The Relevance of Hannah Arendt’s Perception of Political Judgment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Definition of Judgment
The Issue of Representative Politics
Supporters of Hannah Arendt’s Political Vision
Conclusions
Work Cited

Introduction

Hannah Arendt was one of the most powerful yet controversial political theorists of the 20th century. In her writings, Arendt drew public attention to the notions of efficient politics free of discrimination and oppression. Apart from pondering in the origins of totalitarianism and democracy, her arguments on the topic of political thought and judgment appear in the collections of essays, including Truth and Politics, The Life of the Mind, and The Human Condition, but there is no unified approach on how to perceive judgment and reasoning. Still, out of the essays studied, researchers have managed to define Arendt’s primary definition of political judgment that comprises Kantian ideas of “enlarged mentality” (Arendt 556).

Considering her works, one may assume that although rightfully considered as one of the major contributors to the theory of political judgment, Hannah Arendt’s perception of socio-economic matters and oppression was rather idealistic and not suited for its full-scale and efficient embracing in the modern political context.

The Definition of Judgment

In order to understand the discrepancy that lies within Arendt’s approach to politics, it is necessary to dwell on her definition of human nature as a whole. Thus, she fundamentally addresses two major types of human life – vita activa and vita contemplativa. The former concerns people prioritizing action over passive contemplation, whereas the latter praises theoretical knowledge (Arendt 168). In the context of her philosophy, she repeatedly appeals to the promotion of vita activa as one of the major means of a modernist society driven by action and labor rather than passive judgment.

Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that Arendt, through her claims, addresses the concept of existentialism, which stands for a person’s perception of life through the adoption of free will to choose one’s fate. As a result, one may outline that empiricism was far more important in terms of Arendt’s definition of thought and judgment than rationalism that claims the ability to gain knowledge out of the context of sense experience.

However, despite being a representative of the existentialist school, Arendt, in her definition of political judgment, relies greatly on Kant’s idea of enlarged mentality, which creates a discrepancy in this judgment. Ultimately, an enlarged mentality denotes one’s ability to perceive reality not through the prism of individual experience but from a variety of perspectives existing within society (Arendt 556).

Thus, when combining Arendt’s viewpoint on vita activa prevalence in society and Kantian perception of political thought, one may assume that in such scenario, action, although regarded as the ultimate manifestation of political judgment, is impossible without considerate contemplation. As a result, it presents a challenge to the potential adopters of this perception due to the dissonance that arises in the utopian attempt of finding a balance between vita activa and vita contemplativa.

The Issue of Representative Politics

Equality

The idealistic interpretation of Arendt’s political thought ultimately presents a significant ethical dilemma in terms of perception of truth and equality. These options, while becoming central in the context of modern political debate, had a completely different meaning in the author’s version. The modern political context ultimately focuses on creating an environment that strives for equality through integration and equal opportunities. In Arendt’s (43) understanding of the issue, “we are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutually equal rights.” As a result, while she encourages the fight for equality, she claims integration to be a highly controversial notion due to its potential outcome of people “having forgotten that man is only the master, not the creator of the world” (Arendt 43).

As a result, one may define that Arendt’s interpretation of equality is rather egalitarian, which means that she denies equality in the sense of everyone becoming literally equal in terms of social status, economic possessions, and political power.

Such a perception of equality remains controversial today because it rather focuses on one’s ability to treat humans equally while acknowledging their diversity and not undermining its significance in the socio-political context. Thus, in Arendt’s perception, equality serves as an obstacle to efficient politics that requires a plurality of opinions as a driving force for political action. Opinions, according to Arendt, serve as a basis for a representative government that takes into account the viewpoints of the state residents in order to define the most appropriate means of problem-solving (Arendt 556). Indeed, the modern context of democracy presupposes accounting for the perspectives of various social groups to satisfy the vast majority of human needs. However, Arendt’s major argument in the context of representative politics is impartiality, or the absence of empathy, because it may stand in the way of achieving justice (Arendt 556).

Truth and Opinion

Another significant notion considered in the context of representative political thought is the idea of truth, the statement of which “possesses a peculiar opaqueness” (Arendt 557). It would be reasonable to assume that telling the truth does not correlate with the underlying idea of acting as a driving force of efficient politics. Instead, it should be the opinions that encourage political actors to define the tangible solutions to secure full-scale justice. However, a significant issue with the notion of opinion concerns the fact that the so-called opinions may appear to be deliberate falsehood in disguise.

Supporters of Hannah Arendt’s Political Vision

It goes without saying that many people and political activists may regard Arendt’s ideas as a way of combating modern socio-economic issues. Thus, instead of claiming her ideas as utopian, they perceive them as something to strive for in order to achieve the desired justice. For example, the lack of emotional assessment of issues, by all means, may lead to better outcomes driven by an objective perception of reality. However, when thinking of the modern context of politics, impartiality sounds extremely utopian, as people, even when bearing political responsibility, cannot deprive themselves of feelings during the decision-making process. It would be superficial to claim that impartiality in political judgement is something people may experience even in the long-term perspective.

When speaking of truth and opinion, some people may assume that Arendt’s intentions are reasonable due to the value of plurality of opinions in the context of building democracy. However, deliberate falsehood currently takes place in the political context, as many political and thought leaders speculate with the freedom of speech in order to promote untruthful intentions. For this reason, people nowadays tend to settle for objective truth rather than a plurality of opinions. In order for the latter to create a beneficial environment for vita activa, the plurality of thoughts should obtain a genuinely positive intention. Modern political context, in its turn, is replete with extremely individualistic and cruel ambitions that stand in the way of embracing opinion diversity.

Conclusions

Having considered the identification of political judgment and reasoning from Hannah Arendt’s perspective, one may conclude that her perception of the socio-economic environment and the “equality-oppression” paradigm is not applicable to the modern political context. Primarily, her ideas rely greatly on the idea of vita activa that places action over theoretical knowledge. Such a desire for political action remains rather utopian as it cannot exist in the reality of speculation, inability to obtain an exhaustive perspective on representative political thought, and ambivalence around the notion of equality. Arendt’s ideas of political judgment are by no means unreasonable or inappropriate. Instead, they require reconsideration and adjustment to the political landscape relevant today.

Work Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Portable Hannah Arendt. Penguin Books, 2000.

Click Here To Order Now!