LTWWB/LTWWL on Holiday

WHAT IS THINKING?

Since the comments relating to my post “Hannah Arendt on Thinking” were particularly banal – Xenophilia (Jan. 1, 8:54PM) yobbering about whippets being “just mini greyhounds” while Wheeliep Bader’s (Jan. 2, 8:52AM) reference to Arendt’s “The Banality of Trolling” attains new depths of mindlessness – I thought it might be an idea to expand on her (Arendt’s, not Xeno’s) concept of the nature of thinking.

Arendt’s conception of the nature of thinking inquired into the activity itself, an activity conceived independently of any particular object of thought. So, thinking was not identical with thinking about the objects and processes of the natural world (science), not about the attainment of “usable” wisdom (pragmatism), not about solving the riddle of the universe (i.e., metaphysical systems) and not about endowing us “directly” with the power to act. Note the quotation marks – Arendt was not a simple pragmatist but she certainly maintained that thinking had a profound effect on our “Being in the World.” (Arendt was a student (and lover) of Heidegger who asked that show-stopping question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” That “something,” of course, was “Being” as it existed in “Time,” the title of his major philosophical work being “Sein und Zeit.”) Anyway, how did Arendt conceive of the contentless activity of thinking?

Thinking for Arendt consisted of an “internal dialogue.” Note the word “dialogue.”
Thinking, in other words, consisted of the conversation between the duality of “me” and “myself,” a conversation that could range over any given content. But the conversation was critical, the “myself” took a critical stance, usually in the form of questioning, of the “me.” (If only the “me” was functioning, then one could descend into fanaticism, like Heidegger himself who became a Nazi in return for the chancellorship of the University of Freiberg.) Further, the conversation did not depend on intelligence, to say nothing of formal academic qualifications. It was a natural product like the appreciation of music or poetry. It was simply a natural product of of man’s Being in the World. Thinking did have an outcome however, but not in any narrow pragmatic sense. Thinking issued out into “judgement” in which man took a reasoned stand on issues central to his Being. For Arendt, the worst failure of man was not evil itself but “thoughtlessness,” that by which thoroughly ordinary men (like “Eichmann in Jerusalem”) could mindlessly be complicit in acts of unimaginable horror.

So let’s make it a Thoughtful New Year!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

NEW HORIZONS OF ARENDTIAN INTROSPECTION

First, let me congratulate The Sodomite (Jan. 2, 10:28AM) on his elevation to the rank of Assistant Moderator from which position he will vet all attempts at humour permitted on LTWWB based, of course, on his own primitive standards. But Bird, don’t hesitate to discipline him if he gets out of line. If he does, put a large crotch cricket in his pants to claw at his ball sack. Now, having gotten rid of that arser, to the matter at hand.

Montrealman has pondered on Hannah Arendt’s construct of that internal dialogue between “me” and “myself” which is constitutive of thinking and – is there no limit to the depth and subtlety of his reflection? – will proceed to apply the model to HIMSELF!

It goes like this: The dual nature of his consciousness consists of “myself” otherwise known as “Montrealman” while “me” is embodied in the the “Real-World Me” (R-WM). The former is bold and fearless – he’ll put it up his opponent’s orifice where it belongs – but the R-WM is more mannerly, even somewhat reticent. The consequence is that they are not always see eye-to-eye. For example, the R-WM might ask Montrealman whether it was really necessary to call The Sodomite an “arser” but Montrealman does not bother with such trifles. “Go for it!” he says, “and let the chips fall where they may!”

Difficulties arise, however, where no clear compromise is visible, where the differences between Montrealman and the R-WM do not admit of ready resolution. This is where a new level of Arendtian introspection called for. To adjudicate such differences a new and higher agent, the TRANSCENDENTAL ME makes his appearance on the stage of consciousness. The Transcendental Me is, in effect, that harmonious philosophical embodiment of Montrealman and the R-WM, the specifics of whom I have yet to work out. This is, after all, a work in progress.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!