started, I decided to press

on.

5

II

THE WONDER OF IT ALL

Introduction

Arendt accepts and extols the notion that that philosophy, according to the ancients, begins and

ends in a sense of wonder (Greek: thaumadzein). She cites these classical passages:

Socrates, in Plato’s Theaetetus 155d: “This sense of wonder is the mark of the philosopher.“

Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b: “For it is owing to their wonder that men both now and at first began

to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little

and stated difficulties about the greater matters…. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks

himself ignorant….” Socrates, in Plato’s Seventh Letter 340c: The philosopher follows “a path of

enchantment [for seeking truth and reality], which he must at once strain every nerve to follow, or

die in the attempt”; 341d: “… there is no way of putting it into words like other studies.”

The philosopher is called to “marvel and be struck by wonder, to endure” and to raise

ultimate questions about being, man, and life. Not to give answers, because words are not adequate

(see above). The philosopher is always ready to endure “the pathos of wonder” and is thus fitted

for avoiding “the dogmatism of mere opinion holders.” He expresses wonder “at that which is as

it is.” This is something he shares with non-philosophers, since it is “one of the most general

characteristics of the human condition.”

Many people, I imagine, will find much of this congenial. There is a naturalness to wonder,

an aura of the primordial, something pre-philosophical and pre-scientific but not sub-philosophical

or sub-scientific, although these are common cynical cavils. However, while wonder,

thaumadzein, may be a common starting point for many thinkers, it can take very different paths.

(Perhaps it isn’t the same thing from the outset even if called by the same name.) For philosophers

and scientists, it can the path of puzzle-wrestling and intellectual engagement, essentially problem-

solving by recourse to the means provided by their respective fields. For religious thinkers (taking

“religious” very broadly), wonder reveals what is to be savored and meditated on. But it can also

open the door to mysticism, occult entities, and unprovable fantasies. This is not a pleasing

prospect for most philosophers—and certainly not for Arendt.

With this stage setting in place, I was curious to see how Arendt’s understanding of wonder

and mystery might compare with the views of other thinkers, especially Abraham Joshua Heschel

(1907-1972) and some biblical writers. This led to the reflections below.

Another Voice

“To become aware of the ineffable,” says Heschel, “is to part company with words,” adding, in an

echo of the ancients, that “the tangent to the curve of human experience lies beyond the limits of

language.” Awe, he further asserts, “is an intuition for the dignity of all things, a realization that

things not only are what they are but stand… for something supreme….” He argues for recognizing

“the mystery that animates all beings, the divine margin in all attainments.” All humans ought to

respond to “the inconceivable surprise” of living. For Heschel that’s achieved by prayer, generally

6

not an option for many philosophers or presumably for Arendt as well. But all might agree at least

with Heschel’s starting point: “How strange we are in the world and how presumptuous our

doings!”

It is obvious that Arendt does not grant “living” anything like the status that Heschel does.

In discussing animal laborans, for example, she appears to regard the biological life cycle and

quotidien living as an unfortunate necessity that must be maintained only because it’s the platform

for real existence—political and public life, the sphere of men of thought, speech, and action—to

flourish. And unlike Heschel, she is more interested in the possibility of immortality accruing to

men acting in the public square than their response to “the inconceivable surprise of living.”

Based on these observations, I soon decided, for the time being at least, not to seek grounds

for rapprochement between Heschel and Arendt. Only tangentially and not very helpfully can their

views be made to hold together.

Further Considerations

1. As for explicit biblical exhortations to feel and express wonder, there are fewer than I

would have guessed. In the “Old” Testament, the basic Hebrew terms are mopheth and maphli,

both presumably derived from pala: to be distinguished, extraordinary, wonderful. The noun pele

means “wonderful thing.” As yet, I haven’t discovered whether the Septuagint, the Greek

translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translates these terms by some form of thaumadzein.

Certainly the sentiment of wonder is present even where the exact word isn’t, as in Psalm 145:5:

“On the glorious splendor of your majesty / and on your wondrous works, I / will mediate.” In the

“New” Testament, thaumadzein appears eight times, but not in exhortations to feel awe at the

cosmos or life itself. But what are Jesus’ healing stories about, if not celebrations of life and, we

may suppose, a concomitant restoration of wonder? More investigation is needed.

2. In The Human Condition, Arendt reports that the sense of wonder has been replaced in

modernity by Cartesian doubt. Even if we agree, her stating the truth so flatly is a real jaw-dropper.

More than that, it’s absolutely explosive! Replacing a time-honored attitude or orientation of the

human being that appears to be inherently life-enhancing, possibly even transcendent, and positive

(“good for the soul,” some might say) with an orientation that is essentially intellectual, technical,

and potentially negative, is revolutionary—and not in a good way. What’s an appropriate analogy

here? Swapping a birthright for a mess of pottage?

3. In another place Arendt argues that philosophers today “must make the plurality of man

[the ‘grandeur and misery’ of human affairs]” the object of their thaumadzein if they want “to

arrive at a true political philosophy.” At first I thought she was calling for a wholesale transfer of

wonder from creation, life, and the universe over into the chaotic arena of tawdry political matters

and the down-and-dirty of partisan posturing, so I pronounced her imperative outrageous, even

absurd. Who could possibly find delight in, or express wonder at, politics? Wouldn’t that be a far

cry from expressing wonder at the universe, the object of thaumadzein that ancient philosophers

and scientists, Heschel, and untold others have cherished through the ages? However, I had

carelessly skipped over “the plurality of men.” That’s the actual target for the new, redirected

7

thaumadzein, namely the wonderfully diverse array of human beings, with their manifold

capacities, their creativity, and their penchant for “natality.” If this target is hit, presumably a better

politics will follow. However, I can grant this only with great reservation. While our “plurality”

may carry more pleasing connotations than “politics,” as an object of wonder it’s still not

equivalent to “the starry heavens above” and “the moral life within.”

With these considerations, I will set aside this brief study of wonder with the hope of returning to

it in future.

*****

III

MEET ME IN ARENDTOPOLIS!

Introduction

Arendt finds the ancient Greek polis immensely appealing—it was “the highest form of communal

life and thus something specifically human”—and, if I understand her argument, wants to

instantiate a form of it in the modern world. Now, suppose we were to take up the challenge and

try to set up an “Arendtopolis,” what might we want to consider? What concerns might we have?

A few tentative answers follow.

Relationships and Reservations

1. Although Arendt contends that the polis offers a “permanent space,” she strongly implies

that the spirit of polis is ultimately not tied to location: “Wherever you go,” she says, quoting a

famous but unnamed source, “you will be a polis.” If so, then the seed or secret of Arendtopolis is

portable; it abides in the hearts and minds of those blessed with the impulse. They carry it with

them and can plant it where they believe it will take root and grow. There is no predetermined

space where it will fit nor a particular time, as the polis, while it originated long ago at a particular

historical moment, has the potential to appear—to be born anew—in any place and at any time.

Wherever and whenever people desire to come together to achieve flourishing and are free to do

so, there a polis can arise. This freedom from time and space constraints is a great boon for planners

working at the Arendtopolis drawing board.

2. Arendt contends that interactions between members of the ancient polis were based on their

relationships. Whatever these relationships exactly comprised, on her account they could not have

been based on biological family ties, kin relationships, emotional bonds, or any form of what she

calls “natural association” or “social companionship.” For her, all such ties harbor inbuilt,

ineradicable biases and will corrupt the dispassionate purity of the public square. On this basis,

our projected Arendtopolis will need to be actively destructive of “all organized units resting on

8

kinship.” However, Arendt’s austere restrictions beg the questions of what’s “natural” and why

bias is assumed to be the only characteristic of “association” and “companionship.” Indeed, life in

a civil society, or even in an uncivilized one—any kind of satisfying human life—depends on,

expresses, and celebrates “natural association” and flows with emotion throughout. If that

connection is dismissed as just another form of “kinship,” something fundamental has gone wrong.

My point is that this linkage is real: it comes into being when people connect in whatever myriad

ways they may choose, respond to each other with interest and care, and find fellowship, pleasure,

purpose, and meaning in doing so. It’s a base line of affective reality that planners must not ignore

in setting up Arendtopolis, which will have no chance to survive if it ignores or rejects key

elements of the human condition as it is actually lived.

3. Suppose the affective element were to be ruled out of Arendtopolis, what would be left?

Austere, abstract gatherings where only disembodied and depersonalized thought and speech rule?

This is not immediately attractive. What Arendt is seeking for the polis is a kind of purity

uncontaminated by emotion. As already suggested, this eliminates a whole zone of ordinary,

human, non-family, non-kin relationships that are inherent in meaningful lived experience. Absent

connections that smack of these relationships and the accompanying emotional bonds, the

Arendtopolitans’ activities and relationships will be doomed to be only bloodless, transactional, or

even contractual, not unlike the market exchanges that homo faber is limited to, even if

theoretically pitched at a “higher” level, that is, not swapping tangible products but bargaining

with ideas and arguments.

4. If we follow Arendt’s reasoning, Arendtopolitans will want to be “together in speech and

action.” What weight should be put on “together”? Is it just the fact of physical presence that will

count, or will something deeper be needed, something that will motivate them to put real effort out

and infuse their enterprise with sense of urgency? What does “together” guarantee or generate? If

natural association, family, kinship, and social companionship are ruled out (see point 3), what

kind of togetherness should be in view? Arendt herself praised Tocqueville’s laudatory account of

New England town meetings; maybe there are clues there that Arendtopolis planners could gather

and consider adapting.

5. Further, what does being “together in speech and action” entail? How do speech and action

derive from or express togetherness? If, say, incommensurate viewpoints and goals are expressed

by actors in the public square, what then? How elastic and tolerant is their togetherness? Ideally,

in Arendtopolis “men in their freedom” will “interact with one another without compulsion, force,

and rule over one another, as equals among equals…speaking with and persuading each other.”

They will be perfect peers, never exercising coercion to make their case, and convincing each other

solely by strength of argument. Does this presuppose that their rhetorical skills or their social

standing and influence will be equally distributed? The Arendtian scenario is so idealistic, even

innocent (angelic?), that it verges on the implausible. Clearly, serious planners must possess a

realistic and robust understanding of issues of power and avoid deluding themselves. As well, they

must recognize that abuses generated in the public square will call for remedies. Arendt would

probably agree and say, Yes, they certainly do. What’s needed is more speech! This echoes a

position taken in debates over hate speech, namely that the only way to combat it is to get more

9

speech out there, as the truth will eventually rise to the top, like cream. However, planners must

be convinced.

6. A final point. Arendt claims that the “grandeur” of human speech in Greek poetry/epics

was transferred to the polis, where great speech and heroic deeds could be celebrated, remembered,

and not forgotten. The polis gave these words and actions as much permanence and immortality

as they could ever hope to acquire. Such a marvelous transfer may have been true of the ancient

polis, but can it be made true of Arendtopolis as well? Arendt also speaks of the “inherent

greatness” of political activity in the polis. Planners can be forgiven for asking for convincing

empirical evidence of that quality in politics today! Given that both grandeur of speech and

greatness in politics are hard if not impossible to discover or even envision now, what could

planners do to create conditions for their appearance in the new polis?

Conclusion?

Much thought and hard work will be needed for responding to the challenge of bringing about a

viable Arendtopolis. If we want to be planners, we will need to steer clear of illusions and pitfalls,

and we will be wise to consult Arendt as an always stimulating resource but not as a rigid template.

I hope we will find it worth the effort, because if we succeed, we and our fellow Arendtopolitans

will truly look forward to saying “Meet me in Arendtopolis!” It will be a good place—the only

place—for us all to be.

*****

IV

VITA CONTEMPLATIVA REDUX?

Introduction

As will soon become obvious, this fourth take is more thought experiment than argument. What is

proposed here, a revival of vita contemplativa modeled on what I call Hannah Arendt’s “style” of

thinking, may turn out to be nothing more than an ill-considered attempt to arbitrarily re-align

nomenclature or just an exercise in rebranding. But that’s yet to be determined. For orientation I

will start with what Arendt says about traditional vita contemplativa, although I must assemble it

from remarks scattered across various texts and make inferences (guesses?) from those remarks.

This is because her focus is almost exclusively on vita activa, which she expounds at length, and

she mentions vita contemplativa mainly in passing, for contrast, and not at length.

Let us suppose that we feel something is missing in what passes for political and social

thought nowadays and decide, for lack of any obvious alternatives, that we could try to resuscitate

the old idea of “contemplation” as a way to provide the depth we are seeking, or at least to give it

10

a name. For the sake of argument we could call it “Vita Contemplativa Redux” (hereafter “VC

Redux”). We will insist that VC Redux, whatever else it may be, take a shape appropriate to our

time and space and not be a slavish throwback to previous understandings of contemplation. Given

this stipulation, what might we nevertheless retain from traditional vita contemplativa as described

by Arendt for possible incorporation into the new model? One basic guideline would surely be to

preserve what we believe are essential and timeless features of the traditional concept but slough

off ephemeral and time-bound accretions. With that in mind, I offer a few points for consideration

plus suggestions (underlined) as to their potential. The First Thoughts are based on Arendt’s

comments on traditional vita contemplativa, the Second Thoughts reflect my understanding of her

“style” of thinking.

First Thoughts

1. Arendt informs us that traditional vita contemplativa was born out of Aristotle’s notion of

bios theoretikos, roughly “the life of the mind,” which was distinct from and superior to bios

politikos, basic biological life. For the ancients only theorein possessed “a dignity of its own.”

Centuries later in the medieval period, vita contemplativa was relegated to the religious sphere,

where it “lost all significance for action.” Still later it degenerated into expressing mere “pious

banalities.” Finally, with the advent of modernity, it was effectively exiled. Let’s retain theorein

in something like its original form, not these later debasements, for VC Redux.

2. According to Arendt, in its heyday contemplation and the life that accompanied it was

believed to yield truth. Hence “every kind of activity, even the processes of mere thought, must

culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation.” After all, theoria was a portal into “the

experience of the eternal.” The beauty and truth of the cosmos, its eternity, “discloses itself …

only when all human movements and activities are at perfect rest.” Reverential quiet was thus

enjoined upon all. Motionlessness, even speechlessness, characterized the contemplative who was

“enraptured” with “the miracle of Being.” We must incorporate the quest for truth in VC Redux.

It’s an essential. While we may respect motionlessness and speechlessness as perfectly human

responses to what’s ultimately real, we don’t need to see them as essential or enjoin them upon on

anyone.

3. Arendt explains that Plato’s craftsman, whose work could only poorly imitate and fall far

short of the perfection of the eternal, the realm of the Idea and the Form (eidos), could not join the

ranks of the contemplatives. As distinct from the craftsman or homo faber, the true

contemplative—identified at that time as the philosopher—gladly transcended the “activity of

making.” We must keep the notion of seeking the eternal, which we will likely want to re-define

as “reality.” And if the new VC Redux contemplative wants to make tangible physical objects as

well as cerebral intellectual arguments, we don’t need to object or pretend that the activity of

making is contemptible.

4. Arendt contends that contemplation at the hands of the medieval church manifested

passivity, which helped detach thought from action. The ideal for Christian thinking was identified

with a receptive meditation on the divine, defining contemplation a “blessed state of the soul.”

11

There is absolutely no need to saddle VC Redux with either a passivity requirement or a particular

doctrine of the soul, or to require that it direct itself toward fuzzy speculations.

5. In the modern era, contemplation was “discovered to be a human faculty.” It was brought

down to earth from the spurious heights it had occupied for many preceding centuries, in the

process deposing the former contemplatives and their way of life. However, the ascending phalanx

of scientists and technologists, the descendants and new instantiations of homo faber, did not

actually jettison contemplation but rather reimagined and repurposed it. They retained the urge to

contemplate—how could they do otherwise, if it arises from an active human faculty?—but

redirected it to patterns they themselves constructed, not to those formerly regarded as properties

of the cosmos, and to processes they themselves created to generate knowledge. Permanence was

not their key concern, nor was truth. We can accept a “human faculty” as the driver of

contemplation in VC Redux, as well as the notion of attending to patterns and processes. But we

will disqualify narcissistic fascination with anything that we ourselves construct or impose on

reality. VC Redux must commit to distinguish, at all times and in all places, between those

constructions and what is “real.” Admittedly, history suggests this will not be easy!

Second Thoughts

1. Arendt might be horrified at the very suggestion, but I contend that she is already practising

a form of VC Redux. Her analytical, fulsome, and passionate probings—the elements of her style

of thinking, as I call it—are obviously not an instance of the kind of thinking that’s needed for vita

activa, which I believe she regards as the repository of the highest, or at least most dominant, sort

of thought known to modernity. Her work is pitched one level higher. But that would seem to

render it an outlier to her own taxonomy, effectively making it homeless on her own terms. So,

where can it go? I will suggest VC Redux, of course!

2. Moreover, Arendt’s arguments are not “political” in an ordinary, clichéd sense but rather

embody a unique, rich blend of cultural, historical, anthropological, academic, and philosophical

considerations that go far beyond the uninspired political arguments commonly on offer today.

Her observations, analyses, and critiques cannot be boiled down for delivery in the political arena,

nor are they calls for particular action. She is not personally “out there” in the public square, duking

it out with opponents like a candidate for election. Nor is she performing like homo faber,

producing means-end “thinking” for the sake of fabricating a product for the market. Rather, what

she is doing exemplifies VC Redux.

3. In addition, while Arendt explores and critiques many intellectual models, even whole

Weltanschauungen, she does not exalt them as she believes modern rationalists do. As a courtesy,

we might say they “contemplate” their models and other self-made constructions, fascinated by

the power they possess and devoting themselves to them. But that’s a far cry from the practices of

traditional contemplation. What Arendt approves and demonstrates is not this low-budget form of

contemplation but a rigorous exploration of the meaning of any and all fabrications in order to

ascertain what they say about reality. This type of meta-thinking puts her firmly in the VC Redux

column.

12

4. Leaving the history of full-blown vita contemplativa aside for a moment, I suggest that

Arendt’s thinking is “contemplative” in a contemporary, ordinary language sense that is not

irrelevant to the present discussion. When we say that we are contemplating something—say, a

course of action, an object of art, a friend’s behavior—what do we mean? In the simplest terms,

we are trying to push aside the veil of appearances and seek the truth, even as did the grand

contemplatives and ordinary people through the ages. Although Arendt can be found to say that

truth is not her aim but meaning is, there is not a significant enough difference between the two to

derail VC Redux. In her practice she was seeking truth, admittedly not in a way that comports well

with either the practices of modern science and technology or the orientation and techniques of

mainstream philosophy. This type of probing—and going against the grain—should be a core

characteristic of VC Redux.

5. Obviously, Arendt’s thinking is not marked by mystic visions or any other throwbacks to

discredited notions of contemplation. For her, mystical visions would be so much brush to be

cleared away, “demythologized” as Rudolf Bultmann famously argued in another context.

Retaining what is essential—in this case, the demythologized—is exactly what VC Redux

demands. No effort will be expended on going down ancient rabbit holes or chasing fantastical

snarks. The mandate is to seek a form of contemplation suitable to the modern age.

Conclusion

What this thought experiment has sought to do is support the proposal, which I restate here as

aiming to (1) name Arendt’s style of thinking “vita contemplativa redux” and (2) apply the “vita

contemplativa redux” name to all such thinking, that is, deep and comprehensive thinking that

embodies the traits emerging from the above considerations. The point is to make VC Redux the

home for thinking that transcends the superficial, culturally dominant means-end calculations

mistakenly labeled “thinking” today. VC Redux both innovates and preserves: it is a new way to

categorize a crucial style of thought and equally a retrieval, restoration, and revitalization of an

honorable concept. The proposal takes its impetus from Arendt and regards her to a great degree

as its pioneer and champion. But, as Nietzsche said somewhere, it’s a poor student who doesn’t

outstrip his teacher. We must not simply imitate Arendt or any other true contemplatives, past or

present, but create our own path.

*****

___________________________________________________

V

WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with Ambitions!™

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: JOB APPLICANT PROFILES

WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with Ambitions!™ has recently conducted interviews for several positions in its new head office. Selected candidates were invited to digest the

13

organization’s operating manual, The Human Condition, before watching a 15-minute video outlining the organization’s activities, achievements, and future plans and offering a brief biography of its renowned founder, known within its ranks simply as “HA.” Candidates then met individually with an interviewing team from WORLDMAKERS.ORG/Human Resources.

Each candidate was asked the same five questions so that consistent and comparable Profiles could be created. The interview transcripts appear in summary form below, together with a Rating of each candidate (except for the first candidate, as will be explained), based on four core criteria: THINKING, SPEECH, ACTION, and WORLDLINESS™.

Note: While the candidates did succeed in securing the respective positions, the interviewers were not completely satisfied with either the candidates or the process itself. They sensed there was something flawed in the enterprise, perhaps even in its basic rationale. See the Appendix and the additional Profile.

*****

CANDIDATE 1: Al Laboranski Job Classification: General duties

Department: TBA, Unassigned

HUMAN RESOURCES: What can you offer WORLDMAKERS.ORG?

Al: Basically, hard work, or as I prefer to call it, labor. A good day’s work, every day. Whatever

task you have, I’m your man. I will mix in my labor with your materials for consumption by

consumers all across the globe. In fact, I’m an avid consumer myself. Lots of stuff in my house!

Always eager to keep the cycle going, you know, like a natural or biological process—like life

itself. I’m really pro-life, so to speak. At the end of the day, you’ll have got your money’s worth,

and I’ll feel the sense of bliss that comes from putting my shoulder to the proverbial wheel. Can’t

beat that. Hard labor never killed anybody.

HUMAN RESOURCES: What would you say are your strengths and weaknesses?

Al: Strengths: I’m very versatile and adaptable. Whether it’s a job in the field, literally, or in an

industrial machine environment, or in an office building with thousands of other employees, I can

do it. In fact, that’s exactly what I want to do. Almost as if I’m predestined! I’ll enjoy serving as

an instrument to carry out the purposes of WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with

Ambitions!™ And I’ll enjoy leaving the heavy-duty thinking about the organization’s specific aims

and strategies to somebody else higher up. That’s way beyond my pay grade.

Weaknesses: I’m not aware of any. Should I be?

HUMAN RESOURCES: What are your goals, what would you like to get out of this

position?

Al: Survival! A decent salary! I mean a way to ensure I can look after my family and keep things

going, that sort of thing. This is what everybody does, or should do, isn’t it? And being happy,

having work buddies, of course.

14

HUMAN RESOURCES: Work/life balance is important. What do you like to do, off-hours?

Al: Get away from my labor—much as I like it, don’t get me wrong!—so I can enjoy the fruits of

it. I like being out in nature, for instance, mainly with the other folks who make up what I

affectionately call “my herd.” The gang from work that I expect I’ll come to know at

WORLDMAKERS.ORG, for instance. You know, where everybody’s the same, nobody puts on

airs, that kind of thing. I expect we’ll have the same or pretty similar values, we’ll probably like

the same things. It’s great. We’ll go out together socially and “eat and drink in company” as

someone has said. Say, … maybe you’d like to join us? It’ll be fun.

HUMAN RESOURCES: WORLDMAKERS.ORG operates extensively in the public realm.

How do you feel about engaging in the public square?

Al: Isn’t that what I’m already doing? By socializing, as I said before? If you mean something

else—like dabbling in politics or running for office, I don’t know anything about that. Maybe I’ll

vote from time to time but that’s the limit. I leave serious political stuff to other folks. All that

yakety-yak! I shy away from politics, that’s for sure. I just want to live. But maybe your other

candidates might have something more to say about that.

HUMAN RESOURCES: That completes the interview, Al. Thanks for your time. We’ll be

in touch.

Al: Oh no, I must thank YOU! And, hey, let’s have that beer once I get the job!

WORLDMAKERS.ORG RATING: NOTE: This candidate is rated only for ENERGY: A. None of the

standard categories (Thinking, Speech, Action) can meaningfully apply, as should be obvious from

the summary above.

*****

CANDIDATE 2: Fabio Masteri Job Classification: Resource/Support

Department: Science and Technology


Fabio: As Ben Franklin might describe me, I’m a toolmaker through and though. Whatever your

organization or indeed nature itself provides as material I can shape into something worthwhile.

You can take “toolmaking” literally—as the devices and technology I create on a workbench or in

a lab—or metaphorically and less tangibly as the models and patterns and schemas I can make to

cover what is the case and, more important, what ought to be the case. I can take something

inherently worthless and make it valuable and marketable. All by means of craftsmanship.

15

Means-and-ends thinking is my specialty, as well as process. That is, I can provide the

means to achieve whatever ends are set by WORLDMAKERS.ORG executives, anything that

contributes to productivity and utility.

Not only that. I can help everyone up and down the line in the organization, from head

honchos to hourly laborers. I can give them the tools they need, from lofty conceptual schemes

right down or up to “mute robots.” People like me possess not just ingenuity but what we among

ourselves jokingly call “a terrible freedom”: we can create, and we can destroy. So much power!

Some people even say we relish our role as destroyers of nature, and claim we even think we are

lords and masters of the whole earth! I wouldn’t go that far myself.

I’m sure that of all the kinds of staff you need, you can’t go wrong with me. That is, if you

want WORLDMAKERS.ORG to produce objects, products, things that are going to be durable

and not tossed into the dustbin of consumables. And not just durable but even permanent, with any

luck.


Fabio: Strengths: I am happiest working on my projects independently. In fact, I prefer that. I need

to be able to utlilize my skills and apply my mastery of things in my own space. When my projects

are ready I take them to the marketplace and display them and conduct whatever business has to

be looked after. And get the hell out if I have to!

Weaknesses: Not sure this is a weakness, but I don’t like it when “social” types—the hoi

polloi—interfere with my activity. That is, when onlookers want to barge in on my routines and

processes and pretend they have a share in them as if they’re equal partners. I feel that they are

undermining me and my competence and my hard-won understanding of what is truly excellent. I

really don’t like to get involved in arguments with such people. They just don’t get it. I admit I

have no great skills in handling different personalities and perspectives.

HUMAN RESOURCES: What are your goals, what would you like to get out of this position?

Fabio: Oh, wow! I guess a sense of contributing to the world by fabricating good products, even

leaving something significant behind, something that transcends daily life and mere existence,

maybe has permanence. That’s as much as anyone can hope for, right? I’m happy to perform what

I think is an important service to humanity, even if some might call it “utilitarian.” Really, is there

anything beyond utility? If there is, I don’t see it. What is WORLDMAKERS.ORG for, after all?

At the same time I do appreciate what these days is called the “precarity” of all our human efforts.


Fabio: Keep up in my field, mainly. I like to study the latest technological and scientific

developments, check out new theories, models, paradigms—all that sort of thing. Planning how to

use these items and new knowledge in general to advantage. I’m an inveterate fabricator.

16

HUMAN RESOURCES: WORLDMAKERS.ORG operates in the public realm. How do you

feel about engaging in the public square?

Fabio: As I said, I don’t enjoy debating with people, wasting time on that sort of thing. I’ll go to

the marketplace to transact business, exchange products and so on, but that’s as far onto the public

stage and into the wider world as I need to be. If you mean do I want to play a role in politics, I’ll

say no.

It’s not that I’m anti-political or anything like that, just un-political. I put my energy and

efforts totally into my craft, end of story. Politics itself and endless political discussions that don’t

get anywhere are for somebody else, perhaps one of your other candidates.

HUMAN RESOURCES: That completes the interview, Fabio. Thanks for your time. We’ll

be in touch.

Fabio: Thank you. I must run, gotta set up for a Zoom productivity meeting!

WORLDMAKERS.ORG RATING: Thinking C, Speech B, Action B, WORLDLINESS™ B

*****

CANDIDATE 3: Max Weltmann Job Classification: Executive

Department: Thought, Speech, Action


Max: In both WORLDMAKERS.ORG’s internal and external activities I would stress,

enthusiastically and tirelessly, how we are all bound together with each other, how despite our

obvious plurality and diversity, our interests are actually “inter”-ests that can flourish only through

our inter-action and mutual engagement. Together we can create the world we want. Not that we

won’t face conflict; that’s part of the deal, and an important part.

I believe my perspective and experience give me exactly the kind of “worldliness” that

WORLDMAKERS.ORG is seeking in its own ranks and in the wider community. One of my

messages to colleagues and staff will be simply “Stop and Think,” as I believe that quality

thinking—thinking beyond merely fitting means to ends, calculating consequences etc.—is what’s

missing in today’s technologized environment. It’s impoverishing the world.

As the founder of your organization pointed out, we need to “think beyond the limitations

of knowledge, to do more with this ability than use it as an instrument for knowing and doing.” In

our politics and in society more broadly, we need to transcend so-called common-sense reasoning

and what computing or mere calculating can deliver.

In some moods, I confess, I feel that real thinking is often ruled out of order today because

it doesn’t produce immediate results. But I still maintain we always need to take a longer view. If

we really want to create a coherent and meaningful world with any durability, we have to undertake

rigorous imagining and thinking. Straight utilitarian “reasoning” as we have come to know it won’t

cut it.

17


Max: Strengths: I have a great capacity for what your founder called “natality,” for beginning

something new. I don’t think anything is predetermined or subject to fate or necessity. The field

for action is wide open, and we’re free to create the world we want! Personally I’m not afraid to

risk putting myself and WORLDMAKERS.ORG out there in the zone of what has been called

“merciless exposure.” At the same time I know that realizing our goals will take shape in contact

with other agents trying to realize theirs. That’s fine, even if I might occasionally be out-argued

by fellow actors. The thrust and parry of debate doesn’t faze me. We’ll get there, not to worry.

Weaknesses: It’s not simply that I savor plurality and the “polis” more than anyone else, I

actually need them. They’re my life breath! I wouldn’t know what to do with myself if there

weren’t a public realm to match wits in, talk in, act in, find my real self in. I’m not someone who

could retreat into making things in a workshop or tilling the soil or some such. Not for me, though

okay for somebody else. Maybe I’m suffering from a form of dependency, but that’s not for me to

say.


Max: If I have goals, they’ll be totally bound up with my commitment to

WORLDMAKERS.ORG, and they’ll be intrinsic to the thinking and the speaking and the acting

that I’ve described. They’ll be self-sustaining, self-fulfilling, reciprocal … yet, I hope, not self-

aggrandizing!


Max: Think! I mean that in all seriousness. I like to think about possibilities for the world—what

will contribute to safeguarding life in the broadest sense—and envision how to argue for them and

actually achieve them. I never tire of imagining what can be done when human beings despite their

diversity and plurality recognize their commonalities!



Max: As you’ve undoubtedly gathered from what I’ve been saying, I will thrive in the public

square and in whatever political situations or implications follow from that. Some people might

see politics today as only a mechanical function or a necessary evil, but I don’t. I take a much more

positive view, like that of the ancients who extoled the Greek polis.

I’m eager to tell the WORLDMAKERS.ORG story and to bring people onside with it. All

without coercing them, of course. I’ll cherish participating and acting with my fellow men, learning

their perspectives—immersing myself in plurality, in other words—and celebrating the myriad

relationships we have now and will cultivate for the future.

After all, it’s in the public square where we come together in speech and action, that great

deeds—worldmaking deeds—will be remembered, and that’s where I will pledge to take

WORLDMAKERS.ORG.

18

HUMAN RESOURCES: That completes the interview, Max. Thanks for your time. We’ll

be in touch.

Max: Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you.

WORLDMAKERS.ORG RATING: Thinking A, Speech A, Action A, WORLDLINESS™ A+

*****

APPENDIX

C O N F I D E N T I A L Colleagues, the process of interviewing these candidates strongly suggests to us that there may be something wrong with our categories, perhaps even with the basic typology that we’re using. The following outlines the key concerns of the WORLDMAKERS.ORG / Human Resources interviewing team.

• We have begun to wonder if the three-element typology of the human being we standardly employ—unbeknownst to job applicants—namely animal laborans, homo faber, and Man of Action (short for Thought, Speech, and Action), is really adequate as a conceptual framework for what WORLDMAKERS.ORG has in mind. We worry that this typology fails to capture what is necessary for achieving our corporate vision. As well, it doesn’t seem to align with the richness of the team’s own lived experience. The three types, even if we concede that they are only archetypes, symbols, idealizations, or rhetorical conveniences and not natural kinds, empirical entities, or ontological categories, certainly don’t exhaust our personal understandings of human beings. To be honest, we are not perfectly sure why the founder even developed this typology.

• On the one hand, the typology tends to exaggerate the power of politics, assumes an implausible level of trust and innocence among actors in the public square, and perhaps more importantly, leaves no room for persons like Al Laboranski and to a lesser extent, Fabio Masteri, to play a significant role at the heart of the world-making enterprise. Only Max Weltmann can qualify as a leader in the present structure. What exactly is to become of Al and Fabio?

• On the other hand, the typology excludes (militates against?) some virtues and orientations that could contribute to our organization’s mission. We have in view here the potential value of actions in the public square that are performed on the basis of love. That is, on a foundation of care and fellow feeling and delight in the common good. We stress that this is NOT to be confused with mushy sentimentality, romantic eros, or biological kinship. Even Max Weltmann falls short in this regard, as he never indicated anything other than the mere fact of interacting with others as a source of spiritual

19

energy. And he was disturbingly silent about the possibility of modeling compassion and charity, of actively “reaching out,” virtues that have often motivated people to advance human flourishing and indeed to conduct “worldmaking,” the very raison d être of WORLDMAKERS.ORG!

• Overall, we have come to regard the typology as too limited and rigid. One way to rescue and realign it might be to add a fourth type to the mix! If we could do that, perhaps it would take us beyond the limitations of the present triad and its assumed completeness and implicit normativity.

• Thankfully and, we must say, fortuitously, the Human Resources team finds itself in a position to offer another candidate for consideration whose characteristics may be in line with the direction WORLDMAKERS.ORG should go in both its self-conception and its hiring practices. This unexpected opportunity could serve as a catalyst for totally overhauling the existing typology. The candidate may even be an instance of, or model for, that extra type we have suggested. We’re not sure. Just among ourselves we’ve nicknamed him “the fourth man in the fire,” a biblical moniker that appealed to one of us. (For a latinate label parallel to animal laborans or homo faber, we might suggest vir sagax or homo quaestitor, but we’re not confident enough of our facility in that language.) Please see the profile that follows.

*****

CANDIDATE 4: Daniel Hochma

Job classification: Executive

Department: Strategic Planning?


Daniel: Although the WORLDMAKERS.ORG literature I’ve studied contends that love “by

reason of its passion, destroys the in-between which relates us to and separates us from others”

and concludes that this alleged destruction precludes its employment in serious world-making, I

beg to differ. I want to stand that idea on its head.

Indeed, I am convinced that the organization can achieve its goals only if its thinking,

speaking, and acting are suffused with love. I don’t mean love in the sense of a subjective, warm,

misty or fuzzy feeling that immediately dissipates once the going gets tough, but in the sense of a

deep understanding of “the human condition,” if I can appropriate that term, and an active attitude

of care for all persons and their rights and their potentials, and for the world at large. In fact, this

is the only way I can make sense of the founder’s intriguing notion of amor mundi. Where the

founder seems to see love as essentially eros, I see it as agape and philia, even if not exactly in the

way these terms have often been interpreted. But I won’t belabor that here!

20

If hired, I will seek to show how this can work both within the organization and outside it.

To be clear, it is not passion that is the defining feature of the love I have in mind but a robust

commitment to advance the well-being of “the other,” however that may be defined. This is not

pie in the sky. If anything is pie in the sky, it’s Marxism, whose utopian fantasies I take it

WORLDMAKERS.ORG rejects.

What our pluralistic world needs is not more intellectual virtue or lofty thinking, with its

studied disdain of emotion and fear of it, or even a thinking that tries to stretch beyond instrumental

means-end calculations, but more virtue of character, as social commentators are starting to realize.

We’ve suffered plenty of lack of character in recent times.


Daniel: As you may gather, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with some of the

assumptions of WORLDMAKERS.ORG, if I have understood them correctly. I suppose these will

come out as “strengths” or “weaknesses” from the organization’s perspective. So be it.

Strengths: I share the organization’s skepticism about may aspects of modernity, including

the value of the social sciences and theories and models of human behavior, and the founder’s

contentions that some human actions explode the standard moral categories and render them

useless. I am not fazed by this discovery. I also concur with the founder’s claims about the darkness

of the human heart. It’s absolutely imperative not to have illusions! I’ll add that I don’t worry

about the results of acting with love (including forgiveness) being unpredictable. That’s an

attribute of all human action.

Weaknesses: I do not actually view “the world” solely as man’s creation, which I realize

puts me at odds with the organization and its founder. But this does not mean that I shirk from

engagement with it. Far from it! It’s that I don’t put too much weight on the “solely.” A world that

is solely our own creation can hardly offer transcendence. We would just be looking at ourselves

in the mirror ad infinitum, ad nauseam. But I’ll leave that as an open question rather than trot out

any sort of religious or philosophical dogma to support my view. I believe that I and

WORLDMAKERS.ORG can ultimately agree on what is achievable and what is not, what has true

permanence, what is only sham, pretense, and a thing of the moment.


Daniel: Simply put, I want to extend the reach of love and justice, and assure greater human

flourishing—and even a transformation of the world.


Daniel: Conceive of new ways to achieve the aims I’ve noted and to try to practice them in my

daily life! This was what I was doing before I applied for the position with

WORLDMAKERS.ORG and will continue to do whether I’m hired or not. It’s my life, as I make

no essential discrimination between my “off” hours and my “on” hours. It’s like a calling, you

might say.

21



Daniel: I believe I’ve already indicated how I feel about this. But to reiterate, I’ll just say that I

will enter it with total commitment and energy, and lead the organization’s agents in doing the

same. We will all find our true freedom there. I reject the idea that love is “the most powerful of

all antipolitical human forces.” Rather, it is the only thing that can make sense of politics and the

public realm.

HUMAN RESOURCES: That completes the interview, Daniel. We’ll be in touch.

Daniel: I must thank you, and I wish you well in your good work.

WORLDMAKERS.ORG RATING*: Thinking A+?, Speech A?, Action A?, WORLDLINESS™ ?

*Note: The team found this candidate impressive but very hard to evaluate or rate, and thus recommend that a new interview protocol be designed, not only for this candidate but any others who may follow in his train.

Respectfully submitted by WORLDMAKERS.ORG/Human Resources.

11 July 2021

WORLDMAKERS.ORG : The Start-up with Ambitions!™

______________________________________________________________________________

Ruminations on Arendt: Five Takes

Documents

Transcript of Ruminations on Arendt: Five Takes