THE CLUB: The Human Condition

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
MBTI
None

Welcome to The Club's joint book reading of Hannah Arendt's classic 1958 philosophical book, "The Human Condition".

If you would like a free ebook copy of the book please PM me.

Please note these general courtesy rules:

Discussion of the book itself should be done in spoiler tags that are labeled with the chapter of the book you'll be discussing to the best of your ability. This is because we may not all be reading at the same pace and we want to be sure nothing is spoiled for anyone who hasn't reached the same part as you.

Anybody is welcome to join reading at any time. This book has 6 sections and we will be aiming to discuss 1 section of the book per week.

Onlookers and spectators are welcome, but please be aware that The Club is a criminal organization prone to intimidation. We know where your blog is and aren't afraid to rough ya up if you don't respect The Club. Reading is very serious to us. Likewise, you will be protected if you join The Club against any anti readers who want to give you a hard time.

This week we will start with section 1: The Human Condition

@Ginny

(I will be making the fiction Emma thread later today, unless you want to take the lead on that one, Ginny)


 
Good thing I saw this just now. No idea why I didn't get notified about the tag :thonking:


I actually thought we'd read one after the other, at least two weeks apart, just to make the entry a little easier :sweatsmile:

If you think you have time to manage the other thread too, you can create it if you like. I'd actually be more comfortable to wait at least a week until taking a lead - haven't been actively active for a long time and my threads have never drawn much attention.

BTW, I will start reading today.
 
Ginny said:
Good thing I saw this just now. No idea why I didn't get notified about the tag :thonking:


I actually thought we'd read one after the other, at least two weeks apart, just to make the entry a little easier :sweatsmile:

If you think you have time to manage the other thread too, you can create it if you like. I'd actually be more comfortable to wait at least a week until taking a lead - haven't been actively active for a long time and my threads have never drawn much attention.

BTW, I will start reading today.
Click to expand...
I will make the other thread today, simply because we had somebody else express interest in the Emma book and I think it would be cool to have 1 fiction and 1 nonfiction book going at the same time so we reach a wider audience. No pressure to try to read both at once although I will to keep both sides going and maybe eventually somebody else can take up the fiction branch because I'm not really big on fiction reading.

We will see how it goes though and adjust as needed
 
slant said:

Welcome to The Club's joint book reading of Hannah Arendt's classic 1958 philosophical book, "The Human Condition".

If you would like a free ebook copy of the book please PM me.

Please note these general courtesy rules:

Discussion of the book itself should be done in spoiler tags that are labeled with the chapter of the book you'll be discussing to the best of your ability. This is because we may not all be reading at the same pace and we want to be sure nothing is spoiled for anyone who hasn't reached the same part as you.

Anybody is welcome to join reading at any time. This book has 6 sections and we will be aiming to discuss 1 section of the book per week.

Onlookers and spectators are welcome, but please be aware that The Club is a criminal organization prone to intimidation. We know where your blog is and aren't afraid to rough ya up if you don't respect The Club. Reading is very serious to us. Likewise, you will be protected if you join The Club against any anti readers who want to give you a hard time.

This week we will start with section 1: The Human Condition

@Ginny

(I will be making the fiction Emma thread later today, unless you want to take the lead on that one, Ginny)
Click to expand...

I look forward to the discussions here. As I mentioned to @slant separately, I read the book a long time ago, so I will be waiting for my memory to be refreshed.

A controversial statement to spice things up a little: I remember being actually disappointed with Harendt's books. I don't recall discovering much that was new to me, based on other readings. I hope people here will make me change my mind.
 
This book is incredibly dry and boring.

I'm going to read it and get through it and keep my commitment but I'm going to do it fast so I can move on to a more interesting book- "Bowling Alone" by robert putnam.
 
I think my issue with this book is that I prefer sociology and have no real interest in philosophy. For some reason I thought this was going to be sociological but it leans heavily on philosophy.
 
I tried with this book, I really did, but I am not feeling it. If anybody wants to share their thoughts please do. I'm going to look into other books I'm actually interested in since I'm really the only active participant here anyway, that way I can keep up the activity and potentially draw others in. At least you now get a sense of the format I plan to utilize in this
 
I just haven't got as far as finishing chapter 1 just yet. Will share my initial thoughts when I do.

The only thing I can say so far is that it's too focussed on politics for my taste, but she is leaning heavily on Ancient Greece and Aristotelean philosophy, as you have already pointed out, so it's not quite senseless.

The book reminds me of the literature I was required to read for school. Or at least it requires the same kind of concentration.

I'm still going to finish it, don't worry.
 
slant said:
This book is incredibly dry and boring.

I'm going to read it and get through it and keep my commitment but I'm going to do it fast so I can move on to a more interesting book- "Bowling Alone" by robert putnam.
Click to expand...

Bowling Alone is a good book. It's still very much written by an academic though -- just warning you, if you tend to find the style dry.

Another suggestion I would have is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson.
 
Ren said:
Bowling Alone is a good book. It's still very much written by an academic though -- just warning you, if you tend to find the style dry.

Another suggestion I would have is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson.
Click to expand...
I've already been bowling alone. I love it. I'll have to check out the second one. It's maybe not the writing as much as the content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
The writing is pretty dreary - throws me back to "Reassembling the Social" as well, with one major difference and this is why I think it's very philosophical. Rather than referencing biological and scientific evidence, she refers to philosophy.

Having finished Chapter 1, I have a thought that I'd like to share.
I think in the way she describes all the three concepts, vita activa, vita contemplativa and the difference between immortality and eternity, there is always a commentary that vibes between the words. I'd almost call it critique. It reminded me that in order to critique philosophy at its core, one must use the means of philosophy itself, so that it has an impact on it at all. If you went to disprove a scientific theory by using religious propaganda, it wouldn't have an impact on science at all because it's a conflicting word view.

She hasn't been going on to really outright writing it (and this is where the author of the Introduction has made a very valid point), but I think she wants to get at balance between the vitae being the most human one can be and that to be either of the two means to deny the other part and thus denying any multiplicity to existence. In distinguishing immortality and eternity, I discovered the core aspiration and thus the hypocrisy of philosophers that subscribe to a life of contemplation while trying to ensure their immortality with their writing. By putting vita contemplativa into action through writing denies the everlasting or eternal evolution of existence.

What she really does is merely point things out as they were, without making any commentary towards how things are right now. It's good she did that, or the reader might confuse the issue for the message.

It's quite possible that the work is so non-sociologic because sociology itself (as we know it) didn't exist as such before the 60s and 70s. But what I think she does is predict a trend towards a different age of discourse by using the means available to her.

Regarding my own argument in the other spoiler, if she does critique the attempt at immortalisation of philosophers in the past, through preferring their own writing above refining their thinking as the pure state, it inhibits cause for discourse and argumentation across all academic fields. Academic discourse, however, falls under the realm of vita activa nowadays, thus building an overlap of the two lives possibly lived by any human.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for dropping the ball on this. Discipline, mostly, consistency and schedules is still something I struggle with due to my adhd. Especially when it's something I don't find interesting. I still crave having a book club and a sort of weekly ritual, though. I need to work on follow through.
 
slant said:
Sorry for dropping the ball on this. Discipline, mostly, consistency and schedules is still something I struggle with due to my adhd. Especially when it's something I don't find interesting. I still crave having a book club and a sort of weekly ritual, though. I need to work on follow through.
Click to expand...
Me too. Work sucks a lot of energy (vaycay as of next week) and this is a piece of work to start with. I repeat though it reminds me of school, and not in a bad way. It made me want to look up some linguistic stuff on ancient greek :relaxed:
Still a lot of reading to do, but I mean to increase the amount of time assigned to leisure (which includes social reading
;)
)
 
I have done it - I finished it. Can't say that I think I have developed an idea over what "the Human Condition" is yet, but I have gained new ways to perceive it.

It's funny how the three elements that stand out - vita activa, vita contemplativa and labouring - have come full circle in a way. It's even funnier how much critique the philosophers got for their abstruse definition of the vita contemplativa and overstating the importance of it (basically tooting their own horn :tearsofjoy:).

I'll definitely have to read it again, because it's easy to mistake the forest for the trees in this one. If you remember that it's a work from the 50s and how much has changed since, it's still a remarkable piece of work in terms of how applicable it still is to society today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top