What do you think?
Rate this book
賵囟毓 亘卮乇
讴鬲丕亘 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬� 丌孬丕乇 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丌賱賲丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 爻丕賱 郾酃鄣鄹 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿. 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 亘賴 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 鬲兀孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇鬲乇蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 芦丌乇賳鬲禄 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀�. 趩賳丕賳鈥屭┵� 賲噩賱賴 賳蹖賵蹖賵乇讴乇 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲: 芦鈥屫壁┷屫� 鬲賵丿賴 毓馗蹖賲 毓賯賱丕賳蹖 賵 毓賯賱 爻賱蹖賲 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賳诏乇卮 禺丕賳賲 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴賲 噩匕丕亘 亘丕卮丿 賵 賴賲 氐乇蹖丨.禄 賵囟毓 亘卮乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕爻鬲 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й� 睾蹖乇賲賳鬲馗乇賴 讴賴 丕夭 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賵噩賵賴 亘賴 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲賳丕爻亘 丿丕乇丿 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇卮 丿乇 爻丕賱 郾酃鄣鄹. 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賲丿乇賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 丕毓賲丕賱蹖 讴賴 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖 丕賳噩丕賲卮 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 賲賵乇丿 賵丕讴丕賵蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 賲爻丕卅賱蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳 毓丕賲賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖貨 丕蹖賳 倬丕乇丕丿賵讴爻 讴賴 賴乇 趩賴 賯丿乇鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖 賮賳蹖 賵 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屭必й屫з嗁� 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賲鬲乇 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 讴賳鬲乇賱 倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖 丕毓賲丕賱卮 丕爻鬲貙 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 賲爻丕卅賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 倬蹖卮 賲丕 乇禺 賲蹖鈥屬嗁呚й屫з嗀�. 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 鄱 亘禺卮 鬲賳馗蹖賲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴鈥屫必屫� 毓亘丕乇鬲賳丿 丕夭 賵囟毓 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丨賵夭賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 賵 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 鬲賯賱丕 (夭丨賲鬲)貙 讴丕乇貙 毓賲賱貙 丨蹖丕鬲 賮毓丕賱 賵 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 讴賴 丿乇 賴乇 亘禺卮 亘賴 鬲賮氐蹖賱 亘賴 賵噩賵賴 乇蹖夭 賵 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘丨孬 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丌乇賳鬲 丕诏乇 趩賴 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 鬲賱丕卮 賳讴乇丿 賲乇蹖丿丕賳蹖 诏乇丿 禺賵丿 噩賲毓 讴賳丿 賵賱蹖 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇蹖 毓丕賱蹖 賲賯丕賲 亘賵丿 讴賴 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 趩卮賲丕賳 禺賵丕賳賳丿诏丕賳卮 乇丕 亘丕 卮蹖賵賴鈥屬囏й� 賳賵蹖賳 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳 亘賴 噩賴丕賳 賵 丕賲賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳 丌卮賳丕 賳賲丕蹖丿. 丕賵 丕睾賱亘 亘丕 胤乇丨 賮乇賯鈥屭柏ж臂� 賵 鬲賲丕蹖夭賴丕蹖 噩丿蹖丿 讴賴 丕睾賱亘 賳蹖夭 爻賴 賵噩賴蹖 亘賵丿賳丿 爻毓蹖 丿丕卮鬲 賵噩賵賴 賮乇丕賲賵卮鈥屫簇� 鬲噩乇亘賴 乇丕 鬲卮乇蹖丨 讴賳丿貙 诏賵蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵倬丕乇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿蹖 賵 爻賳鬲蹖 鬲賮讴乇丕鬲 賵 鬲禺蹖賱丕鬲 賲賳胤賯蹖 丕賵 乇丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀�. 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮乇賯鈥屭柏ж臂屸€屬囏ж池�.
488 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
2,189 people are currently reading
41.8k people want to read
About the author
Hannah Arendt
374听books4,443听followersHannah Arendt (1906 鈥� 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 621 reviews
December 24, 2020
This is a difficult read, although initially more frightening than it ends up actually being. Arendt's intellect is intimidating to say the least, and the manner in which she launches into a discussion of the human condition in the modern age is altogether unlike anything I've ever seen before -- "unique" is certainly an understatement. She completely renovates the discussion of political and social theory, but does it in a way that makes it seem logical and even natural. The scope of her knowledge is breathtaking, as she deftly handles everything from Ancient Greek property rights to modern day astrophysics, displaying an impressive working knowledge of Greek, Latin, German, French, and Italian in the process.
The book's greatest value is in its content. In addition to Arendt's revolutionary proposal of the vita activa (contrasted with the vita contemplativa) as broken up into the three separate areas of labor, work, and action, she also develops background arguments in each of these three categories that could have become books unto themselves. Her discussion of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was one of the highlights. It was utterly fascinating to learn that unlike modern slaves that exist for production's sake, ancient slaves existed chiefly to free their masters from the necessities of everyday labor (day-to-day maintenance such as cleaning and cooking). This distinction does not seem like much on first glance, but it completely shifted the manner in which these two separate cultures thought about labor and human liberty:
I also enjoyed Arendt's writing style. Though she tended to lose me with some of her longer sentences, the meaning is always very clear when you take the time to parse down each phrase and aside. She is precise, if not concise. She is seemingly without pretension; neither arrogant in the way that she boldly takes down to size intellectual giants like Marx, Adam Smith, Bentham, Kant, or any of the Stoics or Epicureans, nor overly humble when she kneads the entire mass of political philosophy into a new (and more appropriate) form. Also, she seems to intuit that her ideas are complex and not immediately penetrable; some of the concepts in the first chapters that leave you scratching your head she knowingly addresses in more detail later on, without calling too much attention to the repetition and further elaboration. It's as if she knew you wouldn't have any idea what she was talking about the first time and wanted to inconspicuously help you, avoiding any embarrassment on your part.
My biggest problem with the book is its lack of stated purpose or overall thematic vision. I know she mentioned early on that the idea was to get people to think more, and I can respect that. But I was left confused with what she was actually proposing. I understood that she seemed to value action higher than either work or labor, but she was fairly clear in her condemnation of some of the worse outcomes of unplanned action as well (unpredictability, irreversibility). So what, then, is a reasonable model to follow, according to Arendt? Or is it just about developing more appropriate categories for these ideas? The introduction (which I recommend reading AFTER the text itself) addresses this issue but doesn't fully resolve it either. All in all, the genius of the discussion itself more than makes up for this lack, and that indeed was probably her intention all along.
Cross-posted at
The book's greatest value is in its content. In addition to Arendt's revolutionary proposal of the vita activa (contrasted with the vita contemplativa) as broken up into the three separate areas of labor, work, and action, she also develops background arguments in each of these three categories that could have become books unto themselves. Her discussion of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was one of the highlights. It was utterly fascinating to learn that unlike modern slaves that exist for production's sake, ancient slaves existed chiefly to free their masters from the necessities of everyday labor (day-to-day maintenance such as cleaning and cooking). This distinction does not seem like much on first glance, but it completely shifted the manner in which these two separate cultures thought about labor and human liberty:
The opinion that labor and work were despised in antiquity because only slaves were engaged in them is a prejudice of modern historians. The ancients reasoned the other way around and felt it necessary to possess slaves because of the slavish nature of all occupations that served the needs for the maintenance of life. It was precisely on these grounds that the institution of slavery was defended and justified. p.83In order to have freedom to pursue the truly worthy human deeds (politics, oration, philosophy), they had to enslave these servants. Arendt's documentation of this shift is perhaps the most memorable part of the book.
I also enjoyed Arendt's writing style. Though she tended to lose me with some of her longer sentences, the meaning is always very clear when you take the time to parse down each phrase and aside. She is precise, if not concise. She is seemingly without pretension; neither arrogant in the way that she boldly takes down to size intellectual giants like Marx, Adam Smith, Bentham, Kant, or any of the Stoics or Epicureans, nor overly humble when she kneads the entire mass of political philosophy into a new (and more appropriate) form. Also, she seems to intuit that her ideas are complex and not immediately penetrable; some of the concepts in the first chapters that leave you scratching your head she knowingly addresses in more detail later on, without calling too much attention to the repetition and further elaboration. It's as if she knew you wouldn't have any idea what she was talking about the first time and wanted to inconspicuously help you, avoiding any embarrassment on your part.
My biggest problem with the book is its lack of stated purpose or overall thematic vision. I know she mentioned early on that the idea was to get people to think more, and I can respect that. But I was left confused with what she was actually proposing. I understood that she seemed to value action higher than either work or labor, but she was fairly clear in her condemnation of some of the worse outcomes of unplanned action as well (unpredictability, irreversibility). So what, then, is a reasonable model to follow, according to Arendt? Or is it just about developing more appropriate categories for these ideas? The introduction (which I recommend reading AFTER the text itself) addresses this issue but doesn't fully resolve it either. All in all, the genius of the discussion itself more than makes up for this lack, and that indeed was probably her intention all along.
Cross-posted at
May 1, 2022
The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt
The Human Condition, first published in 1958, Hannah Arendt's account of how "human activities" should be and have been understood throughout Western history. Arendt is interested in the active life as contrasted with the contemplative life and concerned that the debate over the relative status of the two has blinded us to important insights about the active life and the way in which it has changed since ancient times. She distinguishes three sorts of activity (labor, work, and action) and discusses how they have been affected by changes in Western history.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 丌賵乇蹖賱 爻丕賱2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貨 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲爻毓賵丿 毓賱蹖丕貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賯賯賳賵爻貙 爻丕賱1389貙 丿乇448氐貙 卮丕亘讴9789643119126貨 賵丕跇賴 賳丕賲賴貙 賳賲丕蹖賴貨 賲賵囟賵毓 噩丕賲毓賴 卮賳丕爻蹖貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 鬲讴賳賵賱賵跇蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丌賱賲丕賳貙 爻丿賴20賲
讴鬲丕亘 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥� 鬲乇蹖賳 丌孬丕乇 芦賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲禄貙 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 芦丌賱賲丕賳禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 爻丕賱1958賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 賴賲诏蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 鬲兀孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇鬲乇蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 芦丌乇賳鬲禄貙 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 趩賳丕賳鈥屭┵� 賲噩賱賴 蹖 芦賳蹖賵蹖賵乇讴乇禄貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 芦鬲乇讴蹖亘 鬲賵丿賴 毓馗蹖賲 毓賯賱丕賳蹖貙 賵 毓賯賱 爻賱蹖賲 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賳诏乇卮 禺丕賳賲 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴賲 噩匕丕亘 亘丕卮丿貙 賵 賴賲 氐乇蹖丨禄貨 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕爻鬲貙 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й� 賳丕賲賳鬲馗乇賴貙 讴賴 丕夭 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賵噩賵賴貙 亘賴 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱貙 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇卮 丿乇 爻丕賱1958賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲賳丕爻亘 丿丕乇丿貨 芦賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲禄 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賲丿乇賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж操嗀� 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕貙 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖讴賴 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖 丕賳噩丕賲卮 乇丕 丿丕乇丿貙 賲賵乇丿 賵丕讴丕賵蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�
賲爻丕卅賱蹖 賴賲趩賵賳: 芦丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳 毓丕賲賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖禄貙 賵 芦丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖禄貨 丕蹖賳 倬丕乇丕丿賵讴爻貙 讴賴 賴乇趩賴 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖 賮賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屭必й屫з嗁囏� 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賲鬲乇 鬲賵丕賳蹖 亘賴 讴賳鬲乇賱 倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳 丿丕乇丿
讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 卮卮 亘禺卮 鬲賳馗蹖賲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘賴鈥� 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 毓亘丕乇鬲賳丿 丕夭: 芦賵囟毓 丕賳爻丕賳禄貙 芦丨賵夭賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 賵 禺氐賵氐蹖禄貙 芦鬲賯賱丕 (夭丨賲鬲)禄貙 芦讴丕乇禄貙 芦毓賲賱禄貙 芦丨蹖丕鬲 賮毓丕賱 賵 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳禄貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇 賴乇 亘禺卮 亘賴 讴賲丕賱 亘賴 賵噩賵賴 乇蹖夭賴 讴丕乇蹖 賵 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 亘丨孬 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 芦丌乇賳鬲禄 丕诏乇趩賴 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 鬲賱丕卮 賳讴乇丿賳丿貙 賲乇蹖丿丕賳蹖 诏乇丿 丌賵乇賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賴賲丕乇賴 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇蹖 毓丕賱蹖賲賯丕賲 亘賵丿賴貙 讴賴 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴必囏� 趩卮賲丕賳 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳卮 乇丕貙 亘丕 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖賳 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳 亘賴 噩賴丕賳貙 賵 丕賲賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丌卮賳丕 賳賲丕蹖賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕 胤乇丨 賮乇賯鈥� 诏匕丕乇蹖 賵 鬲賲丕蹖夭賴丕蹖 鬲丕夭賴貙 讴賴 丕睾賱亘 賳蹖夭 爻賴 賵噩賴蹖 亘賵丿賳丿貙 讴賵卮卮 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 賵噩賵賴 賮乇丕賲賵卮鈥屫簇� 蹖 鬲噩乇亘賴 乇丕貙 亘丕夭诏卮丕蹖蹖 讴賳賳丿貙 鬲賵 诏賵蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵倬丕乇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿蹖 賵 爻賳鬲蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕 賵 禺蹖丕賱丕鬲 乇丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇爻鬲貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 賳丕趩丕乇 讴乇丕賳賲賳丿 賵 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮乇賯鈥� 诏匕丕乇蹖鈥屬囏ж池�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 14/04/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 10/02/1401賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
The Human Condition, first published in 1958, Hannah Arendt's account of how "human activities" should be and have been understood throughout Western history. Arendt is interested in the active life as contrasted with the contemplative life and concerned that the debate over the relative status of the two has blinded us to important insights about the active life and the way in which it has changed since ancient times. She distinguishes three sorts of activity (labor, work, and action) and discusses how they have been affected by changes in Western history.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 丌賵乇蹖賱 爻丕賱2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貨 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲爻毓賵丿 毓賱蹖丕貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賯賯賳賵爻貙 爻丕賱1389貙 丿乇448氐貙 卮丕亘讴9789643119126貨 賵丕跇賴 賳丕賲賴貙 賳賲丕蹖賴貨 賲賵囟賵毓 噩丕賲毓賴 卮賳丕爻蹖貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 鬲讴賳賵賱賵跇蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丌賱賲丕賳貙 爻丿賴20賲
讴鬲丕亘 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥� 鬲乇蹖賳 丌孬丕乇 芦賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲禄貙 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 芦丌賱賲丕賳禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 爻丕賱1958賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 賴賲诏蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 鬲兀孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇鬲乇蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 芦丌乇賳鬲禄貙 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 趩賳丕賳鈥屭┵� 賲噩賱賴 蹖 芦賳蹖賵蹖賵乇讴乇禄貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 芦鬲乇讴蹖亘 鬲賵丿賴 毓馗蹖賲 毓賯賱丕賳蹖貙 賵 毓賯賱 爻賱蹖賲 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賳诏乇卮 禺丕賳賲 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴賲 噩匕丕亘 亘丕卮丿貙 賵 賴賲 氐乇蹖丨禄貨 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕爻鬲貙 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й� 賳丕賲賳鬲馗乇賴貙 讴賴 丕夭 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賵噩賵賴貙 亘賴 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱貙 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇卮 丿乇 爻丕賱1958賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲賳丕爻亘 丿丕乇丿貨 芦賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲禄 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賲丿乇賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж操嗀� 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕貙 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖讴賴 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖 丕賳噩丕賲卮 乇丕 丿丕乇丿貙 賲賵乇丿 賵丕讴丕賵蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�
賲爻丕卅賱蹖 賴賲趩賵賳: 芦丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳 毓丕賲賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖禄貙 賵 芦丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖禄貨 丕蹖賳 倬丕乇丕丿賵讴爻貙 讴賴 賴乇趩賴 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖 賮賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屭必й屫з嗁囏� 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賲鬲乇 鬲賵丕賳蹖 亘賴 讴賳鬲乇賱 倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳 丿丕乇丿
讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 卮卮 亘禺卮 鬲賳馗蹖賲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘賴鈥� 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 毓亘丕乇鬲賳丿 丕夭: 芦賵囟毓 丕賳爻丕賳禄貙 芦丨賵夭賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 賵 禺氐賵氐蹖禄貙 芦鬲賯賱丕 (夭丨賲鬲)禄貙 芦讴丕乇禄貙 芦毓賲賱禄貙 芦丨蹖丕鬲 賮毓丕賱 賵 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳禄貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇 賴乇 亘禺卮 亘賴 讴賲丕賱 亘賴 賵噩賵賴 乇蹖夭賴 讴丕乇蹖 賵 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 亘丨孬 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 芦丌乇賳鬲禄 丕诏乇趩賴 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 鬲賱丕卮 賳讴乇丿賳丿貙 賲乇蹖丿丕賳蹖 诏乇丿 丌賵乇賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賴賲丕乇賴 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇蹖 毓丕賱蹖賲賯丕賲 亘賵丿賴貙 讴賴 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴必囏� 趩卮賲丕賳 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳卮 乇丕貙 亘丕 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖賳 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳 亘賴 噩賴丕賳貙 賵 丕賲賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丌卮賳丕 賳賲丕蹖賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕 胤乇丨 賮乇賯鈥� 诏匕丕乇蹖 賵 鬲賲丕蹖夭賴丕蹖 鬲丕夭賴貙 讴賴 丕睾賱亘 賳蹖夭 爻賴 賵噩賴蹖 亘賵丿賳丿貙 讴賵卮卮 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 賵噩賵賴 賮乇丕賲賵卮鈥屫簇� 蹖 鬲噩乇亘賴 乇丕貙 亘丕夭诏卮丕蹖蹖 讴賳賳丿貙 鬲賵 诏賵蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵倬丕乇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿蹖 賵 爻賳鬲蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕 賵 禺蹖丕賱丕鬲 乇丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇爻鬲貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 賳丕趩丕乇 讴乇丕賳賲賳丿 賵 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 芦賵囟毓 亘卮乇禄 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮乇賯鈥� 诏匕丕乇蹖鈥屬囏ж池�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 14/04/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 10/02/1401賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
August 8, 2018
賵囟毓 亘卮乇 丕孬乇蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 丌賳 亘賴 1958 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭必�. 丕孬乇 亘丕 亘丨孬蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 鬲賲丕蹖夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮毓丕賱 賵 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘乇禺賱丕賮 讴丕乇賱 賲丕乇讴爻貙 讴賴 亘乇 亘乇鬲乇蹖 亘蹖 趩賵賳 賵 趩乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮毓丕賱 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 丕氐乇丕乇 丿丕卮鬲貙 丌乇賳鬲 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 賮賱爻賮蹖貙 賴乇 丿賵 賲賮賴賵賲 丕夭 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 蹖讴爻丕賳蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丕賵 爻倬爻 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮毓丕賱 乇丕 亘賴 爻賴 卮丕禺賴 鬲賯爻賷賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 夭丨賲鬲貙 讴丕乇 賵 毓賲賱.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏� 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 亘丨孬 乇丕 亘賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇з嗀� 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 丕賵賱蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 亘賳丿蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿賵 丨蹖胤賴 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丨蹖胤賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 丿乇 丌賳噩丕 丕賳噩丕賲 诏乇賮鬲. 賯賱賲乇賵 禺氐賵氐蹖 噩丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 乇賮毓 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕賲賵乇蹖 趩賵賳 睾匕丕 賵 爻乇倬賳丕賴 賵 睾乇丕蹖夭 噩賳爻蹖 賵 囟乇賵乇蹖丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж� 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕蹖賳 丕賲賵乇 乇丕 夭丨賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呚�. 丕賲丕 丨蹖胤賴 毓賲賵賲蹖貙 賲讴丕賳蹖 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 賯丕丿乇 賲蹖鈥屫池ж� 鬲丕 亘賴 賲卮丕乇讴鬲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿. 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 丌賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 毓賲賱 蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 爻倬爻 丕孬亘丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 趩诏賵賳賴 亘丕 爻賯賵胤 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 乇賵賲貙 讴賱蹖爻丕 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯賱賲乇賵 毓賲賵賲蹖貙 賵 賱乇丿賴丕蹖 賮卅賵丿丕賱 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯賱賲乇賵 禺氐賵氐蹖 乇丕 鬲氐丕丨亘 讴乇丿賳丿. 丌乇賳鬲 丕蹖賳 賮毓賱 賵 丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 乇丕 賲賳卮丕 馗賴賵乇 卮讴賱 爻賵賲蹖 丕夭 賯賱賲乇賵賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 丨蹖胤賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖.
夭丨賲鬲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲貙 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇賮毓 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 亘蹖賵賱賵跇蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 氐賵乇鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必�. 賵 丿丕乇丕蹖 賳賵毓蹖 丌睾丕夭 賵 倬丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 夭丨賲鬲貙 讴丕乇 丌賳 賳賵毓 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 孬賲乇賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲丕賳丿诏丕乇蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 卮丕賲賱 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 亘卮乇 丿乇 丌賳貙 丕夭 胤亘蹖毓鬲貙 亘賴 爻賲鬲 爻丕禺鬲賴 賴丕蹖 賲氐賳賵毓蹖 丨乇讴鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿.
亘毓丿 丕夭 鬲毓乇蹖賮 夭丨賲鬲 賵 讴丕乇貙 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 毓賲賱 蹖丕 丕讴卮賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丌乇賳鬲貙 毓賲賱貙 爻禺賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 卮丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 毓賲賱貙 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丕賴蹖鬲 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 賵 蹖讴鬲丕蹖蹖 賵 賲賳丨氐乇 亘賴 賮乇丿 亘賵丿賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丌乇賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賵丿賳 讴丕賮蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 賴賵蹖鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳蹖夭 鬲毓乇蹖賮 讴賳丿. 毓賲賱 賴賲丕賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丌賳 乇賵丕亘胤 禺賵丿 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 乇丕 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮毓丕賱 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘丨孬 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賵 丕夭 爻賴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿蹖 讴賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 乇丕 倬丕蹖賴 诏匕丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 賳丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 讴卮賮 丌賲乇蹖讴丕貙 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賱賵鬲乇 賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 毓賱賲蹖. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳貙 賳賲賵賳賴 乇賵卮賳蹖 丕夭 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖蹖 毓賲賱 亘賵丿. 丕賲丕 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘毓丿 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賲丕乇讴爻貙 賲爻丕賱賴 亘乇毓讴爻 卮丿賴 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 夭丨賲鬲 賵 讴丕乇 讴丕乇诏乇丕賳 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲.
丕賵 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘丕 噩賲賱丕鬲蹖 鬲賱禺 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘丕 讴賵乇爻賵蹖蹖 丕夭 丕賲蹖丿 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池з嗀�. 丌乇賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴乇趩賳丿 賵囟毓蹖鬲 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賵 禺乇丿 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘爻蹖丕乇 卮讴賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 賴賳賵夭 丿乇 亘乇禺蹖 噩賵丕賲毓 丌夭丕丿貙 丕賲讴丕賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏� 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 亘丨孬 乇丕 亘賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇з嗀� 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 丕賵賱蹖賳 鬲賯爻蹖賲 亘賳丿蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿賵 丨蹖胤賴 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丨蹖胤賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 丿乇 丌賳噩丕 丕賳噩丕賲 诏乇賮鬲. 賯賱賲乇賵 禺氐賵氐蹖 噩丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 乇賮毓 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕賲賵乇蹖 趩賵賳 睾匕丕 賵 爻乇倬賳丕賴 賵 睾乇丕蹖夭 噩賳爻蹖 賵 囟乇賵乇蹖丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж� 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕蹖賳 丕賲賵乇 乇丕 夭丨賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呚�. 丕賲丕 丨蹖胤賴 毓賲賵賲蹖貙 賲讴丕賳蹖 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 賯丕丿乇 賲蹖鈥屫池ж� 鬲丕 亘賴 賲卮丕乇讴鬲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿. 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 丌賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 毓賲賱 蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 爻倬爻 丕孬亘丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 趩诏賵賳賴 亘丕 爻賯賵胤 丕賲倬乇丕鬲賵乇蹖 乇賵賲貙 讴賱蹖爻丕 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯賱賲乇賵 毓賲賵賲蹖貙 賵 賱乇丿賴丕蹖 賮卅賵丿丕賱 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯賱賲乇賵 禺氐賵氐蹖 乇丕 鬲氐丕丨亘 讴乇丿賳丿. 丌乇賳鬲 丕蹖賳 賮毓賱 賵 丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 乇丕 賲賳卮丕 馗賴賵乇 卮讴賱 爻賵賲蹖 丕夭 賯賱賲乇賵賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 丨蹖胤賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖.
夭丨賲鬲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲貙 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇賮毓 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 亘蹖賵賱賵跇蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 氐賵乇鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必�. 賵 丿丕乇丕蹖 賳賵毓蹖 丌睾丕夭 賵 倬丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 夭丨賲鬲貙 讴丕乇 丌賳 賳賵毓 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 孬賲乇賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲丕賳丿诏丕乇蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 卮丕賲賱 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 亘卮乇 丿乇 丌賳貙 丕夭 胤亘蹖毓鬲貙 亘賴 爻賲鬲 爻丕禺鬲賴 賴丕蹖 賲氐賳賵毓蹖 丨乇讴鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿.
亘毓丿 丕夭 鬲毓乇蹖賮 夭丨賲鬲 賵 讴丕乇貙 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 毓賲賱 蹖丕 丕讴卮賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丌乇賳鬲貙 毓賲賱貙 爻禺賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 卮丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 毓賲賱貙 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丕賴蹖鬲 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 賵 蹖讴鬲丕蹖蹖 賵 賲賳丨氐乇 亘賴 賮乇丿 亘賵丿賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丌乇賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賵丿賳 讴丕賮蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 賴賵蹖鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳蹖夭 鬲毓乇蹖賮 讴賳丿. 毓賲賱 賴賲丕賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丌賳 乇賵丕亘胤 禺賵丿 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 乇丕 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮毓丕賱 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘丨孬 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賵 丕夭 爻賴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿蹖 讴賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 乇丕 倬丕蹖賴 诏匕丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 賳丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 讴卮賮 丌賲乇蹖讴丕貙 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賱賵鬲乇 賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 毓賱賲蹖. 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳貙 賳賲賵賳賴 乇賵卮賳蹖 丕夭 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖蹖 毓賲賱 亘賵丿. 丕賲丕 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘毓丿 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賲丕乇讴爻貙 賲爻丕賱賴 亘乇毓讴爻 卮丿賴 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 夭丨賲鬲 賵 讴丕乇 讴丕乇诏乇丕賳 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲.
丕賵 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘丕 噩賲賱丕鬲蹖 鬲賱禺 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘丕 讴賵乇爻賵蹖蹖 丕夭 丕賲蹖丿 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池з嗀�. 丌乇賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴乇趩賳丿 賵囟毓蹖鬲 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賵 禺乇丿 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 亘爻蹖丕乇 卮讴賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 賴賳賵夭 丿乇 亘乇禺蹖 噩賵丕賲毓 丌夭丕丿貙 丕賲讴丕賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿.
October 22, 2016
I took months reading this book, and I loved it. What I keep mostly about reading it is changes. The possibility of change. How the world has changed and what brings about those ch ch changes.
The way everything is connected, philosophy, science, spirituality, and the way one change of view brings many more as consequence. Ver stimulating read, totally worth the effort, every page leaves you with a lot to think about. It applies to every day life and what we see happening in the world.
I underlined so much, but I will write here some of my favorites:
"Power is always, as we would say, a power potential and not unchangeable, measurable, and reliable entity like force or strength. While strength is the natural quality of an individual seen in isolation, power springs up between men when they act together, and vanishes the moment they disperse."
Another one on power:
" Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities."
This one made me think so much of Mexico, my country, because it is exactly what she says, in opposite: word and deed have parted company, with politicians saying one thing, with tragedies happening every day and not being explained, and words are empty, and deeds are brutal, with so many people disappearing, or dying every single day. Words are only used by politicians to veil intentions, and deeds are used to violate and destroy so many lives.
But I will end with a more positive tone:
"The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth, something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before."
So yes, there is always the possibility of change, and that is something that gives me hope that things can always get better, because we all have a possibility of change.
Also, I love how she separates power from strength, and how power is more of a collective of people having the same view. That is the real power. And that also gives me hope, that in unity. A country can grow stronger, no matter what its defects or problems are, there is always the possibility that it will be better than its problems.
The way everything is connected, philosophy, science, spirituality, and the way one change of view brings many more as consequence. Ver stimulating read, totally worth the effort, every page leaves you with a lot to think about. It applies to every day life and what we see happening in the world.
I underlined so much, but I will write here some of my favorites:
"Power is always, as we would say, a power potential and not unchangeable, measurable, and reliable entity like force or strength. While strength is the natural quality of an individual seen in isolation, power springs up between men when they act together, and vanishes the moment they disperse."
Another one on power:
" Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities."
This one made me think so much of Mexico, my country, because it is exactly what she says, in opposite: word and deed have parted company, with politicians saying one thing, with tragedies happening every day and not being explained, and words are empty, and deeds are brutal, with so many people disappearing, or dying every single day. Words are only used by politicians to veil intentions, and deeds are used to violate and destroy so many lives.
But I will end with a more positive tone:
"The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth, something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before."
So yes, there is always the possibility of change, and that is something that gives me hope that things can always get better, because we all have a possibility of change.
Also, I love how she separates power from strength, and how power is more of a collective of people having the same view. That is the real power. And that also gives me hope, that in unity. A country can grow stronger, no matter what its defects or problems are, there is always the possibility that it will be better than its problems.
Read
August 9, 2012I read this, or tried to, when I was 20 years old. It was completely over my head. It was assigned in a 400-level religious studies class at Indiana University which was also over my head. The class met in a pub and I was slightly intoxicated most of the time. That may not have helped my comprehension, but the prof had known Hannah Arendt personally, and he told us, "She would have approved. She preferred hard liquor and could drink more than most mortals."
December 14, 2022
Velelepna knjiga, koja u filozofskom zanosu budi. Menja. Budi kontemplaciju kao ne拧to u 膷emu se 膷ovek potvr膽uje kao najistinitije bi膰e. Razmrsivanje nerazmrsivog klupka ljudskog stanja je borba neprestana, a britka misao Hane Arent ponovno namagnetisanje davno razmagnetisanog kompasa.
鈥濽koliko se ispostavi ta膷nim da su znanje (u modernom smislu znanja kako da se ne拧to u膷ini) i mi拧ljenje zauvek razdvojili, onda 膰emo zaista postati nemo膰ni robovi ne toliko na拧ih ma拧ina, koliko na拧eg znanja, posta膰emo nemisaona stvorenja koja su predata na milost i nemilost svakom novom ure膽aju koji nam na拧a tehnika omogu膰ava da napravimo, i pri tome ne膰e biti va啪no u kojoj meri je taj ure膽aj mo啪da smrtonosan.鈥� (10)
I upravo je klju膷no pitanje upori拧ta 膷oveka na ovom svetu, pitanje njegovog bi膰a i delovanja. Arent, tako, u okviru sfere aktivnog 啪ivota (vita activa) izdvaja tri kategorije: rad, proizvodnja i delanje (15). Dok rad korespondira sa biolo拧kim procesom ljudskog tela (rast 鈥� metabolizam 鈥� propadanje), proizvodnja se izra啪ava u neprirodnosti ljudske egzistencije (zahvaljuju膰i njoj postoji 鈥瀡e拧ta膷ki svet stvari鈥�, kojim 膷ovek razdvaja ljudsku egzistenciju od 鈥瀙ukog 啪ivotinjskog okru啪enja鈥� (9))*, a delanje je oblik aktivnosti okrenut izme膽u ljudi. Pluralnost je uslov ljudskog delanja, a ono dovodi do utemeljivanja i o膷uvanja politi膷kih tela, bez 膷ega, opet, ne bi bilo pam膰enja, to jest istorije (17).
* 鈥炁緄vot, koji je za druge 啪ivotinjske vrste sama su拧tina njihovog postojanja, za 膷oveka je teret i to zbog njegove odbojnosti prema uzaludnosti鈥� (164鈥�165)
鈥炁爐a god da dodirne ljudski 啪ivot, ili u膽e u trajni odnos sa njime, odmah dobija karakter uslova za ljudsku egzistenciju. Zbog toga su ljudi, 拧ta god da rade, uvek uslovljena bi膰a.鈥� (18) A najradikalnija zamisliva promena ljudske uslovljenosti bilo bi preseljenje na drugu planetu. (19) Otuda ne 膷udi, na primer, pa啪nja koju Arent posve膰uje pojavi teleskopa: 鈥瀗ije razum, nego je teleskop, ono 拧to je dovelo do stvarne promene u gledanju na fizi膷ki svet鈥� (377). Jer pitanje kori拧膰enja tehnologije nema samo metodolo拧ku ve膰 i egzistencijalnu dimenziju, koja se 膷esto prenebregava. Tako je jedan od izraza modernog doba smenjivanje stare dihotomije izme膽u zemlje i 膷oveka novom 鈥� izme膽u 膷oveka i univerzuma (372). Razmi拧ljanje o ljudskim aktivnostima i svemu onom 拧to sa sobom nose, predstavlja osnov za rasvetljavanje posebnosti 膷ovekove egzistencije, koja opstojava u riziku od jezive utilitaristi膷ke vulgarizacije. S tim u vezi, svakodnevno iskustvo nam pokazuje sav uspeh ideologije 鈥瀠speha鈥�, takmi膷enja, trke, skupljanja bodova za studiranje/posao, jurenje 鈥瀟argeta鈥� u firmi ili nekog drugog oblika kvantifikacije. Ali kako je samo degradiraju膰e i duboko pogre拧no da se neko poistove膰uje kao suma rezultata svojih delovanja! Pona拧amo se kao da su CV-jevi na拧e istinske li膷ne karte i to ne samo kao ispostave vrednosti, ve膰 kao ono 拧to jedino mo啪e da ima potvrdu u savremenosti. Dakle, pitanje nad pitanjima nije 拧ta jesam, nego 拧ta radim? A instrumentalizacija, veli Arent, podrazumeva degradiranje svih stvari na sredstvo (216). Tako nam promi膷e da nasilje postoji u svakom proizvo膽enju, a da je homo faber, tvorac ve拧ta膷kog ljudskog sveta, oduvek onaj koji uni拧tava prirodu (192) ili da je potro拧a膷ko dru拧tvo, 鈥瀠 kome se bogatsvo shvata u klju膷u sposobnosti za zara膽ivanje i tro拧enje鈥� (174) i gde je potro拧nja zamenila upotrebu, zapravo, drugim re膷ima 鈥� dru拧tvo radnika (175). Bez rada ne bi bilo ni obilja, ni udobnosti, pa ni nezasitosti. A prava emancipacija 膰e do膰i kada poku拧amo da iz tog kolopleta iza膽emo, kada osvestimo Katonove re膷i: 鈥濶ikada on nije aktivniji nego kada ne radi ni拧ta, nikada nije manje usamljen nego kada je sam.鈥� (447) Vi拧e teorije, manje prakse. Makar za po膷etak.
鈥濽koliko se ispostavi ta膷nim da su znanje (u modernom smislu znanja kako da se ne拧to u膷ini) i mi拧ljenje zauvek razdvojili, onda 膰emo zaista postati nemo膰ni robovi ne toliko na拧ih ma拧ina, koliko na拧eg znanja, posta膰emo nemisaona stvorenja koja su predata na milost i nemilost svakom novom ure膽aju koji nam na拧a tehnika omogu膰ava da napravimo, i pri tome ne膰e biti va啪no u kojoj meri je taj ure膽aj mo啪da smrtonosan.鈥� (10)
I upravo je klju膷no pitanje upori拧ta 膷oveka na ovom svetu, pitanje njegovog bi膰a i delovanja. Arent, tako, u okviru sfere aktivnog 啪ivota (vita activa) izdvaja tri kategorije: rad, proizvodnja i delanje (15). Dok rad korespondira sa biolo拧kim procesom ljudskog tela (rast 鈥� metabolizam 鈥� propadanje), proizvodnja se izra啪ava u neprirodnosti ljudske egzistencije (zahvaljuju膰i njoj postoji 鈥瀡e拧ta膷ki svet stvari鈥�, kojim 膷ovek razdvaja ljudsku egzistenciju od 鈥瀙ukog 啪ivotinjskog okru啪enja鈥� (9))*, a delanje je oblik aktivnosti okrenut izme膽u ljudi. Pluralnost je uslov ljudskog delanja, a ono dovodi do utemeljivanja i o膷uvanja politi膷kih tela, bez 膷ega, opet, ne bi bilo pam膰enja, to jest istorije (17).
* 鈥炁緄vot, koji je za druge 啪ivotinjske vrste sama su拧tina njihovog postojanja, za 膷oveka je teret i to zbog njegove odbojnosti prema uzaludnosti鈥� (164鈥�165)
鈥炁爐a god da dodirne ljudski 啪ivot, ili u膽e u trajni odnos sa njime, odmah dobija karakter uslova za ljudsku egzistenciju. Zbog toga su ljudi, 拧ta god da rade, uvek uslovljena bi膰a.鈥� (18) A najradikalnija zamisliva promena ljudske uslovljenosti bilo bi preseljenje na drugu planetu. (19) Otuda ne 膷udi, na primer, pa啪nja koju Arent posve膰uje pojavi teleskopa: 鈥瀗ije razum, nego je teleskop, ono 拧to je dovelo do stvarne promene u gledanju na fizi膷ki svet鈥� (377). Jer pitanje kori拧膰enja tehnologije nema samo metodolo拧ku ve膰 i egzistencijalnu dimenziju, koja se 膷esto prenebregava. Tako je jedan od izraza modernog doba smenjivanje stare dihotomije izme膽u zemlje i 膷oveka novom 鈥� izme膽u 膷oveka i univerzuma (372). Razmi拧ljanje o ljudskim aktivnostima i svemu onom 拧to sa sobom nose, predstavlja osnov za rasvetljavanje posebnosti 膷ovekove egzistencije, koja opstojava u riziku od jezive utilitaristi膷ke vulgarizacije. S tim u vezi, svakodnevno iskustvo nam pokazuje sav uspeh ideologije 鈥瀠speha鈥�, takmi膷enja, trke, skupljanja bodova za studiranje/posao, jurenje 鈥瀟argeta鈥� u firmi ili nekog drugog oblika kvantifikacije. Ali kako je samo degradiraju膰e i duboko pogre拧no da se neko poistove膰uje kao suma rezultata svojih delovanja! Pona拧amo se kao da su CV-jevi na拧e istinske li膷ne karte i to ne samo kao ispostave vrednosti, ve膰 kao ono 拧to jedino mo啪e da ima potvrdu u savremenosti. Dakle, pitanje nad pitanjima nije 拧ta jesam, nego 拧ta radim? A instrumentalizacija, veli Arent, podrazumeva degradiranje svih stvari na sredstvo (216). Tako nam promi膷e da nasilje postoji u svakom proizvo膽enju, a da je homo faber, tvorac ve拧ta膷kog ljudskog sveta, oduvek onaj koji uni拧tava prirodu (192) ili da je potro拧a膷ko dru拧tvo, 鈥瀠 kome se bogatsvo shvata u klju膷u sposobnosti za zara膽ivanje i tro拧enje鈥� (174) i gde je potro拧nja zamenila upotrebu, zapravo, drugim re膷ima 鈥� dru拧tvo radnika (175). Bez rada ne bi bilo ni obilja, ni udobnosti, pa ni nezasitosti. A prava emancipacija 膰e do膰i kada poku拧amo da iz tog kolopleta iza膽emo, kada osvestimo Katonove re膷i: 鈥濶ikada on nije aktivniji nego kada ne radi ni拧ta, nikada nije manje usamljen nego kada je sam.鈥� (447) Vi拧e teorije, manje prakse. Makar za po膷etak.
December 2, 2008
If I could recommend one work of philosophy, I'd turn to this magnificent book. And of the many interesting and influential philosophical texts from the 20th Century, this one is the most important of them all as it critically and sympathetically addresses our age, our problems and our fears.
In short, our ideas and our leaders (governments) have failed us. But against the spirit of pessimism of her German counterparts (notably Heidegger and Adorno, each representing a distinctly opposed sense of pessimism), Arendt says, Do not despair for there is hope after all. And there is hope because, for Arendt, it is that we have not quite understood the important way in which philosophical thought is linked to human activity (of living, of making and building things and of trying to live together). Whereas the "phenomenological turn" placed human consciousness as the source of all philosophical activity, Arendt is more realistic and pragmatic: philosophy begins with how we live. Any philosophy that forgets its foundations in the human condition is simply misguided. In a way, Arendt is Nietzsche with a great heart.
With "The Human Condition," Arendt surpasses her own immediate influences (Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger) as well as her notable peers (Sartre, Adorno, Wittgenstein, Russell).
And who is her only real rival? In my estimation: Immanuel Kant.
In short, our ideas and our leaders (governments) have failed us. But against the spirit of pessimism of her German counterparts (notably Heidegger and Adorno, each representing a distinctly opposed sense of pessimism), Arendt says, Do not despair for there is hope after all. And there is hope because, for Arendt, it is that we have not quite understood the important way in which philosophical thought is linked to human activity (of living, of making and building things and of trying to live together). Whereas the "phenomenological turn" placed human consciousness as the source of all philosophical activity, Arendt is more realistic and pragmatic: philosophy begins with how we live. Any philosophy that forgets its foundations in the human condition is simply misguided. In a way, Arendt is Nietzsche with a great heart.
With "The Human Condition," Arendt surpasses her own immediate influences (Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger) as well as her notable peers (Sartre, Adorno, Wittgenstein, Russell).
And who is her only real rival? In my estimation: Immanuel Kant.
July 1, 2022
郾郯鄞
賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 (亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳 丨賯賵賯 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 夭賲蹖賳 讴賴 賳爻賱 丕賳丿乇 賳爻賱 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屫ж池�) 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丿跇 賲爻鬲丨讴賲 丕氐賱蹖 噩賴丕賳 賲鬲賲丿賳 亘賵丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賳賮毓 賲丕賱讴丕賳 丿乇 丨賮馗 孬亘丕鬲 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 亘丕卮丿. 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 毓馗蹖賲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 賲賵丕乇丿 爻賱亘 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 丿乇 賯乇賳 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 (爻賱亘 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 讴賱蹖爻丕 賵 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖蹖丕賳 讴賴 丿乇 噩乇蹖丕賳 賳賴囟鬲 丕氐賱丕丨 丿蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲) 亘賴 乇丕賴 丕賮鬲丕丿 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 丿賵诏丕賳賴 亘賵丿. 丕賵賱丕 讴卮丕賵乇夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 爻賴賲蹖 丿乇 孬亘丕鬲 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭丨賲鬲鈥屭┴簇з� 乇賵夭賲夭丿蹖 丿乇 丌賲丿賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 讴賱蹖 睾乇賯 丿乇 鬲賯賱丕蹖 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 噩爻賲丕賳蹖鈥屫簇з� 卮丿賳丿. 孬丕賳蹖丕 丕賲賵丕賱 睾蹖乇賲賳賯賵賱 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 孬乇賵鬲 賯丕亘賱鈥屫ㄘ屬� 亘賴 倬賵賱 - 丿乇賵丕賯毓 亘賴鈥屫蒂堌必� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 - 丿乇 丌賲丿 讴賴 鬲丕孬蹖乇丕鬲蹖 倬賵蹖丕 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 丿丕卮鬲. ... 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘噩丕蹖 爻讴賵賳鬲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳蹖 孬丕亘鬲 賵 倬丕蹖丿丕乇 賲乇讴亘 丕夭 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丿賵丕賲 蹖丕賮鬲賳 爻丕禺鬲賴鈥屫簇団€屫ㄘж促嗀� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 讴丕賲 乇賵賳丿 乇賵 亘賴 卮鬲丕亘 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 丿蹖丿賳丿.
91
丿乇 亘胤賳 鬲丨賱蹖賱 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貙 丕賴賲蹖鬲 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 賵噩賵丿 賲鬲賲丿賳丕賳賴 噩賴丕賳 亘卮乇蹖 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇 讴乇賴 禺丕讴蹖 亘賳丕 卮丿賴 鬲丕 賲丕 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 乇賵賳丿賴丕蹖 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丨賮馗 讴賳丿 賵 夭賲蹖賳賴 賵 賲丨蹖胤 亘丕孬亘丕鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 賮丕賳蹖 賲丕賳 賮乇丕賴賲 丌賵乇丿. 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳貙 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿賵乇 丌賳 丨賱賯賴 夭丿賴 丕賳丿 "丿乇 丌賳 賵丕丨丿 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 賴賲 賲蹖 倬蹖賵賳丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 賴賲 噩丿丕 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿". 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 賲丕 乇丕 賯丕丿乇 爻丕夭丿 鬲丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 乇丕 丕夭 賴乇 胤乇賮 亘亘蹖賳蹖賲 賵 丨爻 賲卮鬲乇讴蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲 丕蹖賳 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 噩賴丕賳 亘卮乇蹖 賲卮鬲乇讴蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 卮乇蹖讴蹖賲. 丿蹖诏乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賲賳馗乇賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘賴 丌賳 賲蹖 賳诏乇賳丿. 亘丿賵賳 丌賳 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 賲丕 亘賴 噩丕賳亘 鬲噩乇亘賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賵丕倬爻 乇丕賳丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵蹖賲 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲貙 禺賵丕爻鬲 賴丕 賵 丕賲蹖丕賱賲丕賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿丕乇賳丿
84
賲丿乇賳 爻丕夭蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 鬲賵賱蹖丿貙 賲氐乇賮 賵 夭丕丿 賵 賵賱丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 賯丕亘賱 賵 鬲賵丕賳丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 讴賴 賳賵毓 亘爻蹖丕乇 鬲賵爻毓賴 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕蹖 丕夭 亘卮乇 倬丿蹖丿 丌賵乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳蹖 丿乇 诏匕卮鬲賴 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 賲蹖 讴賳丿 ... 丕夭 賵賯鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 丿睾丿睾賴 賴丕蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 讴丕賳賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 卮丿賳丿 (亘賴 噩丕蹖 丌賳讴賴 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丌賳趩賴 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賲丿賳 賴丕蹖 倬蹖卮蹖賳 噩丕乇蹖 亘賵丿 丿乇 禺賱賵鬲 禺丕賳賴 倬賳賴丕賳 亘賲丕賳賳丿)貙 亘賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 鬲禺乇蹖亘 鬲賲丕賲 噩賴丕賳 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 鬲賲丕蹖賱 乇賵夭丕賮夭賵賳 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丨爻亘 賲蹖賱卮丕賳 亘賴 賲氐乇賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿 賵 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳賳丿
78
丕蹖賳 讴賴 賮毓賱 爻蹖丕爻蹖 乇丕 爻丕禺鬲賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 禺胤丕蹖蹖 禺胤乇賳丕讴 丕爻鬲. 爻丕禺鬲賳 - 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 讴賴 丕賵賳 丌賳 乇丕 讴丕乇 賲蹖 賳丕賲丿 - 賮毓賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 氐賳毓鬲讴丕乇 蹖丕 爻丕夭賳丿賴 丕蹖 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賳 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 亘賴 丕賳胤亘丕賯 亘丕 賯丕賱亘 賵 丕賱诏賵蹖 賲賵乇丿 賳馗乇 禺賵蹖卮 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇賵賳丿 丕夭 禺賵丿 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賴賲蹖賳 胤賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 噩丕賲毓賴 丕蹖 鬲丕夭賴 蹖丕 爻丕賴鬲賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 賳賯卮 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 卮丕賳 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 "丕賳爻丕賳蹖" 讴賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿 睾賱胤 丕賳丿丕夭 丕爻鬲... 鬲賱賯蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴亘 氐賵乇鬲 爻丕禺鬲賳貙 睾丕賮賱 賲丕賳丿賳 丕夭 鬲讴孬乇 亘卮乇蹖 丿乇 賳馗乇 賵 丕毓賲丕賱 夭賵乇 亘乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲
55
亘乇丌賲丿賳 毓氐乇 賮囟丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丨賯蹖賯蹖 讴賱賲賴 丕夭 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賮乇丕鬲乇 賲蹖 乇賵賳丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 毓賱賲 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 夭賲蹖賳貙 賯丕亘賱蹖鬲 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丨丿賵丿 賵 孬睾賵乇 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖 亘乇丿 賵 鬲讴賱蹖賮 丌蹖賳丿賴 乇丕 亘賴 胤乇夭蹖 賴卮丿丕乇 丿賴賳丿賴 賵 賳诏乇丕賳 讴賳賳丿賴 賳丕賲毓賱賵賲 賲蹖 诏匕丕乇丿. 丕夭 胤乇蹖賮 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇 爻蹖乇蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 爻乇趩卮賲賴 丌賳 乇丕 丿乇 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丕夭 噩賴丕賳 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 噩賵丕賲毓 禺賵丿讴丕乇 卮丿賴 賲丿乇賳 讴賴 睾乇賯 丿乇 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 賴乇 趩賴 讴丕乇丌賲丿鬲乇 卮丿賴 丕賳丿 賲丕 乇丕 鬲乇睾蹖亘 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘賴 賴蹖卅鬲 賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 丕賳賵丕毓 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 讴賴 鬲丕亘毓 賵 賲賯賴賵乇 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕爻鬲 乇賮鬲丕乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵 禺賵丿 乇丕 氐乇賮丕 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲
丕夭 賲賯丿賲賴 賲丕乇诏丕乇鬲 讴賳賵賵賳
賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 (亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳 丨賯賵賯 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 夭賲蹖賳 讴賴 賳爻賱 丕賳丿乇 賳爻賱 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屫ж池�) 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丿跇 賲爻鬲丨讴賲 丕氐賱蹖 噩賴丕賳 賲鬲賲丿賳 亘賵丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賳賮毓 賲丕賱讴丕賳 丿乇 丨賮馗 孬亘丕鬲 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 亘丕卮丿. 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 毓馗蹖賲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 賲賵丕乇丿 爻賱亘 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 丿乇 賯乇賳 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 (爻賱亘 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 讴賱蹖爻丕 賵 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖蹖丕賳 讴賴 丿乇 噩乇蹖丕賳 賳賴囟鬲 丕氐賱丕丨 丿蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲) 亘賴 乇丕賴 丕賮鬲丕丿 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 丿賵诏丕賳賴 亘賵丿. 丕賵賱丕 讴卮丕賵乇夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 爻賴賲蹖 丿乇 孬亘丕鬲 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭丨賲鬲鈥屭┴簇з� 乇賵夭賲夭丿蹖 丿乇 丌賲丿賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 讴賱蹖 睾乇賯 丿乇 鬲賯賱丕蹖 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 噩爻賲丕賳蹖鈥屫簇з� 卮丿賳丿. 孬丕賳蹖丕 丕賲賵丕賱 睾蹖乇賲賳賯賵賱 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 孬乇賵鬲 賯丕亘賱鈥屫ㄘ屬� 亘賴 倬賵賱 - 丿乇賵丕賯毓 亘賴鈥屫蒂堌必� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 - 丿乇 丌賲丿 讴賴 鬲丕孬蹖乇丕鬲蹖 倬賵蹖丕 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 丿丕卮鬲. ... 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘噩丕蹖 爻讴賵賳鬲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳蹖 孬丕亘鬲 賵 倬丕蹖丿丕乇 賲乇讴亘 丕夭 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丿賵丕賲 蹖丕賮鬲賳 爻丕禺鬲賴鈥屫簇団€屫ㄘж促嗀� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 讴丕賲 乇賵賳丿 乇賵 亘賴 卮鬲丕亘 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 丿蹖丿賳丿.
91
丿乇 亘胤賳 鬲丨賱蹖賱 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貙 丕賴賲蹖鬲 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 賵噩賵丿 賲鬲賲丿賳丕賳賴 噩賴丕賳 亘卮乇蹖 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇 讴乇賴 禺丕讴蹖 亘賳丕 卮丿賴 鬲丕 賲丕 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 乇賵賳丿賴丕蹖 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丨賮馗 讴賳丿 賵 夭賲蹖賳賴 賵 賲丨蹖胤 亘丕孬亘丕鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 賮丕賳蹖 賲丕賳 賮乇丕賴賲 丌賵乇丿. 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳貙 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿賵乇 丌賳 丨賱賯賴 夭丿賴 丕賳丿 "丿乇 丌賳 賵丕丨丿 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 賴賲 賲蹖 倬蹖賵賳丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 賴賲 噩丿丕 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿". 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 賲丕 乇丕 賯丕丿乇 爻丕夭丿 鬲丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 乇丕 丕夭 賴乇 胤乇賮 亘亘蹖賳蹖賲 賵 丨爻 賲卮鬲乇讴蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲 丕蹖賳 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 噩賴丕賳 亘卮乇蹖 賲卮鬲乇讴蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 卮乇蹖讴蹖賲. 丿蹖诏乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賲賳馗乇賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘賴 丌賳 賲蹖 賳诏乇賳丿. 亘丿賵賳 丌賳 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 賲丕 亘賴 噩丕賳亘 鬲噩乇亘賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賵丕倬爻 乇丕賳丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵蹖賲 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲貙 禺賵丕爻鬲 賴丕 賵 丕賲蹖丕賱賲丕賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿丕乇賳丿
84
賲丿乇賳 爻丕夭蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 鬲賵賱蹖丿貙 賲氐乇賮 賵 夭丕丿 賵 賵賱丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 賯丕亘賱 賵 鬲賵丕賳丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 讴賴 賳賵毓 亘爻蹖丕乇 鬲賵爻毓賴 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕蹖 丕夭 亘卮乇 倬丿蹖丿 丌賵乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳蹖 丿乇 诏匕卮鬲賴 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 賲蹖 讴賳丿 ... 丕夭 賵賯鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 丿睾丿睾賴 賴丕蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 讴丕賳賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 卮丿賳丿 (亘賴 噩丕蹖 丌賳讴賴 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丌賳趩賴 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賲丿賳 賴丕蹖 倬蹖卮蹖賳 噩丕乇蹖 亘賵丿 丿乇 禺賱賵鬲 禺丕賳賴 倬賳賴丕賳 亘賲丕賳賳丿)貙 亘賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 鬲禺乇蹖亘 鬲賲丕賲 噩賴丕賳 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 鬲賲丕蹖賱 乇賵夭丕賮夭賵賳 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 丨爻亘 賲蹖賱卮丕賳 亘賴 賲氐乇賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿 賵 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳賳丿
78
丕蹖賳 讴賴 賮毓賱 爻蹖丕爻蹖 乇丕 爻丕禺鬲賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 禺胤丕蹖蹖 禺胤乇賳丕讴 丕爻鬲. 爻丕禺鬲賳 - 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 讴賴 丕賵賳 丌賳 乇丕 讴丕乇 賲蹖 賳丕賲丿 - 賮毓賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 氐賳毓鬲讴丕乇 蹖丕 爻丕夭賳丿賴 丕蹖 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賳 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 亘賴 丕賳胤亘丕賯 亘丕 賯丕賱亘 賵 丕賱诏賵蹖 賲賵乇丿 賳馗乇 禺賵蹖卮 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇賵賳丿 丕夭 禺賵丿 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賴賲蹖賳 胤賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 噩丕賲毓賴 丕蹖 鬲丕夭賴 蹖丕 爻丕賴鬲賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 賳賯卮 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 卮丕賳 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 "丕賳爻丕賳蹖" 讴賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿 睾賱胤 丕賳丿丕夭 丕爻鬲... 鬲賱賯蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴亘 氐賵乇鬲 爻丕禺鬲賳貙 睾丕賮賱 賲丕賳丿賳 丕夭 鬲讴孬乇 亘卮乇蹖 丿乇 賳馗乇 賵 丕毓賲丕賱 夭賵乇 亘乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲
55
亘乇丌賲丿賳 毓氐乇 賮囟丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丨賯蹖賯蹖 讴賱賲賴 丕夭 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賮乇丕鬲乇 賲蹖 乇賵賳丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 毓賱賲 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 夭賲蹖賳貙 賯丕亘賱蹖鬲 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丨丿賵丿 賵 孬睾賵乇 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖 亘乇丿 賵 鬲讴賱蹖賮 丌蹖賳丿賴 乇丕 亘賴 胤乇夭蹖 賴卮丿丕乇 丿賴賳丿賴 賵 賳诏乇丕賳 讴賳賳丿賴 賳丕賲毓賱賵賲 賲蹖 诏匕丕乇丿. 丕夭 胤乇蹖賮 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇 爻蹖乇蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 爻乇趩卮賲賴 丌賳 乇丕 丿乇 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丕夭 噩賴丕賳 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 噩賵丕賲毓 禺賵丿讴丕乇 卮丿賴 賲丿乇賳 讴賴 睾乇賯 丿乇 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賵 賲氐乇賮 賴乇 趩賴 讴丕乇丌賲丿鬲乇 卮丿賴 丕賳丿 賲丕 乇丕 鬲乇睾蹖亘 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘賴 賴蹖卅鬲 賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 丕賳賵丕毓 丨蹖賵丕賳丕鬲 讴賴 鬲丕亘毓 賵 賲賯賴賵乇 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕爻鬲 乇賮鬲丕乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵 禺賵丿 乇丕 氐乇賮丕 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲
丕夭 賲賯丿賲賴 賲丕乇诏丕乇鬲 讴賳賵賵賳
December 14, 2019
丕賵賱 亘诏賲 讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕賯丕蹖 毓賱蹖丕 乇賵 禺蹖賱蹖 賳倬爻賳丿蹖丿賲
丨爻 讴乇丿賲 蹖賴 噩丕賴丕蹖蹖 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 讴賲讴蹖 賳賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 亘卮賴 賲賮賴賵賲 乇賵 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴乇丿 亘賱讴賴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖讴爻乇蹖 讴賱賲丕鬲 賵 丕賱賮丕馗 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮丿 丿乇讴 賲胤賱亘 爻禺鬲 賴賲 亘卮賴.
讴鬲丕亘 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 丕蹖 亘賵丿 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳
丿乇 禺賱丕賱 禺賵賳丿賳卮 亘丕 爻賵丕賱 賴丕蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖丕丿 賵 賲賮蹖丿蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賲
賵 亘卮丿鬲 鬲乇睾蹖亘 卮丿賲 讴賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘禺賵賳賲.
丨爻 讴乇丿賲 蹖賴 噩丕賴丕蹖蹖 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 讴賲讴蹖 賳賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 亘卮賴 賲賮賴賵賲 乇賵 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴乇丿 亘賱讴賴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 蹖讴爻乇蹖 讴賱賲丕鬲 賵 丕賱賮丕馗 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮丿 丿乇讴 賲胤賱亘 爻禺鬲 賴賲 亘卮賴.
讴鬲丕亘 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 丕蹖 亘賵丿 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳
丿乇 禺賱丕賱 禺賵賳丿賳卮 亘丕 爻賵丕賱 賴丕蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖丕丿 賵 賲賮蹖丿蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賲
賵 亘卮丿鬲 鬲乇睾蹖亘 卮丿賲 讴賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘禺賵賳賲.
Read
March 17, 2025Het had me echt gaaf geleken om hier meer van te begrijpen dan ik daadwerkelijk deed
July 17, 2014
This is an odd work.
Arendt mischaracterizes a great many thinkers over the course of the book; her "labor," "work," "action," trichotomy seems only intermittently useful; it is unclear whether or not her vision of political action has ever, or could ever, exist. And yet.
One of my fellows in our reading group suggested a nice way to get past the egregious misreadings of various thinkers (Locke and Smith have an especially hard time). He suggested that, instead of offering actual interpretive work, Arendt positions the thinkers she references as one would characters in a play. I think this is right.
That understanding fits with reading the book as a kind of polemic--but it's a polemic with at least the appearance of a serious scholarly apparatus. So, what to do with it? Arendt wants political action that may or may not be possible, that she attempts to illustrate by appealing to classical thought.
Obviously that is overly reductive, but it draws out the connections she shares with some of her fellow German emigres from the mid-century--most oddly, Leo Strauss. Arendt is often associated with the left; Strauss with the right. Nonetheless, I couldn't escape the feeling while reading The Human Condition that something about that German experience (e.g. Heidegger) had shaped them so thoroughly that they could not escape each other, and that their political associations are more a product of personal priors and who their students were than anything particularly substantive in their thought. It's something I'll have to consider more.
Strauss prizes the vita contemplativa while The Human Condition is an exhortation of the vita activa; Arendt writes elsewhere, however, of the necessity of the former (see, for instance, "Thinking and Moral Considerations"). They share similar Heidegerrian misgivings about society and technology. Etc.
Anyway, much of the book strikes me as muddled, but it is occasionally wonderful. Well worth reading.
Arendt mischaracterizes a great many thinkers over the course of the book; her "labor," "work," "action," trichotomy seems only intermittently useful; it is unclear whether or not her vision of political action has ever, or could ever, exist. And yet.
One of my fellows in our reading group suggested a nice way to get past the egregious misreadings of various thinkers (Locke and Smith have an especially hard time). He suggested that, instead of offering actual interpretive work, Arendt positions the thinkers she references as one would characters in a play. I think this is right.
That understanding fits with reading the book as a kind of polemic--but it's a polemic with at least the appearance of a serious scholarly apparatus. So, what to do with it? Arendt wants political action that may or may not be possible, that she attempts to illustrate by appealing to classical thought.
Obviously that is overly reductive, but it draws out the connections she shares with some of her fellow German emigres from the mid-century--most oddly, Leo Strauss. Arendt is often associated with the left; Strauss with the right. Nonetheless, I couldn't escape the feeling while reading The Human Condition that something about that German experience (e.g. Heidegger) had shaped them so thoroughly that they could not escape each other, and that their political associations are more a product of personal priors and who their students were than anything particularly substantive in their thought. It's something I'll have to consider more.
Strauss prizes the vita contemplativa while The Human Condition is an exhortation of the vita activa; Arendt writes elsewhere, however, of the necessity of the former (see, for instance, "Thinking and Moral Considerations"). They share similar Heidegerrian misgivings about society and technology. Etc.
Anyway, much of the book strikes me as muddled, but it is occasionally wonderful. Well worth reading.
May 10, 2019
讴鬲丕亘 賵囟毓 亘卮乇 the human condition
賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 賲毓卮賵賯賴 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賵 卮丕诏乇丿 丕賵 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 卮丕诏乇丿 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻丕賱賴 讴賴 賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 夭丨賲鬲 賲蹖讴卮蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖讴賳蹖賲
賲丿乇賳蹖鬲賴 丕夭 賲丕 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 讴賴 賴賲卮 夭丨賲鬲 亘讴卮蹖賲 賴賲卮 丿乇 胤賵賱 蹖讴 爻蹖爻鬲賲 賵賲丿丕乇讴 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴蹖 禺賵丿賲賵賳 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賮乇賯 诏丕賵 賵 亘賯乇丕胤 賵 賳丿賵賳蹖賲
賮賯胤 亘乇蹖賲 讴丕乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵 亘蹖丕蹖賲 賵 鬲賮讴乇蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲
賲蹖诏賴 鬲賮讴乇 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴 丌丿賲 賲鬲賮讴乇 丌丿賲 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴 丌丿賲蹖 讴賴 賮讴乇 賲蹖讴賳賴
賮讴乇 讴乇丿賳 爻賵丕賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 丕蹖賳 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴
丌乇賳鬲 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕爻賲 讴鬲丕亘卮 賵 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賴 亘匕丕乇賴 毓卮賯 亘賴 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬蹖乇爻 賴賲 诏賮鬲賴 亘賵丿賴
賴丕賳丕 丕乇賳鬲 賲賵囟毓 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丿丕乇賴 亘乇禺賱丕賮 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 讴賴 丌丿賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
丕乇賳鬲 賲蹖诏賴 賲賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賳蹖爻鬲賲 爻蹖丕爻鬲賲丿丕乇賲
丌乇賳鬲 蹖賴 賲亘鬲讴乇 賵 賲鬲賮讴乇 氐丕丨亘 爻亘讴 賱夭賵賲蹖 賳丿丕乇賴 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖卮 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲賴 禺賵亘賴 賲孬亘鬲賴 賳诏乇卮 鬲丕夭賴 丿丕乇賴
賵蹖 囟賲賳 卮乇丨 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 夭丨賲鬲貙 讴丕乇 賵 毓賲賱 賵 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貙 亘丕 賳诏丕賴蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 爻蹖乇 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 鬲丕 乇賵夭诏丕乇 賲丕 倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 鬲丕 丕賲乇賵夭 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 賲丕 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 賵賯賮 毓賲賱 趩賴 賮乇丕夭 賵 賮乇賵丿賴丕 賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 丿蹖丿賴鈥屫ж池�.
丌乇賳鬲 賲孬賱 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賮賳賵賲賳賵賱賵诏 蹖丕 倬丿蹖丿丕乇 卮賳丕爻 亘賵丿賴
丿乇賵賳鈥屬呚з娰� 丕氐賱賷 賰鬲丕亘 夭賳丿诏賷 賵賯賮 毓賲賱 (Vita active) 丕爻鬲 亘賴 鬲賲丕賷夭 丕夭 夭賳丿诏賷 賵賯賮 賳馗乇 (Vita contemplative) 賰賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賴賲 賷賰賷 丕夭 丌賳 鬲賯丕亘賱鈥屬囏з� 丿賵诏丕賳賴鈥屫з� 乇丕 鬲卮賰賷賱 賲賷鈥屫囐嗀�
夭丨賲鬲 (Labour)貙 賰丕乇 (Work) 賵 毓賲賱 (action).
丌乇賳鬲 賮賯胤 蹖讴亘丕乇 丕夭 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳丕賲 亘乇丿賴 丿乇 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕卮 丕賵賳賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳亘賵丿賴 賲賵囟賵毓卮
丌乇賳鬲 丕賵賱 賮賯胤 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賴 賮賱爻賮赖 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 亘禺賵賳賴 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丕氐賱丕 亘乇丕卮 賲胤乇丨 賳亘賵丿賴 亘毓丿丕 亘丕 賵賯丕賷毓 噩 噩 丿賵賲 亘乇丕卮 賲賵囟賵毓蹖鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賴
賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 賲毓卮賵賯賴 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賵 卮丕诏乇丿 丕賵 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 卮丕诏乇丿 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻丕賱賴 讴賴 賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 夭丨賲鬲 賲蹖讴卮蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖讴賳蹖賲
賲丿乇賳蹖鬲賴 丕夭 賲丕 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 讴賴 賴賲卮 夭丨賲鬲 亘讴卮蹖賲 賴賲卮 丿乇 胤賵賱 蹖讴 爻蹖爻鬲賲 賵賲丿丕乇讴 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴蹖 禺賵丿賲賵賳 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賮乇賯 诏丕賵 賵 亘賯乇丕胤 賵 賳丿賵賳蹖賲
賮賯胤 亘乇蹖賲 讴丕乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵 亘蹖丕蹖賲 賵 鬲賮讴乇蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲
賲蹖诏賴 鬲賮讴乇 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴 丌丿賲 賲鬲賮讴乇 丌丿賲 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴 丌丿賲蹖 讴賴 賮讴乇 賲蹖讴賳賴
賮讴乇 讴乇丿賳 爻賵丕賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 丕蹖賳 禺胤乇賳丕讴賴
丌乇賳鬲 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕爻賲 讴鬲丕亘卮 賵 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賴 亘匕丕乇賴 毓卮賯 亘賴 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬蹖乇爻 賴賲 诏賮鬲賴 亘賵丿賴
賴丕賳丕 丕乇賳鬲 賲賵囟毓 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丿丕乇賴 亘乇禺賱丕賮 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 讴賴 丌丿賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
丕乇賳鬲 賲蹖诏賴 賲賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賳蹖爻鬲賲 爻蹖丕爻鬲賲丿丕乇賲
丌乇賳鬲 蹖賴 賲亘鬲讴乇 賵 賲鬲賮讴乇 氐丕丨亘 爻亘讴 賱夭賵賲蹖 賳丿丕乇賴 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖卮 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲賴 禺賵亘賴 賲孬亘鬲賴 賳诏乇卮 鬲丕夭賴 丿丕乇賴
賵蹖 囟賲賳 卮乇丨 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 夭丨賲鬲貙 讴丕乇 賵 毓賲賱 賵 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賵囟毓 亘卮乇貙 亘丕 賳诏丕賴蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 爻蹖乇 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 鬲丕 乇賵夭诏丕乇 賲丕 倬蹖 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 鬲丕 丕賲乇賵夭 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 賲丕 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 賵賯賮 毓賲賱 趩賴 賮乇丕夭 賵 賮乇賵丿賴丕 賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 丿蹖丿賴鈥屫ж池�.
丌乇賳鬲 賲孬賱 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賮賳賵賲賳賵賱賵诏 蹖丕 倬丿蹖丿丕乇 卮賳丕爻 亘賵丿賴
丿乇賵賳鈥屬呚з娰� 丕氐賱賷 賰鬲丕亘 夭賳丿诏賷 賵賯賮 毓賲賱 (Vita active) 丕爻鬲 亘賴 鬲賲丕賷夭 丕夭 夭賳丿诏賷 賵賯賮 賳馗乇 (Vita contemplative) 賰賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賴賲 賷賰賷 丕夭 丌賳 鬲賯丕亘賱鈥屬囏з� 丿賵诏丕賳賴鈥屫з� 乇丕 鬲卮賰賷賱 賲賷鈥屫囐嗀�
夭丨賲鬲 (Labour)貙 賰丕乇 (Work) 賵 毓賲賱 (action).
丌乇賳鬲 賮賯胤 蹖讴亘丕乇 丕夭 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳丕賲 亘乇丿賴 丿乇 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕卮 丕賵賳賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳亘賵丿賴 賲賵囟賵毓卮
丌乇賳鬲 丕賵賱 賮賯胤 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賴 賮賱爻賮赖 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 亘禺賵賳賴 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丕氐賱丕 亘乇丕卮 賲胤乇丨 賳亘賵丿賴 亘毓丿丕 亘丕 賵賯丕賷毓 噩 噩 丿賵賲 亘乇丕卮 賲賵囟賵毓蹖鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賴
Read
November 5, 2018鬲乇噩賲賴 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘丿 賵 睾蹖乇 乇賵丕賳
賳氐賮賴 乇賴丕 卮丿
賳氐賮賴 乇賴丕 卮丿
March 12, 2025
丕夭 鬲賵丕賳賲 亘蹖乇賵賳賴 讴賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲蹖-趩賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 蹖丕 丿賱蹖賱 丕賴賲蹖鬲賽 丕孬乇- 亘賳賵蹖爻賲 賵 "賵囟毓 亘卮乇" 乇賵 賳賲蹖卮賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丿賵賳爻鬲 趩賵賳 賳蹖丕夭賽 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘賴 亘丕夭禺賵丕賳蹖賽 趩賳丿 亘丕乇賴 丕卮 丕丨爻丕爻 賲蹖讴賳賲.
亘丿賵賳 丕诏丕賴蹖賽 丨丿丕賯賱蹖 丕蹖 丕夭 爻賳鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖賽 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖 賵 賲鬲賵賳 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖賳賽 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 賳賲蹖卮賴 鬲兀賲賱 丿乇禺賵乇 賵 丿蹖丕賱賵诏 爻賵丿賲賳丿蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴乇丿.
賵賱蹖 賳诏丕賴賲 乇賵 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 丕賵賱蹖賳 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 亘賴 馗丕賴乇 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 卮丿賴 賵 倬蹖卮 丕賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕蹖 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿丕丿.
赖賲蹖賳.
亘丿賵賳 丕诏丕賴蹖賽 丨丿丕賯賱蹖 丕蹖 丕夭 爻賳鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖賽 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖 賵 賲鬲賵賳 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖賳賽 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丿乇賳 賳賲蹖卮賴 鬲兀賲賱 丿乇禺賵乇 賵 丿蹖丕賱賵诏 爻賵丿賲賳丿蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴乇丿.
賵賱蹖 賳诏丕賴賲 乇賵 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 丕賵賱蹖賳 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 亘賴 馗丕賴乇 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 卮丿賴 賵 倬蹖卮 丕賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕蹖 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖賳 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿丕丿.
赖賲蹖賳.
April 24, 2011
This book is very deep. By this I mean not that it is a difficult read or that it is philosophical (it is both), but that it is as complicated and interesting as a deep-sea shipwreck. One can revisit this text over and over again and uncover new treasures. Agamben has called this work "practically without continuation" in any scholarly tradition. This is not because it is ignored, but because it is a very original and multi-faceted argument. Besides its main thrust of the sullying of politics the book hints at and opens many lines of question in passing. Arendt puts forth a theory of the political (action), a critique of liberal society, discussions of goodness, suicide, technology, the modern, etc. etc. The accusation of elitism that Arendt faces - that the rise of lower classes into politics threatens politics - is not without foundation. However, more recent theorists such as Foucault, Agamben, and Ranci猫re have continued to push us along this dangerous line of thought. The rise of the population into politics, intertwined with the technicalization and instrumentalization of the world has led to a confused moment in which public and private have lost there distinction and great horrors have become possible.
June 13, 2021
Arendt directly and indirectly engages with Marx in this great book; and in some interesting ways takes the topics of private, public, labor, work, and action beyond what Marx did. The fundamental source of all her thinking in this book is not mentioned even once, but it is what provided her with the framework to approach all these topics in a unified and deep way; that is - Heidegger. As it happened, I was reading their correspondence at the same time with this book, and on October 28, 1960 Arendt wrote to Heidegger: 鈥淵ou will see that the book [German edition of 鈥淭he Human Condition鈥漖 does not contain a dedication. If things had ever worked out properly between us 鈥� and I mean between, that is neither you nor me 鈥� I would have asked you if I might dedicate it to you; it came directly out of the first Freiburg days and hence owes practically everything to you in every respect. As things are, I did not think it was possible, but I wanted at least to mention the bare fact to you in one way or another.鈥�
September 10, 2021
The flyleaf in my copy of this book records that I bought this book on 12 October 1974 for the cover price of $3.75. I was taking off a year from college before the start of my senior year in 1975. I don't recall if I read it before I returned to school the next fall, but I do know that I read Arendt, either this The Human Condition or her Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (or perhaps both). I'd taken a couple of courses in political thought and hadn't done all that well, but the topic drew me in and has never left me. The Human Condition was assigned for a contemporary political thought class that I took the following fall, and then I sat-in on an entire class about Arendt in the fall of 1978 while I was in law school. So, I estimate that I'd read the book at least twice before--and last about 42 years ago.
But while I don't believe that I've read The Human Condition completely since 1978, Arendt's work and thought stayed with me, fermenting as I've considered it and as I've continued to refine my political thinking.
With the election of a right-wing authoritarian as president 2016, my mind turned once again to Arendt and to her thought. And with the great pandemic of 2020, I joined the Virtual Reading Group" at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College (remote, of course). I'm now back again exploring works of Arendt that I'd not read before, such as Men in Dark Times and Essays in Understanding: 1930-1964. But Arendt provides more than emergency reading--the value of her insights transcend the "times of troubles" from which so much of it arose.
When I first read Arendt, I recall the sensation of reading by lightning flashes. So many of her insights remained hidden or obscure to me, but these obstacles were interspaced with flashes of insight that prompted me to press on. Now, after four more decades of reading and learning, I can read her works with a greater appreciation and at least a pretense of comprehension. The Human Condition is a brilliant book. Brilliant not simply in the sense of sharp or engaging, but in the sense that it sheds an intense, revealing light upon politics, labor, work, and the Modern Age. By engaging with this book, one cannot but help but coming to a deeper understanding and engagement with the world. Despite having been written in 1958 (a very different time!), it helps us comprehend our current situation by grounding her analysis within the framework of the human condition (a term she unpacks in the book).
In this book, Arendt lays out some of her most important and enduring ideas. These include three attributes of "the human condition:" natality, mortality, and plurality (which entails a type of equality). In brief, natality refers to the fact that each human person is born into the world. As Arendt notes, this fact gives rise to newness, the initiation of something (someone) unique and therefore underlies the basis of freedom. On the other end of each human life is mortality, that each person will die. We enter and exit. So what do we leave behind? Plurality reflects that we each are born into a human community, of which we are but one among many. Plurality gives rise to political and social life.
The main emphasis of the book is upon what Arendt labels the vita activa, the Latin phrase that we can understand as the active life. This form of life, with its three components, contrasts with the vita contempletiva, the life of contemplation that developed in late antiquity with Stoicism and Epicureanism and that was adopted Christianity and became the ideal way of life in the world of Medieval Christianity. But with the rise of the Modern Age, the vita activa took the preferred role, but with an inversion of the classical hierarchy of action, work, and labor. The three modes of life within the vita activa include action, work, and labor, which Arendt identified as going back to ancient Greece and that survived well into the Roman period. For the Greeks of the city-state during the flowering of democracy, action was the most highly valued way of life. Action consists of speech and deeds done in public among one's peers; to wit. politics. Work consists of the making of items that were durable and not for consumption; tools and tables and works of art, for instance. Arendt argues that these items provide a continuing presence to human life that no individual life or consumable good could provide. I venture that these items produced by work are the cultural artifacts of archeologists, the pottery shards and bits of papyrus that allow us to see the physical world of ages past. The third activity in the vita activa is labor. In the ancient Greek world, this was the lowest form of life, mostly addressed by slaves. It represents the necessity of certainty activities and functions that allow the continuation of a human life. However, with the advent of the Modern Age, with the coming of more advanced technologies and new forms of life and production, labor gained a new level of importance. Economic and socio-political thinking came to place the greatest values on consumption and the processes of life and therefore labor became more highly valued. This trend was especially important in the work of Karl Marx (whom Arendt addresses at length in this book and whose importance she recognizes without adopting Marxism).
The description above is a brief summary of the guiding concepts upon which the remainder of the book rests. What Arendt does with these concepts is quite amazing. For with these fundamental insights, she comes to grips with ideas and events that have created our world. In addition to Marx, Arendt draws deeply upon the classical world and modern thought, often citing Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, in addition to the likes of Kant, Hegel (not much), Nietzsche, Bergson, and Whitehead. (Of note here is the fact that Arendt cites her teacher Heiddegar not at all in this book (perhaps for obvious reasons) and her other teacher--and friend--Karl Jaspers only in two footnotes, both related to Descartes.) To be clear, despite her firm grounding in the Western philosophical tradition, her thought is unique and original in a stunning way. Also, I should note, her mastery of issues outside of philosophy, such as economics and economic history and political and social history are astonishing. But be forewarned: reading her work is often not easy. To fully grasp everything that she wrote in this book, one would need to prove the master of five languages: English, German, French, ancient Greek, and Latin. (Happily, the body of the text is in English with Greek and Latin occasionally interspersed, while the French and German are mostly restricted to footnotes!)
As I look back upon this work that has influenced me so much, I have to address the question of "why?" I came to college very interested in politics (declaring my major upon my first registration). Both of my parents were active in politics, especially my father, although he was not a politician. By the time I went to college, acting as my father's apprentice, I'd already been to two national political conventions, attended meetings with governors and senators, and sat through all manor and level of political meetings. I gained a sense of what ground-level politics consisted of in the United States. In college, my freshman year, I took a survey course on political thought: Plato, Machiavelli, Mill, Marx, and contemporary developments. It was perhaps in this class that I first heard of Arendt. In any event, as I related above, I eventually came to read her on my own before any class requirement. What I discovered was a sense of politics that conferred upon political activity (Arendt's "action") a sense of dignity that one wouldn't intuit from my earlier ground-level experience. Speech and action based on thought, deeds that were worthy of history. The creation of a polity in which one could express oneself and one's insights and have an opportunity to act in concert with others to create something that, while certainly ephemeral, could nevertheless prove worth remembering. For some, politics could prove a calling, a way to be in the world. I never "went into politics" (ran for public office), but I've remained outspoken about political issues, and I've actively supported candidates. And, for a career, I pursued the law, which is the use of speech to attempt to avoid and resolve conflicts and to refine the daily operations of politics have been resolved in some measure (but not completely) by the adoption of laws. Speech and that actions that arise from speech are certainly among the highest and most distinctive human traits, and no one has made this more clear to me than Hannah Arendt. No gift is more valuable to have received in this age of increasing authoritarianism and deception in the public realm than Arendt's guidance about the value of speech and action in the public realm.
But while I don't believe that I've read The Human Condition completely since 1978, Arendt's work and thought stayed with me, fermenting as I've considered it and as I've continued to refine my political thinking.
With the election of a right-wing authoritarian as president 2016, my mind turned once again to Arendt and to her thought. And with the great pandemic of 2020, I joined the Virtual Reading Group" at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College (remote, of course). I'm now back again exploring works of Arendt that I'd not read before, such as Men in Dark Times and Essays in Understanding: 1930-1964. But Arendt provides more than emergency reading--the value of her insights transcend the "times of troubles" from which so much of it arose.
When I first read Arendt, I recall the sensation of reading by lightning flashes. So many of her insights remained hidden or obscure to me, but these obstacles were interspaced with flashes of insight that prompted me to press on. Now, after four more decades of reading and learning, I can read her works with a greater appreciation and at least a pretense of comprehension. The Human Condition is a brilliant book. Brilliant not simply in the sense of sharp or engaging, but in the sense that it sheds an intense, revealing light upon politics, labor, work, and the Modern Age. By engaging with this book, one cannot but help but coming to a deeper understanding and engagement with the world. Despite having been written in 1958 (a very different time!), it helps us comprehend our current situation by grounding her analysis within the framework of the human condition (a term she unpacks in the book).
In this book, Arendt lays out some of her most important and enduring ideas. These include three attributes of "the human condition:" natality, mortality, and plurality (which entails a type of equality). In brief, natality refers to the fact that each human person is born into the world. As Arendt notes, this fact gives rise to newness, the initiation of something (someone) unique and therefore underlies the basis of freedom. On the other end of each human life is mortality, that each person will die. We enter and exit. So what do we leave behind? Plurality reflects that we each are born into a human community, of which we are but one among many. Plurality gives rise to political and social life.
The main emphasis of the book is upon what Arendt labels the vita activa, the Latin phrase that we can understand as the active life. This form of life, with its three components, contrasts with the vita contempletiva, the life of contemplation that developed in late antiquity with Stoicism and Epicureanism and that was adopted Christianity and became the ideal way of life in the world of Medieval Christianity. But with the rise of the Modern Age, the vita activa took the preferred role, but with an inversion of the classical hierarchy of action, work, and labor. The three modes of life within the vita activa include action, work, and labor, which Arendt identified as going back to ancient Greece and that survived well into the Roman period. For the Greeks of the city-state during the flowering of democracy, action was the most highly valued way of life. Action consists of speech and deeds done in public among one's peers; to wit. politics. Work consists of the making of items that were durable and not for consumption; tools and tables and works of art, for instance. Arendt argues that these items provide a continuing presence to human life that no individual life or consumable good could provide. I venture that these items produced by work are the cultural artifacts of archeologists, the pottery shards and bits of papyrus that allow us to see the physical world of ages past. The third activity in the vita activa is labor. In the ancient Greek world, this was the lowest form of life, mostly addressed by slaves. It represents the necessity of certainty activities and functions that allow the continuation of a human life. However, with the advent of the Modern Age, with the coming of more advanced technologies and new forms of life and production, labor gained a new level of importance. Economic and socio-political thinking came to place the greatest values on consumption and the processes of life and therefore labor became more highly valued. This trend was especially important in the work of Karl Marx (whom Arendt addresses at length in this book and whose importance she recognizes without adopting Marxism).
The description above is a brief summary of the guiding concepts upon which the remainder of the book rests. What Arendt does with these concepts is quite amazing. For with these fundamental insights, she comes to grips with ideas and events that have created our world. In addition to Marx, Arendt draws deeply upon the classical world and modern thought, often citing Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, in addition to the likes of Kant, Hegel (not much), Nietzsche, Bergson, and Whitehead. (Of note here is the fact that Arendt cites her teacher Heiddegar not at all in this book (perhaps for obvious reasons) and her other teacher--and friend--Karl Jaspers only in two footnotes, both related to Descartes.) To be clear, despite her firm grounding in the Western philosophical tradition, her thought is unique and original in a stunning way. Also, I should note, her mastery of issues outside of philosophy, such as economics and economic history and political and social history are astonishing. But be forewarned: reading her work is often not easy. To fully grasp everything that she wrote in this book, one would need to prove the master of five languages: English, German, French, ancient Greek, and Latin. (Happily, the body of the text is in English with Greek and Latin occasionally interspersed, while the French and German are mostly restricted to footnotes!)
As I look back upon this work that has influenced me so much, I have to address the question of "why?" I came to college very interested in politics (declaring my major upon my first registration). Both of my parents were active in politics, especially my father, although he was not a politician. By the time I went to college, acting as my father's apprentice, I'd already been to two national political conventions, attended meetings with governors and senators, and sat through all manor and level of political meetings. I gained a sense of what ground-level politics consisted of in the United States. In college, my freshman year, I took a survey course on political thought: Plato, Machiavelli, Mill, Marx, and contemporary developments. It was perhaps in this class that I first heard of Arendt. In any event, as I related above, I eventually came to read her on my own before any class requirement. What I discovered was a sense of politics that conferred upon political activity (Arendt's "action") a sense of dignity that one wouldn't intuit from my earlier ground-level experience. Speech and action based on thought, deeds that were worthy of history. The creation of a polity in which one could express oneself and one's insights and have an opportunity to act in concert with others to create something that, while certainly ephemeral, could nevertheless prove worth remembering. For some, politics could prove a calling, a way to be in the world. I never "went into politics" (ran for public office), but I've remained outspoken about political issues, and I've actively supported candidates. And, for a career, I pursued the law, which is the use of speech to attempt to avoid and resolve conflicts and to refine the daily operations of politics have been resolved in some measure (but not completely) by the adoption of laws. Speech and that actions that arise from speech are certainly among the highest and most distinctive human traits, and no one has made this more clear to me than Hannah Arendt. No gift is more valuable to have received in this age of increasing authoritarianism and deception in the public realm than Arendt's guidance about the value of speech and action in the public realm.
Read
November 6, 2010I'm afraid that I have difficulty with so much of the great intellectual powerhouses of the immediate postwar era, which is terrible, because I know they were a reasonable, humane bunch who tirelessly threw themselves towards lofty goals. But it seems to me that most of these cogitations on universal human aspiration are a bit suspect.
Hannah Arendt, you are clearly a stunningly intelligent person. Your phenomenological approach to the work-labor distinction is admirable for its rigor, and a great many of your observations are just as cutting as they were fifty years ago. But when you use the intellectual circles of classical Greece as an immortal standard, you're selling yourself a bit short. I have a great respect for many classicist principles, but if you fail to recognize a degree of contingency, then the substratum of your approach is inherently flawed. Sorry.
Hannah Arendt, you are clearly a stunningly intelligent person. Your phenomenological approach to the work-labor distinction is admirable for its rigor, and a great many of your observations are just as cutting as they were fifty years ago. But when you use the intellectual circles of classical Greece as an immortal standard, you're selling yourself a bit short. I have a great respect for many classicist principles, but if you fail to recognize a degree of contingency, then the substratum of your approach is inherently flawed. Sorry.
July 7, 2022
Your local pub, Thursday 02:00 AM. A group of drunken "philosophy enthusiasts" discussing the human nature. This is how Arendt's The Human Condition feels like. A cocktail of disjointed ideas and obscure classifications.
July 7, 2021
De filosofe Hanna Arendt (1906- 1975) krijgt de laatste tijd veel aandacht, en dat maakt mij erg nieuwsgierig. Het kraakheldere en inspirerende "Hannah Arendt. Politiek denker" van Dirk de Schutter en Remi Peeters vergrootte die nieuwsgierigheid nog, en gaf mij bovendien genoeg moed en voorkennis om in "The human condition" te duiken, een van Arendts hoofdwerken (gepubliceerd in 1958) en volgens sommigen een van de belangrijkste filosofische boeken uit de 20e eeuw. Dat was een heerlijk leesavontuur, dat mij ruim drie weken intensief bezighield. En nu sta ik te trappelen om te beginnen met "Het leven van de geest", haar laatste en deels postume hoofdwerk. Want Arendt is voor mij echt een ontdekking.
Mooi aan "The human condition" vind ik de voortdurende originaliteit en avontuurlijkheid, de niet aflatende stroom van prikkelende verrassingen, en de rijkdom aan gedachten en zijpaden die je in geen enkele samenvatting recht kunt doen. Dat alles wordt ook nog eens gecombineerd met even onuitputtelijke als eigenzinnige eruditie, zodat het hele boek een ontdekkingsreis wordt doorheen eeuwen van filosofie, waarin tientallen filosofen en denkers belicht worden op manieren die ik nog nooit eerder had gezien. Descartes' principe van de methodische twijfel bijvoorbeeld wordt zeldzaam indringend beschreven, en op meeslepende wijze verbonden met de ontdekking van de telescoop door Galileo: een apparaat dat ons de buitenwereld op geheel andere manieren liet zien, en ons - volgens Arendt althans- leerde dat de ons via de zintuigen gegeven wereld helemaal de ware wereld niet was. Wat de methodische twijfel aan alles in niet geringe mate voedt. Ook gedachten van Marx, Adam Smith, Augustinus, Nietzsche, Plato en Aristoteles en vele anderen worden op virtuoze wijze met elkaar verbonden, en van een voor mij geheel nieuwe lading voorzien, zo virtuoos dat het mij niet eens kan schelen of Arendt gelijk heeft of niet. Tientallen gereputeerde denkers worden besproken, geherinterpreteerd, bekritiseerd en van nieuwe betekenissen voorzien, op een manier die hun werk veel nieuwe glans geeft. Althans, voor mij. Alleen daarom al genoot ik erg van "The human condition", heel langzaam lezend en alle passages ook in de voetnoten zorgvuldig proevend. Ik had kortom grote waardering voor de intellectuele avontuurlijkheid en schoonheid van dit boek, en voor het puur esthetische plezier dat het mij gaf.
Het boek geeft echter niet alleen puur esthetisch plezier, maar geeft ook veel te denken. Het is een exploratie van de "vita activa", dus de dimensie van het actieve menselijke leven. En dat is een nieuw en relatief onontgonnen terrein, want filosofen voor Arendt concentreerden zich juist op de "vita contemplativa", het leven van contemplatie, beschouwing en geest. Bovendien duidt Arendt de "vita activa" vanuit een nooit geziene drieslag van "three fundamental human activities", dus van drie activiteiten die volgens haar kernen zijn van het mens-zijn. Die fundamentele activiteiten zijn: labor (arbeiden), work (werken) en action (handelen).
De eerste activiteit, "labor" oftewel arbeiden, duidt zij, op hoogst originele wijze, als "the activity which corresponds to the biological process of the human body, whose spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventual decay are bound to the vital necessities produced and fed into the life process by labor. The human condition of labor is life itself". Het leven is een eeuwige cyclus van ontstaan en vergaan, van geboorte en dood, van verwekking en verval, van eten en gegeten worden. En arbeiden, althans in de zeer eigen betekenis die Arendt aan dit begrip geeft, is dan elke menselijke activiteit van deelneming aan deze cyclus. Alle activiteiten dus om in leven te blijven of bij te dragen aan het levensonderhoud. Alle repetitieve dagelijkse activiteiten ook die we als "slavenarbeid" ervaren, of waardoor we soms zelfs het hele leven als slavernij ervaren, zoals bijvoorbeeld schoonmaken of afwassen of andere dagelijkse maar onvermijdelijke routines vol gezwoeg, of het steeds maar weer maaien of ploegen van het land. Arbeiden gaat volgens Arendt vaak gepaard met pijn en moeite, en met de "darkness of pain and necessity". Ook al spreekt zij daarnaast, in betoverende passages, over de "sheer bliss" die gepaard gaat met "labor", en die dan gelijk is aan de "sheer bliss" van het in leven zijn zelf.
De tweede activiteit, "work" (werken), staat daarentegen niet - of althans minder- in het teken van noodzaak en levensonderhoud, maar in het teken van nut, van doelmatigheid, van rationele middel- doel relaties. Werken is het tot stand brengen van een kunstmatige wereld van gebruiksdingen, een "artificial world of things, distinctly different from all natural surroundings. Within its borders each individual life is housed, while this world itself is meant tot outlast and transcend them all. The human condition of work is worldliness". "Werken" is bijvoorbeeld het ontwerpen en bouwen van huizen, scholen en wegen, het inrichten van infrastructuren, het ontwerpen van apparaten of gereedschappen die het arbeiden vergemakkelijken, het maken van handboeken die richting geven aan ons dagelijks handelen, het optekenen van gedachten zodat deze niet verloren gaan in de eeuwige kringloop van de natuur. "Werken" is kortom alles wat we doen om de natuur een bepaalde doelmatig- rationele vorm en inrichting te geven en om daarmee de wereld tot een menselijke wereld te maken. Een wereld vol logische betekenissamenhang, die er zonder onze artefacten niet zou zijn. Een wereld kortom die in cultuur is gebracht, en die daardoor voor ons bewoonbaar is geworden. Want "work and its product, the human artifact, bestow a measure of permanence and durability upon the futility of mortal life and the fleeting character of human time".
Arendt zegt fascinerende dingen over "labor" en "work", en over de sporen van deze begrippen in het werk van vele oude en nieuwere denkers. Ik heb dan ook veel gemijmerd over de rol van repetitieve "labor" in mijn leven, dat ondanks alle luxe toch meer elementen van slavenarbeid kent dan mij lief is. En ik mijmerde nog meer over alle beleidsstukken en andere artefacten die ik heb gemaakt, zonder ooit echt te hebben beseft dat ik dit kon zien als "work" en dus als een bijdrage aan "worldliness". Of op zijn minst als een onderdeel van de "world of things" die mij en mijn collega's omringt, en die hopelijk een zekere "measure of permanence and durability " introduceert, wat "the fleeting character" van ons bestaan wat minder nijpend maakt. Althans, dat laatste hoop ik dan maar. Bovendien, wat Arendt zegt over het "werken", en van de homo faber die de wereld als rationaal en planmatig maakbare wereld vormgeeft, is van een enorme schoonheid. Terwijl zij tegelijk heel eloquent waarschuwt tegen werkelijkheidsopvattingen waarin alles als planmatig maakbaar wordt beschouwd, en waarin mechanische productieprocessen alle zingeving versmoren.
Maar wat Arendt zegt over de derde activiteit, "action" oftewel handelen, vind ik nog beduidend fascinerender en inspirerender. "Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men (...), corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world", aldus Arendt. Bij handelen gaat het niet om levensonderhoud, en niet om nut of doelmatigheid, maar om intermenselijke zin en betekenis. Handelen gebeurt bijvoorbeeld als kunstenaars nieuwe perspectieven openen op het menselijk bestaan, of als een groep van idealisten een actiegroep opricht en gaat actievoeren voor een betere wereld, of als mensen in hun familiebijeenkomsten werken aan hechtere familiebanden. Hoe dan ook wordt handelen in al zijn facetten gedreven door het verlangen naar intermenselijke zingeving en betekenisgeving. En dat is zingeving en betekenisgeving in een wezenlijk pluralistische wereld, d.w.z. een wereld die vol is van strikt singuliere en unieke individuen. "Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live", zegt Arendt. Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dan ook eindeloze dialoog met andere singuliere individuen, die jouw perspectieven opbouwend- kritisch toetsen aan (en verrijken met) hun eigen, zeer van de jouwe afwijkende perspectieven. Een nieuwe zin en betekenis die ik op mijn eentje bedenk is volgens Arendt zinloos en betekenisloos, omdat niemand hem hoort. En hij is bovendien schraal, omdat ik alle andere perspectieven van al die andere singuliere individuen niet heb benut. Ook daarom ziet Arendt handelen als een intermenselijke activiteit, waarin de pluraliteit van de wereld zo goed mogelijk naar voren komt. Of althans naar voren zou MOETEN komen: er is geen echte pluraliteit - en dus ook geen echt handelen- in situaties waarin iedereen elkaar napraat, of waarin alleen oppervlakkigheden en dichtgetimmerde standaardmeningen worden gedeeld.
Bovendien, juist handelen is volgens Arendt sterk verbonden met wat ze "nataliteit" noemt: met het vermogen om een totaal nieuw begin te maken, een begin met de kracht van een nieuwe geboorte. Het Bijbelverhaal van Jezus' geboorte ziet ze als exemplarisch voorbeeld van die nataliteit, en dus als miraculeuze geboorte van nieuwe zin en betekenis in een pluralistische wereld. Maar nataliteit heeft voor haar vele vormen: "This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins. Thus, the origin of life from inorganic matter is an infinite improbality of inorganic processes, as is the coming into being of the earth viewed from the standpoint of processes in the universe, or the evolution of human out of animal life. The new always happens against the odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, every day purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle". En precies dat miraculeuze is eigen aan het menselijk handelen, althans in Arendts interpretatie van die term: "The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before. If action as beginning corresponds to the fact of birth, if it is the actualization of the human condition of natality, then speech (...) is the actualization of the human condition of plurality, that is, of living as a distinct and unique being among equals".
Ieder mens is voor Arendt een miraculeus uniek en singulier wezen, en daarmee in staat tot handelingen die volstrekt nieuwe ontwikkelingen in gang zetten, die alle conventies en routines doorbreken, en die tot nog nooit geziene zin en betekenis leiden. Iedereen kan dat in principe, suggereert Arendt, als hij in het miraculeuze nieuwe begin gelooft en als hij respecteert dat handelen ook interactie vereist met andere singuliere individuen. Maar het miraculeuze gehalte gaat volgens Arendt wel gepaard met enorme onvoorspelbaarheid en onzekerheid: "the human capability to act - to start new unprecedented processes whose outcome remains uncertain and unpredictable whether they are let loose in the human or the natural realm". Het totaal nieuwe is immers zonder precedent: er staat geen maat op. De hele wereld binnen en buiten ons is bovendien doordesemd van onzekerheid en onvoorspelbaarheid. We beheersen en reduceren die onzekerheid weliswaar als we ons laten leiden door onze ratio en als we de wereld hanteren in termen van doelmatigheid en nut . Maar nooit lukt ons dat helemaal, want de wereld is meer dan onze ratio. Al was het maar omdat al mijn medemensen net zo onvoorspelbaar zijn als ikzelf, en omdat leven in een pluralistische wereld dus ook leven is in onvoorspelbaarheid. En ook los daarvan is het bestaan doordrenkt van contingentie en redeloos toeval.
Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dus niet alleen geloof in een miraculeus nieuw begin, maar ook scherp besef van de "chaotic uncertainty of the future". Het is essentieel om je aan je beloften en beginselen te houden, en om die beloften tot richtsnoer van je handelen te maken, maar die beloften zijn nooit meer dan "islands of security" in "oceans of uncertainty". Zonder beloften of beginselen, hoe onzeker ook, is elk handelen richtingloos, maar elke handeling blijft een sprong in de onzekerheid. Je weet immers nooit of jouw handelen leidt tot geheel andere gevolgen dan je had beloofd en voorzien. En van die onbedoelde en soms averechtse gevolgen kun je alleen worden verlost als anderen zo goed zijn je te vergeven. Ook dat is echter onzeker: je weet nooit van tevoren of anderen je zullen vergeven voor wat jij veroorzaakt hebt, en er is ook het risico dingen te veroorzaken die niet of moeilijk te vergeven zijn. De belofte biedt dus geen garantie tegen onbedoelde gevolgen, en de hoop dat die gevolgen vergeven zullen worden is een heel onzekere hoop. Niettemin, voor Arendt zijn het beloven en het vergeven zeer essentieel, hoe weinig garantie ze ook bieden: "Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacities to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever, not unlike the sorcerer's apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell. Without being bound tot the fulfillment of promises, we would never be able to keep our identities; we would be condemned to wander helplessly and without direction in the darkness of each man's lonely heart, caught in contradictions and equivocalities- a darkness which only the light shed over the public realm through the presence of others, who confirm the identity between the one who promises and the one who fulfils, can dispel".
"The human condition" is een onuitputtelijk rijk en dus niet samen te vatten boek. En iedereen zal het op zijn eigen wijze lezen. Maar ik bewonder vooral Arendts woorden over de miraculeuze nataliteit en het handelen, en dus over ons vermogen om radicaal nieuwe processen in beweging te zetten die zullen leiden tot volkomen nieuwe zin en betekenis. Je zou die woorden volgens mij kunnen zien als een noodzakelijke correctie op de moderne tijd, waarin de pluraliteit - en de erkenning van de singulariteit en onvoorspelbaarheid van elk uniek individu- nogal is versmoord door consumentisme, denken in termen van maakbaarheid, oppervlakkige opinies in media en politiek, en eenvormigheid. Of misschien niet eens als een correctie, maar als een vorm van voorzichtige hoop. De hoop bijvoorbeeld dat "iemand" een miraculeuze nieuwe wending weet te geven aan de vastgeroeste gesprekken over klimaatverandering, of aan de zo verhitte dialogen over het voor- en tegen van coronavaccinaties. De hoop misschien zelfs dat ik zelf tot miraculeus nieuwe inzichten kom, over deze of geheel andere kwesties, samen met en mede dankzij anderen. Een hoop bovendien die beseft dat zij broos is, en dus geen na茂eve hoop in een maakbaar mirakel dat alle problemen oplost. Want naast het gloedvolle en inspirerende geloof in nataliteit, is er bij Arendt ook het besef dat elk handelen een sprong is in oceanen van onzekerheid. Maar ook is "The human condition" een inspirerend appel om die sprong toch te maken, in het volle besef van alle onzekerheden. En vooral omdat dit appel zo centraal staat in "The human condition" vind ik het een grandioos boek.
Mooi aan "The human condition" vind ik de voortdurende originaliteit en avontuurlijkheid, de niet aflatende stroom van prikkelende verrassingen, en de rijkdom aan gedachten en zijpaden die je in geen enkele samenvatting recht kunt doen. Dat alles wordt ook nog eens gecombineerd met even onuitputtelijke als eigenzinnige eruditie, zodat het hele boek een ontdekkingsreis wordt doorheen eeuwen van filosofie, waarin tientallen filosofen en denkers belicht worden op manieren die ik nog nooit eerder had gezien. Descartes' principe van de methodische twijfel bijvoorbeeld wordt zeldzaam indringend beschreven, en op meeslepende wijze verbonden met de ontdekking van de telescoop door Galileo: een apparaat dat ons de buitenwereld op geheel andere manieren liet zien, en ons - volgens Arendt althans- leerde dat de ons via de zintuigen gegeven wereld helemaal de ware wereld niet was. Wat de methodische twijfel aan alles in niet geringe mate voedt. Ook gedachten van Marx, Adam Smith, Augustinus, Nietzsche, Plato en Aristoteles en vele anderen worden op virtuoze wijze met elkaar verbonden, en van een voor mij geheel nieuwe lading voorzien, zo virtuoos dat het mij niet eens kan schelen of Arendt gelijk heeft of niet. Tientallen gereputeerde denkers worden besproken, geherinterpreteerd, bekritiseerd en van nieuwe betekenissen voorzien, op een manier die hun werk veel nieuwe glans geeft. Althans, voor mij. Alleen daarom al genoot ik erg van "The human condition", heel langzaam lezend en alle passages ook in de voetnoten zorgvuldig proevend. Ik had kortom grote waardering voor de intellectuele avontuurlijkheid en schoonheid van dit boek, en voor het puur esthetische plezier dat het mij gaf.
Het boek geeft echter niet alleen puur esthetisch plezier, maar geeft ook veel te denken. Het is een exploratie van de "vita activa", dus de dimensie van het actieve menselijke leven. En dat is een nieuw en relatief onontgonnen terrein, want filosofen voor Arendt concentreerden zich juist op de "vita contemplativa", het leven van contemplatie, beschouwing en geest. Bovendien duidt Arendt de "vita activa" vanuit een nooit geziene drieslag van "three fundamental human activities", dus van drie activiteiten die volgens haar kernen zijn van het mens-zijn. Die fundamentele activiteiten zijn: labor (arbeiden), work (werken) en action (handelen).
De eerste activiteit, "labor" oftewel arbeiden, duidt zij, op hoogst originele wijze, als "the activity which corresponds to the biological process of the human body, whose spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventual decay are bound to the vital necessities produced and fed into the life process by labor. The human condition of labor is life itself". Het leven is een eeuwige cyclus van ontstaan en vergaan, van geboorte en dood, van verwekking en verval, van eten en gegeten worden. En arbeiden, althans in de zeer eigen betekenis die Arendt aan dit begrip geeft, is dan elke menselijke activiteit van deelneming aan deze cyclus. Alle activiteiten dus om in leven te blijven of bij te dragen aan het levensonderhoud. Alle repetitieve dagelijkse activiteiten ook die we als "slavenarbeid" ervaren, of waardoor we soms zelfs het hele leven als slavernij ervaren, zoals bijvoorbeeld schoonmaken of afwassen of andere dagelijkse maar onvermijdelijke routines vol gezwoeg, of het steeds maar weer maaien of ploegen van het land. Arbeiden gaat volgens Arendt vaak gepaard met pijn en moeite, en met de "darkness of pain and necessity". Ook al spreekt zij daarnaast, in betoverende passages, over de "sheer bliss" die gepaard gaat met "labor", en die dan gelijk is aan de "sheer bliss" van het in leven zijn zelf.
De tweede activiteit, "work" (werken), staat daarentegen niet - of althans minder- in het teken van noodzaak en levensonderhoud, maar in het teken van nut, van doelmatigheid, van rationele middel- doel relaties. Werken is het tot stand brengen van een kunstmatige wereld van gebruiksdingen, een "artificial world of things, distinctly different from all natural surroundings. Within its borders each individual life is housed, while this world itself is meant tot outlast and transcend them all. The human condition of work is worldliness". "Werken" is bijvoorbeeld het ontwerpen en bouwen van huizen, scholen en wegen, het inrichten van infrastructuren, het ontwerpen van apparaten of gereedschappen die het arbeiden vergemakkelijken, het maken van handboeken die richting geven aan ons dagelijks handelen, het optekenen van gedachten zodat deze niet verloren gaan in de eeuwige kringloop van de natuur. "Werken" is kortom alles wat we doen om de natuur een bepaalde doelmatig- rationele vorm en inrichting te geven en om daarmee de wereld tot een menselijke wereld te maken. Een wereld vol logische betekenissamenhang, die er zonder onze artefacten niet zou zijn. Een wereld kortom die in cultuur is gebracht, en die daardoor voor ons bewoonbaar is geworden. Want "work and its product, the human artifact, bestow a measure of permanence and durability upon the futility of mortal life and the fleeting character of human time".
Arendt zegt fascinerende dingen over "labor" en "work", en over de sporen van deze begrippen in het werk van vele oude en nieuwere denkers. Ik heb dan ook veel gemijmerd over de rol van repetitieve "labor" in mijn leven, dat ondanks alle luxe toch meer elementen van slavenarbeid kent dan mij lief is. En ik mijmerde nog meer over alle beleidsstukken en andere artefacten die ik heb gemaakt, zonder ooit echt te hebben beseft dat ik dit kon zien als "work" en dus als een bijdrage aan "worldliness". Of op zijn minst als een onderdeel van de "world of things" die mij en mijn collega's omringt, en die hopelijk een zekere "measure of permanence and durability " introduceert, wat "the fleeting character" van ons bestaan wat minder nijpend maakt. Althans, dat laatste hoop ik dan maar. Bovendien, wat Arendt zegt over het "werken", en van de homo faber die de wereld als rationaal en planmatig maakbare wereld vormgeeft, is van een enorme schoonheid. Terwijl zij tegelijk heel eloquent waarschuwt tegen werkelijkheidsopvattingen waarin alles als planmatig maakbaar wordt beschouwd, en waarin mechanische productieprocessen alle zingeving versmoren.
Maar wat Arendt zegt over de derde activiteit, "action" oftewel handelen, vind ik nog beduidend fascinerender en inspirerender. "Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men (...), corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world", aldus Arendt. Bij handelen gaat het niet om levensonderhoud, en niet om nut of doelmatigheid, maar om intermenselijke zin en betekenis. Handelen gebeurt bijvoorbeeld als kunstenaars nieuwe perspectieven openen op het menselijk bestaan, of als een groep van idealisten een actiegroep opricht en gaat actievoeren voor een betere wereld, of als mensen in hun familiebijeenkomsten werken aan hechtere familiebanden. Hoe dan ook wordt handelen in al zijn facetten gedreven door het verlangen naar intermenselijke zingeving en betekenisgeving. En dat is zingeving en betekenisgeving in een wezenlijk pluralistische wereld, d.w.z. een wereld die vol is van strikt singuliere en unieke individuen. "Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live", zegt Arendt. Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dan ook eindeloze dialoog met andere singuliere individuen, die jouw perspectieven opbouwend- kritisch toetsen aan (en verrijken met) hun eigen, zeer van de jouwe afwijkende perspectieven. Een nieuwe zin en betekenis die ik op mijn eentje bedenk is volgens Arendt zinloos en betekenisloos, omdat niemand hem hoort. En hij is bovendien schraal, omdat ik alle andere perspectieven van al die andere singuliere individuen niet heb benut. Ook daarom ziet Arendt handelen als een intermenselijke activiteit, waarin de pluraliteit van de wereld zo goed mogelijk naar voren komt. Of althans naar voren zou MOETEN komen: er is geen echte pluraliteit - en dus ook geen echt handelen- in situaties waarin iedereen elkaar napraat, of waarin alleen oppervlakkigheden en dichtgetimmerde standaardmeningen worden gedeeld.
Bovendien, juist handelen is volgens Arendt sterk verbonden met wat ze "nataliteit" noemt: met het vermogen om een totaal nieuw begin te maken, een begin met de kracht van een nieuwe geboorte. Het Bijbelverhaal van Jezus' geboorte ziet ze als exemplarisch voorbeeld van die nataliteit, en dus als miraculeuze geboorte van nieuwe zin en betekenis in een pluralistische wereld. Maar nataliteit heeft voor haar vele vormen: "This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins. Thus, the origin of life from inorganic matter is an infinite improbality of inorganic processes, as is the coming into being of the earth viewed from the standpoint of processes in the universe, or the evolution of human out of animal life. The new always happens against the odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, every day purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle". En precies dat miraculeuze is eigen aan het menselijk handelen, althans in Arendts interpretatie van die term: "The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world. With respect to this somebody who is unique it can be truly said that nobody was there before. If action as beginning corresponds to the fact of birth, if it is the actualization of the human condition of natality, then speech (...) is the actualization of the human condition of plurality, that is, of living as a distinct and unique being among equals".
Ieder mens is voor Arendt een miraculeus uniek en singulier wezen, en daarmee in staat tot handelingen die volstrekt nieuwe ontwikkelingen in gang zetten, die alle conventies en routines doorbreken, en die tot nog nooit geziene zin en betekenis leiden. Iedereen kan dat in principe, suggereert Arendt, als hij in het miraculeuze nieuwe begin gelooft en als hij respecteert dat handelen ook interactie vereist met andere singuliere individuen. Maar het miraculeuze gehalte gaat volgens Arendt wel gepaard met enorme onvoorspelbaarheid en onzekerheid: "the human capability to act - to start new unprecedented processes whose outcome remains uncertain and unpredictable whether they are let loose in the human or the natural realm". Het totaal nieuwe is immers zonder precedent: er staat geen maat op. De hele wereld binnen en buiten ons is bovendien doordesemd van onzekerheid en onvoorspelbaarheid. We beheersen en reduceren die onzekerheid weliswaar als we ons laten leiden door onze ratio en als we de wereld hanteren in termen van doelmatigheid en nut . Maar nooit lukt ons dat helemaal, want de wereld is meer dan onze ratio. Al was het maar omdat al mijn medemensen net zo onvoorspelbaar zijn als ikzelf, en omdat leven in een pluralistische wereld dus ook leven is in onvoorspelbaarheid. En ook los daarvan is het bestaan doordrenkt van contingentie en redeloos toeval.
Handelen vraagt volgens Arendt dus niet alleen geloof in een miraculeus nieuw begin, maar ook scherp besef van de "chaotic uncertainty of the future". Het is essentieel om je aan je beloften en beginselen te houden, en om die beloften tot richtsnoer van je handelen te maken, maar die beloften zijn nooit meer dan "islands of security" in "oceans of uncertainty". Zonder beloften of beginselen, hoe onzeker ook, is elk handelen richtingloos, maar elke handeling blijft een sprong in de onzekerheid. Je weet immers nooit of jouw handelen leidt tot geheel andere gevolgen dan je had beloofd en voorzien. En van die onbedoelde en soms averechtse gevolgen kun je alleen worden verlost als anderen zo goed zijn je te vergeven. Ook dat is echter onzeker: je weet nooit van tevoren of anderen je zullen vergeven voor wat jij veroorzaakt hebt, en er is ook het risico dingen te veroorzaken die niet of moeilijk te vergeven zijn. De belofte biedt dus geen garantie tegen onbedoelde gevolgen, en de hoop dat die gevolgen vergeven zullen worden is een heel onzekere hoop. Niettemin, voor Arendt zijn het beloven en het vergeven zeer essentieel, hoe weinig garantie ze ook bieden: "Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacities to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever, not unlike the sorcerer's apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell. Without being bound tot the fulfillment of promises, we would never be able to keep our identities; we would be condemned to wander helplessly and without direction in the darkness of each man's lonely heart, caught in contradictions and equivocalities- a darkness which only the light shed over the public realm through the presence of others, who confirm the identity between the one who promises and the one who fulfils, can dispel".
"The human condition" is een onuitputtelijk rijk en dus niet samen te vatten boek. En iedereen zal het op zijn eigen wijze lezen. Maar ik bewonder vooral Arendts woorden over de miraculeuze nataliteit en het handelen, en dus over ons vermogen om radicaal nieuwe processen in beweging te zetten die zullen leiden tot volkomen nieuwe zin en betekenis. Je zou die woorden volgens mij kunnen zien als een noodzakelijke correctie op de moderne tijd, waarin de pluraliteit - en de erkenning van de singulariteit en onvoorspelbaarheid van elk uniek individu- nogal is versmoord door consumentisme, denken in termen van maakbaarheid, oppervlakkige opinies in media en politiek, en eenvormigheid. Of misschien niet eens als een correctie, maar als een vorm van voorzichtige hoop. De hoop bijvoorbeeld dat "iemand" een miraculeuze nieuwe wending weet te geven aan de vastgeroeste gesprekken over klimaatverandering, of aan de zo verhitte dialogen over het voor- en tegen van coronavaccinaties. De hoop misschien zelfs dat ik zelf tot miraculeus nieuwe inzichten kom, over deze of geheel andere kwesties, samen met en mede dankzij anderen. Een hoop bovendien die beseft dat zij broos is, en dus geen na茂eve hoop in een maakbaar mirakel dat alle problemen oplost. Want naast het gloedvolle en inspirerende geloof in nataliteit, is er bij Arendt ook het besef dat elk handelen een sprong is in oceanen van onzekerheid. Maar ook is "The human condition" een inspirerend appel om die sprong toch te maken, in het volle besef van alle onzekerheden. En vooral omdat dit appel zo centraal staat in "The human condition" vind ik het een grandioos boek.
May 23, 2024
The Human Condition is Hannah Arendt's eclectic 1958 exegesis on the social, political and material conditions under which us humans live, learn and labor.
Before attempting to summarize some Arendt's main points. I鈥檇 like to offer a brief personal disclaimer, and reflect a little bit on the style and organization of the book.
PERSONAL DISCLAIMER
I鈥檓 not a trained philosopher. Not even close. I鈥檓 not even that well read in philosophy. My training is in (a) fine art (I went to art school and working in film and television for a bit more than a decade), and (b) psychology (I鈥檓 a licensed psychotherapist, and I鈥檓 currently finishing a PsyD with doctoral research emphasis on addiction and trauma).
I鈥檓 reading a bit of philosophy lately out of curiosity/fun, and in order to better explore/understand phenomenology, both to enhance my clinical work and to support a qualitative research project I鈥檓 currently working on.
I offer this DISCLAIMER as a lengthy way of DISCLOSING that I know next to nothing about what I鈥檓 about talk about. And furthermore. I鈥檓 fundamentally unqualified to comment on a text as technical and historical as this one.
What you鈥檙e about to read (should you continue) is literally me just kind of grasping at thin air, just simply trying (and probably failing) to make heads or tails of the book I just fucking read. But barely understood.
STYLE
Ardent is fluent in multiple languages, including English German and ancient Greek. And she makes liberal use all of these languages. As well as referring to ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights. And it is both amazing and humbling to behold.
And it鈥檚 A LOT to take in.
Particularly, if you鈥檙e an American (like me) and your liberal arts education skimmed the classics, skipped the Bible altogether, and paid an inordinate amount of attention to DeSade, Foucault, and all those other French PoMo/HoMo critical/queer theorists (that were in vogue in the 90s, particularly at the San Francisco and Art Institute, when/where I did my BFA, and the went completely out of Vogue circa 9/11/01, and have suddenly become in vogue again because BLM, #MeToo, Trans Visibility and TikTok?).
ORGANIZATION
The book is organized as follows:
Introduction: wherein Arendt introduces the key themes and concepts.
Part I: The Human Condition, wherein Arendt introduces her three fundamental human activities: labor, work, and action, and their relevance to the overall human condition.
Part II: The Public and the Private, wherein Arendt explores the distinctions between the public and private spheres, including their evolution, significance, and broader implications.
Part III: Labor wherein Arendt focuses on the embodied activity of labor, and its necessity for survival (particularly if you鈥檙e poor or a slave).
Part IV: Work wherein Arendt Examines the activity of work, distinguishing it from labor, and discusses the creation of the human-made world, and the durability of objects (including Adam bombs and satellites).
Part V: Action wherein Arendt further different differentiates the activity of action from labor and work, and explores its implications on personal freedom and innovation.
And of course.
Conclusion: wherein Arendt summarizes her analysis and reflections on the human condition, drawing together the themes discussed throughout the book and their implications for modern society.
BIG IDEAS
Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa:
Arendt distinguishes between the "vita activa" (active life) and the "vita contemplativa" (contemplative life). Arendt argues that Western (global northern) philosophy (and culture) has traditionally valued contemplation over action, leading to a diminished appreciation for the active aspects of human life.
Three Fundamental Activities:
1: Labor which Arendt defines as the repetitive efforts related to the necessities of survival.
2: Work which Arendt defines as activities that create the world of durable/useful objects. Work involves fabrication and builds the human-made world, providing durability and stability.
3: Action (or rather Political/Social Action) which Arendt identifies as the most important and significant activity for humans.
In sum.
According to Arendt, under pre capitalist and capitalist societies, poor people and salves labor, and working class people work, so rich entitled people can take Action. Arendt seems to argue that this is fucked up. And seems to agree with Marx in the assertion that everyone deserves to be free enough to take action.
The Public and Private:
Arendt differentiates between the public and private realms. For Arendt, the private realm is the sphere of liable, necessity and the sustenance of biological life, while the public realm is the sphere of work, freedom and political action.
Arendt observes that poor people, slaves and women are relegated to the private realm under patriarchy (although she does not explicitly use this term). Which she seems to lament. However, she also laments the decline of the public realm in modern times and the rise of the social, which blurs the line between public/private. Which was a little confusing. But I think she was critical of the modern social realm, because it renders people vulnerable to consumerism and political in action.
Clarify this for me in the comments if you can.
Plurality:
Arendt uses the term Plurality to connote the human action that involves interaction with others, and their different perspectives.
Arendt highlights the value and uniqueness of the individuality of each person (and I think she is critical of Marxism for devaluing individuality).
Polis V Social:
Arendt discusses the ancient Greek polis as a model of the public realm where citizens (not including slaves, women and poor people) engage in collective action and discourse.
She contrasts this with the modern world, where mass society and bureaucracy threaten individual freedom and political engagement.
Word!
Technology and Modernity:
Arendt examines the impact of technology and modernity on human life, noting how they have transformed labor, work, and action.
Arendt critiques the positivistic, reductionistic, materialistic rationality that dominates modern society, which prioritizes efficiency and productivity over meaningful action and engagement.
Word UP!
IN SUM
Arendt's analysis highlights the importance of individual political action and the public realm in maintaining a vibrant and free society. Arendt is critical of the technological orientation that prioritizes the cognitive and devalues the embodied experience of labor and work.
I think she would have a thing or two to say about the internet, climate change and AI.
And she might be highly critical of this writer for using CHAT GPT so liberally in the creation of this review 馃槣
5/5 STARS 猸愶笍
Before attempting to summarize some Arendt's main points. I鈥檇 like to offer a brief personal disclaimer, and reflect a little bit on the style and organization of the book.
PERSONAL DISCLAIMER
I鈥檓 not a trained philosopher. Not even close. I鈥檓 not even that well read in philosophy. My training is in (a) fine art (I went to art school and working in film and television for a bit more than a decade), and (b) psychology (I鈥檓 a licensed psychotherapist, and I鈥檓 currently finishing a PsyD with doctoral research emphasis on addiction and trauma).
I鈥檓 reading a bit of philosophy lately out of curiosity/fun, and in order to better explore/understand phenomenology, both to enhance my clinical work and to support a qualitative research project I鈥檓 currently working on.
I offer this DISCLAIMER as a lengthy way of DISCLOSING that I know next to nothing about what I鈥檓 about talk about. And furthermore. I鈥檓 fundamentally unqualified to comment on a text as technical and historical as this one.
What you鈥檙e about to read (should you continue) is literally me just kind of grasping at thin air, just simply trying (and probably failing) to make heads or tails of the book I just fucking read. But barely understood.
STYLE
Ardent is fluent in multiple languages, including English German and ancient Greek. And she makes liberal use all of these languages. As well as referring to ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights. And it is both amazing and humbling to behold.
And it鈥檚 A LOT to take in.
Particularly, if you鈥檙e an American (like me) and your liberal arts education skimmed the classics, skipped the Bible altogether, and paid an inordinate amount of attention to DeSade, Foucault, and all those other French PoMo/HoMo critical/queer theorists (that were in vogue in the 90s, particularly at the San Francisco and Art Institute, when/where I did my BFA, and the went completely out of Vogue circa 9/11/01, and have suddenly become in vogue again because BLM, #MeToo, Trans Visibility and TikTok?).
ORGANIZATION
The book is organized as follows:
Introduction: wherein Arendt introduces the key themes and concepts.
Part I: The Human Condition, wherein Arendt introduces her three fundamental human activities: labor, work, and action, and their relevance to the overall human condition.
Part II: The Public and the Private, wherein Arendt explores the distinctions between the public and private spheres, including their evolution, significance, and broader implications.
Part III: Labor wherein Arendt focuses on the embodied activity of labor, and its necessity for survival (particularly if you鈥檙e poor or a slave).
Part IV: Work wherein Arendt Examines the activity of work, distinguishing it from labor, and discusses the creation of the human-made world, and the durability of objects (including Adam bombs and satellites).
Part V: Action wherein Arendt further different differentiates the activity of action from labor and work, and explores its implications on personal freedom and innovation.
And of course.
Conclusion: wherein Arendt summarizes her analysis and reflections on the human condition, drawing together the themes discussed throughout the book and their implications for modern society.
BIG IDEAS
Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa:
Arendt distinguishes between the "vita activa" (active life) and the "vita contemplativa" (contemplative life). Arendt argues that Western (global northern) philosophy (and culture) has traditionally valued contemplation over action, leading to a diminished appreciation for the active aspects of human life.
Three Fundamental Activities:
1: Labor which Arendt defines as the repetitive efforts related to the necessities of survival.
2: Work which Arendt defines as activities that create the world of durable/useful objects. Work involves fabrication and builds the human-made world, providing durability and stability.
3: Action (or rather Political/Social Action) which Arendt identifies as the most important and significant activity for humans.
In sum.
According to Arendt, under pre capitalist and capitalist societies, poor people and salves labor, and working class people work, so rich entitled people can take Action. Arendt seems to argue that this is fucked up. And seems to agree with Marx in the assertion that everyone deserves to be free enough to take action.
The Public and Private:
Arendt differentiates between the public and private realms. For Arendt, the private realm is the sphere of liable, necessity and the sustenance of biological life, while the public realm is the sphere of work, freedom and political action.
Arendt observes that poor people, slaves and women are relegated to the private realm under patriarchy (although she does not explicitly use this term). Which she seems to lament. However, she also laments the decline of the public realm in modern times and the rise of the social, which blurs the line between public/private. Which was a little confusing. But I think she was critical of the modern social realm, because it renders people vulnerable to consumerism and political in action.
Clarify this for me in the comments if you can.
Plurality:
Arendt uses the term Plurality to connote the human action that involves interaction with others, and their different perspectives.
Arendt highlights the value and uniqueness of the individuality of each person (and I think she is critical of Marxism for devaluing individuality).
Polis V Social:
Arendt discusses the ancient Greek polis as a model of the public realm where citizens (not including slaves, women and poor people) engage in collective action and discourse.
She contrasts this with the modern world, where mass society and bureaucracy threaten individual freedom and political engagement.
Word!
Technology and Modernity:
Arendt examines the impact of technology and modernity on human life, noting how they have transformed labor, work, and action.
Arendt critiques the positivistic, reductionistic, materialistic rationality that dominates modern society, which prioritizes efficiency and productivity over meaningful action and engagement.
Word UP!
IN SUM
Arendt's analysis highlights the importance of individual political action and the public realm in maintaining a vibrant and free society. Arendt is critical of the technological orientation that prioritizes the cognitive and devalues the embodied experience of labor and work.
I think she would have a thing or two to say about the internet, climate change and AI.
And she might be highly critical of this writer for using CHAT GPT so liberally in the creation of this review 馃槣
5/5 STARS 猸愶笍
June 8, 2010
In The Human Condition (1958), Hannah Arendt discusses the public/private distinction with hope toward a more active political life, what she calls viva active (7). She argues that the dividing line between private and public has become blurred because we have come to understand political realms in terms of the family (28). She sees a "gulf" between private and public in ancient thought where people had to cross, and it touch courage to cross this gulf because one left behind concerns of only his survival (33, 36).
Arendt argues that the social is a recent category as well, one that arises because of the spreading of the private into the public (38). For Arendt, privacy is deprivation, and we have lost this sense because of the "enormous enrichment of the private sphere" (38). Privacy is deprivation because we are "deprived of the possibility of achieving something more permanent than life itself" (58), the "transcendence" into a sort of earthly or political immortality (55). Before the "discovery of the intimate," privacy was thought to be characteristically animal, not fully human (46). The disappearance of the public realm means the "threatened liquidation of the private realm as well" (61).
Arendt argues that the social is a recent category as well, one that arises because of the spreading of the private into the public (38). For Arendt, privacy is deprivation, and we have lost this sense because of the "enormous enrichment of the private sphere" (38). Privacy is deprivation because we are "deprived of the possibility of achieving something more permanent than life itself" (58), the "transcendence" into a sort of earthly or political immortality (55). Before the "discovery of the intimate," privacy was thought to be characteristically animal, not fully human (46). The disappearance of the public realm means the "threatened liquidation of the private realm as well" (61).
September 30, 2015
A book that is all over the place and is not an easy read. I'm not entirely sure what she was trying to attempt.
February 20, 2018
"膶udo koje svet, to jest domen ljudskih stvari, spasava od normalne, "prirodne" propasti, jeste natalnost. U natalnosti je sposobnost delanja ontolo拧ki ukorenjena. Ona je, drugim re膷ima, ro膽enje novog 膷oveka i nov po膷etak, delanje za koje je 膷ovek sposoban zahvaljuju膰i tome 拧to je ro膽en. Samo potpuno iskustvo ove sposobnosti mo啪e ljudskim stvarima dati veru i nadu, te dve klju膷ne karakteristike ljudskog postojanja koje je gr膷ka antika potpuno ignorisala, odbacuju膰i odr啪avanje vere kao vrlo neuobi膷ajenu i ne preterano va啪nu vrlinu, a nadu ubrajaju膰i me膽u zle iluzije iz Pandorine kutije. Ta vera u svet i ta nada vezane za svet, na拧le su svoj verovatno najveli膷anstveniji i najsa啪etiji izraz u nekoliko re膷i kojima su jevan膽elja objavila svoju "dobru vest": "Rodilo se dete". (339)
February 7, 2020
De doua zile ma codesc sa scriu recenzia acestei carti. Citind-o pe Arendt pentru prima oara, m-au fascinat inteligenta, capacitatea argumentativa, scriitura didactica si foarte clara (totusi, multe pasaje le-am tradus in romana pentru a le putea intelege mai bine si chiar si asa nu stiu daca am reusit sa inteleg tot ce zice ea acolo. Asta nu din cauza scriiturii, ci din cauza capului meu inca necopt).
Cartea este un periplu istoric al conditiei umana, incepand din Grecia antica, si ajungand la viziunile marxiste, scepticismul cartezian, pana la fenomenologia erei moderne.
Conditia umana este reprezentata de vita activa si vita contemplativa. Iar vita activa inseamna: travaliul (viata insasi, necesitatile bazale ale vietii, travaliul de a produce painea zilnica), munca creativa (conditia homo faber-ului, omul creator care se foloseste de elementele din natura pentru a crea lucruri durabile, lucruri care stabilesc o despartire de natura, cum ar fi casa, scaunul, masa) si actiunea (actiunea care are loc aproape tot timpul in spatiul public, caracterizata de un final imprevizibil si ireversibil, modificabil prin capacitatea omului de a ierta sau de a putea tine o promisiune).
In Grecia antica existau mediul privat (The free citizen care era stapan asupra casei lui, respectiv asupra nevestei si a sclavilor) si mediul public (in care se exercita actiunea politica, facebook antic). In Grecia antica, necesitatile erau privite drept privare de libertate, omul liber este cel care nu depinde de necesitati, pentru asta exista sclavii care se ocupa de producerea mancarii etc... Apoi odata cu Marx et al, travaliul si-a schimbat statutul rusinos, omul a devenit un animal laborans, a aparut societatea formata din oamenii muncitori ("labor").
Pentru Arendt, epoca moderna a inceput o data cu descoperirea telescopului de catre Galileo. Sistemul geocentric din epoca antica (pamantul e punctul fix), a fost preluat de cel heliocentric (soarele este punctul fix) pentru ca in era relativitatii sa nu mai existe nici un punct fix, si totul este relativ. Faimosul punct al lui Arhimede este citat aici de Arendt.
Era moderna este dominata de multe elemente de instrainare - instrainarea fata de pamant (nu mai exista sistemul geocentric, apoi aparitia zborului, cunoasterea pamantului prin departarea de el), instrainarea fata de proprietatea privata care a dus pe de o parte la instrainarea anumitor paturi populationale fata de locul lor in lume si la expunerea lor la exigentele vietii, iar pe de alta parte la acumularea de averi si posibilitatea transformarilor acestor averi in capital, instrainarea fata de credinta.
In sfarsit, pe masura aparitiei stiintei, omul a inceput paradoxal sa inteleaga tot mai putin din lumea inconjuratoare. Arendt zice ca omul nu poate intelege decat ceea ce a realizat el cu mainile si capul lui. Prin stiinta, omul a reusit sa imite fenomene naturale, asta insa neinsemnand ca el a reusit sa inteleaga DE CE-ul. Aceasta neintelegere a dus la urmatoarele: daca in Grecia antica omul era orientat spre natura, doritor sa vada si sa descrie ceea ce se intampla in jurul lui, era moderna a dus la o intoarcere a omului catre sine insusi, a dus la descoperirea constiintei si la efectele perceptiei asupra lumii inconjuratoare (si asta de la Descartes, primul care a inceput sa isi puna probleme dintr-un punct de vedere antropocentric - omul devine punctul fix al lui Arhimede, ajungand la fenomenologii secolului XX). Scepticismul cartezian aplicat la religie si credinta (vezi Kierkegaard) a dus la decaderea religiei catolice, crestine in general.
Si astfel s-a schimbat si modul de privire a vietii. Catolicii au aparut intr-o perioada de declin al lumii, si au inceput sa propovaduiasca sacralitatea vietii si vesnicia ei. In Grecia antica, omul era trecator iar viata lui nu era atat de importanta, lumea insa era imortala. Odata cu religia crestina, zeul unic a devenit asociat oamenilor, pacatul a devenit guvernator al vietii omului si salvarea pacatelor pentru a obtine viata vesnica era speranta suprema. Expropierea si instrainarea fata de lume a dus la aparitia unei mase de oameni fara nimic la care aceaste concepte au prins foarte bine.
In plus viata devine elementul cel mai important, trebuie sa traiesti pentru a obtine viata vesnica (sinuciderea era vazuta mai rau decat crima). Era moderna a creat un scepticism major referior la religia crestina, in special la salvarea sufletului fara de pacat.
Vita contemplativa, care a castigat teren in era moderna si a dus la marile revolutii stiintifice (caci omul nu a mai contemplat pasiv minunadu-se, ci a inceput sa contemple activ, sa isi puna probleme si asa a aparut stiinta si descoperirile stiintifice), a dus la aparitia sentimentului ca viata apartine lumii, aceste doua concepte nu mai sunt separate. Asa ca lumea este viata omului si omul este parte integranta din lume. In ziua de azi viata nu mai e bunul suprem din perspectiva imortalitatii, este asa din perspectiva lumii inconjuratoare. Principiul utilitatii, principiul fericirii - principii care si-au pus amprenta asupra vietii moderne (fericire: sum total (placeri - dureri))
Finalul cartii provine de la Cato si inca il mai rumeg :
Never is he more active than when he does nothing, never is he less alone than when he is by himself.
Din pacate cunostintele mele sunt mult prea reduse pentru a gasi cusururi la scriitura lui Arendt. Ma intreb doar in ce categorie ma aflu eu, ca medic. (travaliu, munca creatoare, actiune, sau e pur si simplu un job - caci in era moderna omul a devenit doar un detinator de slujba - jobholder).
E o carte la care ma voi mai intoarce candva. Am incercat sa prezint cateva din temele principale, asa cum le-am inteles eu. Recomand cartea cu mult drag. Dupa ce reusesti sa o termini, ai asa o senzatie de usoara ingamfare si te simti parca un pic mai destept.
Cartea este un periplu istoric al conditiei umana, incepand din Grecia antica, si ajungand la viziunile marxiste, scepticismul cartezian, pana la fenomenologia erei moderne.
Conditia umana este reprezentata de vita activa si vita contemplativa. Iar vita activa inseamna: travaliul (viata insasi, necesitatile bazale ale vietii, travaliul de a produce painea zilnica), munca creativa (conditia homo faber-ului, omul creator care se foloseste de elementele din natura pentru a crea lucruri durabile, lucruri care stabilesc o despartire de natura, cum ar fi casa, scaunul, masa) si actiunea (actiunea care are loc aproape tot timpul in spatiul public, caracterizata de un final imprevizibil si ireversibil, modificabil prin capacitatea omului de a ierta sau de a putea tine o promisiune).
In Grecia antica existau mediul privat (The free citizen care era stapan asupra casei lui, respectiv asupra nevestei si a sclavilor) si mediul public (in care se exercita actiunea politica, facebook antic). In Grecia antica, necesitatile erau privite drept privare de libertate, omul liber este cel care nu depinde de necesitati, pentru asta exista sclavii care se ocupa de producerea mancarii etc... Apoi odata cu Marx et al, travaliul si-a schimbat statutul rusinos, omul a devenit un animal laborans, a aparut societatea formata din oamenii muncitori ("labor").
Pentru Arendt, epoca moderna a inceput o data cu descoperirea telescopului de catre Galileo. Sistemul geocentric din epoca antica (pamantul e punctul fix), a fost preluat de cel heliocentric (soarele este punctul fix) pentru ca in era relativitatii sa nu mai existe nici un punct fix, si totul este relativ. Faimosul punct al lui Arhimede este citat aici de Arendt.
Era moderna este dominata de multe elemente de instrainare - instrainarea fata de pamant (nu mai exista sistemul geocentric, apoi aparitia zborului, cunoasterea pamantului prin departarea de el), instrainarea fata de proprietatea privata care a dus pe de o parte la instrainarea anumitor paturi populationale fata de locul lor in lume si la expunerea lor la exigentele vietii, iar pe de alta parte la acumularea de averi si posibilitatea transformarilor acestor averi in capital, instrainarea fata de credinta.
In sfarsit, pe masura aparitiei stiintei, omul a inceput paradoxal sa inteleaga tot mai putin din lumea inconjuratoare. Arendt zice ca omul nu poate intelege decat ceea ce a realizat el cu mainile si capul lui. Prin stiinta, omul a reusit sa imite fenomene naturale, asta insa neinsemnand ca el a reusit sa inteleaga DE CE-ul. Aceasta neintelegere a dus la urmatoarele: daca in Grecia antica omul era orientat spre natura, doritor sa vada si sa descrie ceea ce se intampla in jurul lui, era moderna a dus la o intoarcere a omului catre sine insusi, a dus la descoperirea constiintei si la efectele perceptiei asupra lumii inconjuratoare (si asta de la Descartes, primul care a inceput sa isi puna probleme dintr-un punct de vedere antropocentric - omul devine punctul fix al lui Arhimede, ajungand la fenomenologii secolului XX). Scepticismul cartezian aplicat la religie si credinta (vezi Kierkegaard) a dus la decaderea religiei catolice, crestine in general.
Si astfel s-a schimbat si modul de privire a vietii. Catolicii au aparut intr-o perioada de declin al lumii, si au inceput sa propovaduiasca sacralitatea vietii si vesnicia ei. In Grecia antica, omul era trecator iar viata lui nu era atat de importanta, lumea insa era imortala. Odata cu religia crestina, zeul unic a devenit asociat oamenilor, pacatul a devenit guvernator al vietii omului si salvarea pacatelor pentru a obtine viata vesnica era speranta suprema. Expropierea si instrainarea fata de lume a dus la aparitia unei mase de oameni fara nimic la care aceaste concepte au prins foarte bine.
In plus viata devine elementul cel mai important, trebuie sa traiesti pentru a obtine viata vesnica (sinuciderea era vazuta mai rau decat crima). Era moderna a creat un scepticism major referior la religia crestina, in special la salvarea sufletului fara de pacat.
Vita contemplativa, care a castigat teren in era moderna si a dus la marile revolutii stiintifice (caci omul nu a mai contemplat pasiv minunadu-se, ci a inceput sa contemple activ, sa isi puna probleme si asa a aparut stiinta si descoperirile stiintifice), a dus la aparitia sentimentului ca viata apartine lumii, aceste doua concepte nu mai sunt separate. Asa ca lumea este viata omului si omul este parte integranta din lume. In ziua de azi viata nu mai e bunul suprem din perspectiva imortalitatii, este asa din perspectiva lumii inconjuratoare. Principiul utilitatii, principiul fericirii - principii care si-au pus amprenta asupra vietii moderne (fericire: sum total (placeri - dureri))
Finalul cartii provine de la Cato si inca il mai rumeg :
Never is he more active than when he does nothing, never is he less alone than when he is by himself.
Din pacate cunostintele mele sunt mult prea reduse pentru a gasi cusururi la scriitura lui Arendt. Ma intreb doar in ce categorie ma aflu eu, ca medic. (travaliu, munca creatoare, actiune, sau e pur si simplu un job - caci in era moderna omul a devenit doar un detinator de slujba - jobholder).
E o carte la care ma voi mai intoarce candva. Am incercat sa prezint cateva din temele principale, asa cum le-am inteles eu. Recomand cartea cu mult drag. Dupa ce reusesti sa o termini, ai asa o senzatie de usoara ingamfare si te simti parca un pic mai destept.
April 28, 2017
Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition is unlike any book I've read before it; and any book I read after it is likely to be judged in the light it casts forward too. After all, as the title reads, there's nothing less than 'The Human Condition' at stake in this book. Of course exactly what that means is the rub, and Arendt's book is distinguished by the way it treats the question not merely in philosophical, but also in explicitly political and historical terms. Rather than being a detached investigation into some sort of eternal or underlying essence of man, Arendt - whose critical gaze spans the breadth from ancient Greece to the modern day - patiently and probingly traces the subtle but decisive changes wrought upon 鈥楳an鈥� by the changes of modernity.
Crucial to Arendt鈥檚 account is the way in which, more than ever, the space of (political) action - in which one distinguishes oneself as an individual 鈥榳ho鈥�, as opposed to a substitutable 鈥榳hat' - is being occluded by the increasing focus and emphasis on 鈥榣ife鈥�; sheer survival at the expense of genuine political expression. Arendt鈥檚 paradigmatic case here is that of the Greek slave, who, subject to the necessity of biological subsistence, is unable to access the realm of freedom which constituted the proper space of the Greek citizen. Thus, drawing on her considerable erudition and classical education, she approvingly quotes Seneca, for whom "life is slavery without the virtue which knows how to die.鈥�
The crux of Arendt鈥檚 provocative analysis then, is the question of whether or not we ourselves, without acknowledging it as such, have been reduced to just such a condition of nihilism: a condition in which one is merely concerned with the 鈥榓dministration of things鈥�, as the head of household is with the economics of domestic organisation. Against this very real, largely looming spectre, Arendt passionately affirms that another manner of human practice is possible: one that affirms the novelty, singularity, and unpredictability of human action. The possibility, inherent in those who have a stake in the polis, of exercising political courage, and cultivating the ethos commensurate with a politically virtuous community.
Although it鈥檚 been nearly sixty years since Arendt set out these thoughts, the passage of time has done little to diminish their force of insight. If anything, they are, like the words of so many classic works, more pertinent than ever before. Nearly every theme of modern day political theory can find its germinal seed here: that of biopolitics (in Foucault, Agamben and Esposito), of the Event (in Badiou and Zizek), of poststructuralist theories of politics (Honig, Brown, and Cavarero) - and probably many more I remain ignorant of. So while The Human Condition certainly isn鈥檛 the last word on the eponymous subject, it remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in it.
Crucial to Arendt鈥檚 account is the way in which, more than ever, the space of (political) action - in which one distinguishes oneself as an individual 鈥榳ho鈥�, as opposed to a substitutable 鈥榳hat' - is being occluded by the increasing focus and emphasis on 鈥榣ife鈥�; sheer survival at the expense of genuine political expression. Arendt鈥檚 paradigmatic case here is that of the Greek slave, who, subject to the necessity of biological subsistence, is unable to access the realm of freedom which constituted the proper space of the Greek citizen. Thus, drawing on her considerable erudition and classical education, she approvingly quotes Seneca, for whom "life is slavery without the virtue which knows how to die.鈥�
The crux of Arendt鈥檚 provocative analysis then, is the question of whether or not we ourselves, without acknowledging it as such, have been reduced to just such a condition of nihilism: a condition in which one is merely concerned with the 鈥榓dministration of things鈥�, as the head of household is with the economics of domestic organisation. Against this very real, largely looming spectre, Arendt passionately affirms that another manner of human practice is possible: one that affirms the novelty, singularity, and unpredictability of human action. The possibility, inherent in those who have a stake in the polis, of exercising political courage, and cultivating the ethos commensurate with a politically virtuous community.
Although it鈥檚 been nearly sixty years since Arendt set out these thoughts, the passage of time has done little to diminish their force of insight. If anything, they are, like the words of so many classic works, more pertinent than ever before. Nearly every theme of modern day political theory can find its germinal seed here: that of biopolitics (in Foucault, Agamben and Esposito), of the Event (in Badiou and Zizek), of poststructuralist theories of politics (Honig, Brown, and Cavarero) - and probably many more I remain ignorant of. So while The Human Condition certainly isn鈥檛 the last word on the eponymous subject, it remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in it.
December 24, 2018
La evoluci贸n de la humanidad mediante su actividad cotidiana, el nacimiento del estado como una extensi贸n de la familia y as铆 tambi茅n el origen de las diversas formas de gobierno; la funci贸n del trabajo desde la antig眉edad (cuando su semejanza con la esclavitud lo volv铆a indeseable para los hombres libres, quienes incluso lo miraban con no poco desprecio) hasta nuestros d铆as, en los que se le adora como si de una nueva y funcional divinidad se tratara; el desarrollo del pensamiento filos贸fico y cient铆fico, que incidi贸 no s贸lo en el revolucionario cambio de visi贸n respecto a las cosas del mundo, sino tambi茅n en la producci贸n de objetos de consumo, son algunos de los puntos que Hannah Arendt explora exhaustivamente con una mirada l煤cida e iluminadora, de tal suerte que, desde mi perspectiva, este libro podr铆a codearse con los mejores textos de Nietzsche, Benjamin, Marx, Hegel o quien ustedes elijan. Totalmente imprescindible.
November 20, 2020
4,5*
螝维蟺蠅蟼 蔚蟺委魏伪喂蟻慰, 蟺蠀魏谓蠈 魏蔚委渭蔚谓慰, 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 未蠀蟽魏慰位苇蠄蔚喂 苇谓伪谓 伪蟻蠂维蟻喂慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏, 蠅蟽蟿蠈蟽慰 慰喂 喂未苇蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪蟺蟿蠉蟽蟽蔚喂 畏 螁蟻蔚谓蟿 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟻魏蔚蟿维 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰蠀蟽蔚蟼 蟺伪蟻维 蟿伪 魏维蟺慰喂伪 伪蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螡伪 未喂伪尾伪蟽蟿蔚委 渭蔚 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏蠈.
螝维蟺蠅蟼 蔚蟺委魏伪喂蟻慰, 蟺蠀魏谓蠈 魏蔚委渭蔚谓慰, 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 未蠀蟽魏慰位苇蠄蔚喂 苇谓伪谓 伪蟻蠂维蟻喂慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏, 蠅蟽蟿蠈蟽慰 慰喂 喂未苇蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪蟺蟿蠉蟽蟽蔚喂 畏 螁蟻蔚谓蟿 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟻魏蔚蟿维 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰蠀蟽蔚蟼 蟺伪蟻维 蟿伪 魏维蟺慰喂伪 伪蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螡伪 未喂伪尾伪蟽蟿蔚委 渭蔚 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏蠈.
September 26, 2018
丨賳丞 兀乇賳丿鬲 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮丞 丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞 亘胤丕亘毓賴丕 丕賱賮賰乇賷 丕賱賲乇賰亘 丕賱匕賷 賷囟賲 賳爻賷噩丕賸 賲毓賯丿丕賸 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賱丕胤賵賳賷丞 賵丕賱丌乇爻胤賷丞 賵丕賱爻亘賷賳賵夭賷丞 賵丕賱賰丕賳胤賷丞 賵丕賱賴賷睾賱賷丞 賵丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞貙 賵睾賷乇賴丕.
鬲爻亘乇 鬲賲馗賴乇 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 賵囟毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貨 亘氐賮丞 禺丕氐丞 " 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 兀賵 丕賱氐丕賳毓 " 賲賳匕 賮噩乇 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲 貙 廿賱賶 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵賲丕 鬲賱丕賴丕貙 賵氐賵賱丕 丕賱賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 . 賰賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賯丿賲鬲 賳賯丿丕賸 賲賵囟賵毓賷丕賸 賵賲賵噩夭丕賸 賱賱廿乇孬 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賱 賰丕乇賱 賲丕乇賰爻. 賵鬲賯賵賱 兀乇賳丿鬲 賮賷 匕賱賰 : 兀賯賵賲 亘鬲匕賰賷乇 賲丕賯丕賱賴 亘賳噩丕賲賷賳 賰賵賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丨賷賳賲丕 卮毓乇 亘兀賳賴 賲噩亘乇 毓賱賶 賲賴丕噩賲丞 乇賵爻賵:"爻兀噩鬲賳亘 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 丕賱丕賱鬲丨丕賯 亘賳丕賯丿賷 乇噩賱 毓馗賷賲. 賵 丨賷賳賲丕 鬲丨賯賾賯 丕賱氐丿賮丞 丕賱鬲賯丕卅賷 賲毓賴賲 賮賷 丕賱馗丕賴乇 丨賵賱 賳賯胤丞 賵丕丨丿丞貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲丨丿賶 賳賮爻賷 賵賱兀賵丕爻賷 賳賮爻賷 賱兀賳賳賷 亘丿賵鬲 賱丨馗丞 兀卮丕胤乇賴賲 賲賵賯賮賴賲 . .. 廿賳賳賷 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 賳賰乇丕賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱鬲丕亘毓賷賳 賵廿賱賶 廿囟毓丕賮賴賲 賯丿乇 賲丕 賴賵 賮賷 賵爻毓賷."
亘毓囟 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賳賯丕胤 兀賵 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀賵 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤乇賯鬲 賱賴丕 兀乇賳丿鬲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳賴賲丕 賮賷 爻賷丕賯丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿丞:
"賷胤乇丨 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮丕乇賯丕鬲 賵丕賱廿卮賰丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賷禺囟毓 賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵賰賱 兀賵囟丕毓 賵卮丐賵賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賱賱爻丐丕賱貙 賵賱毓賱 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賰賲賮賴賵賲 賲鬲丿丕賵賱 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 (賵毓賱賶 丕賱兀禺氐 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞) 賷噩丿 賲丿禺賱賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱丨賲賷賲賷 賵丕賱賱丕賲卮乇賵胤 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賰匕丕鬲 賲賮賰乇丞 賵毓丕賲賱丞 賵賮丕毓賱丞 賲毓 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩賴丞貙 賵賲毓 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶貨 廿賳賴 賲丿禺賱 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 賵丕賱噩賲毓賷 賵丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲貙 丕賱匕賷 賷賮乇囟 毓賱賷賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱賵賯賵賮 毓賱賶 賰賱 兀亘毓丕丿 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賵賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞-丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱卮乇胤 丕賱囟乇賵乇賷 賱鬲丨丿賷丿 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳/丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 毓賳丿 兀乇爻胤賵貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 -丕賱丿賵賱丞 匕丕鬲賴丕 鬲卮鬲乇胤 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 賵賴賵 丕賱卮乇胤 丕賱匕賷 賵囟毓鬲賴 丨賳丞 兀乇賳丿鬲 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 囟賲賳 賲丕 兀爻賲鬲賴 丨賷丕丞-賮毓賱 亘丨賷孬 丕賳胤賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱爻賷丕爻丕鬲 賱兀乇爻胤賵 賱乇氐丿 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱亘賳賷丕鬲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵賲丕 乇丕賮賯賴丕 賲賳 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷貙 賱賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬.
賷毓賵丿 丕賱賮囟賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 廿賱賶 賰丕賳胤 丕賱匕賷 丿丕賮毓 亘賯賵丞 毓賳 丕賱噩乇兀丞 賮賷 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱毓賯賱貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱噩乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲乇囟 丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻丐賵賱賷丞 賵丕賱廿乇丕丿丞貙 賵賱賰賳: 兀賷 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 賲賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱責 賷賲賷夭 賰丕賳胤 亘賷賳 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賱賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷 賱賱毓賯賱貙 賵賴賵 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱匕賷 爻丕賴賲 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 賳丨鬲 賲丕 爻賲丕賴 賴丕亘乇賲丕爻 亘丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷貙 匕賱賰 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲丿丕禺賱 賮賷賴 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱鬲兀胤賷乇 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 亘賵丕爻胤丞 丕賱丿毓丕賷丞 賱鬲賵噩賷賴 丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱毓丕賲 賵噩賴丞 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞貙 亘丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱賷貙 賵賴賳丕 鬲氐賷乇 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲毓賷丕乇丕賸 賱賰賱 鬲賮賰賷乇 賷丨賰賲 兀賷 賮毓賱 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丕賱夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳貙 賵賰賱 賯囟賷丞 賲賳 賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲: 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞貙 丕賱丨賯貙 丕賱爻賱胤丞貙 丕賱賯賵丞貙 丕賱毓賳賮貙 丕賱賵丕噩亘貙 丕賱卮乇毓賷丞貙 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓賷丞貙 廿賱禺. 賵賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱賷 賵賲丕 賷賮乇囟賴 賲賳 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕鬲 賱賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 賵丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 兀賵 丕賱鬲賳丕夭毓貙 賵賲丕 賷賮乇囟賴 賴匕丕 賲賳 爻噩丕賱 賱毓賱 兀亘乇夭賴 亘賷賳 賰丕乇賱 兀賵鬲賵 兀亘賱 賵賴丕亘乇賲丕爻 貙 賵賰賱 丕賱賲爻丕賴賲丕鬲 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀鬲丨賮賳丕 亘賴丕 賱賷賵鬲丕乇 賵亘賵賱 乇賷賰賵乇 賵丿乇賷丿丕 賵賳丕賳爻賷 賮乇賷夭乇 賵亘賷鬲乇 爻賱賵鬲乇丿丕賷賰 賵乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 乇賵乇鬲賷 . 賵亘賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓賳賶 兀氐亘丨 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲卮乇賵胤丕賸 亘丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷 賲賳賴 賵丕賱丕賮鬲乇丕囟賷 賲毓丕賸. "
賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賮毓賱:
廿賳 兀賰亘乇 賲賲孬賱賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賴賲 賲丕乇賰爻貙 賵賳賷鬲卮賴貙 賵亘乇睾爻賵賳貙 賵丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賷爻丕賵賵賳 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿. 賵賱賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓丕丿賱丞 賮廿賳賴賲 賷孬賯賵賳 亘丕賱丕爻鬲亘胤丕賳貙 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓貙 " 丕賱賵噩賵丿" 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賲賰賳 賱賱丕賳爻丕賳 兀賳 賷毓賷賴 亘賲噩乇丿 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴. 賵 丕賱賮乇賯 亘賷賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵爻丕亘賯賷賴賲 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 鬲馗賴乇 毓賳丿賴賲 兀賰孬乇 賳卮丕胤丕賸 賵兀賰孬乇 丕賳鬲丕噩丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賵毓賷貙 丕賱匕賷 賷亘丿賵 噩丿 賲爻鬲賳丿 賵亘卮賰賱 丨賲賷賲賷貙 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賵廿賱賶 丕賱兀賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賱賱丨賯賷賯丞. 廿賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 貙 乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕丨爻賳 賵氐賮賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 貙 鬲賲乇丿 賷亘丿兀 賲毓 賰賷乇 賰賷睾丕乇丿 賵賷賳鬲賴賷 賲毓 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 貙 賵賷馗賴乇 賲賳匕 丕賱亘丿亍 賲丐賰丿丕賸 毓賱賶 賲毓丕乇囟丞 丕賱賮毓賱 賱賱鬲兀賲賱. 睾賷乇 兀賳賴 丕匕丕 鬲賲毓賳丕 噩賷丿丕賸貙 鬲亘賷賳 賱賳丕 兀賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賲賳 亘賷賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賴鬲賲 亘賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱 亘賲丕 賴賵 賰匕賱賰 . 賵賷賳锟斤拷睾賷 兀賳 賳鬲乇賰 噩丕賳亘丕賸 賴賳丕 貙 賰賷乇 賰賷睾丕乇丿 賵亘卮賰賱 丕賱賮毓賱 賱丿賷賴貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 亘丕胤賳賷丕賸 賵睾乇賷亘丕賸 毓賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 . 賵賷氐賮 賳賷鬲卮賴貙 賵亘乇睾爻賵賳貙 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱氐賳毓-丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱氐丕賳毓- 毓賵囟 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇- 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賲孬賱賲丕 賷賮賰乇 賲丕乇賰爻 賮賷 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱丕賳噩丕夭 貙 賵賷氐賮 丕賱毓賲賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀孬乇. 賵賱賰賳 賲乇噩毓賴賲 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賱賷爻 丕賱兀孬乇貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲賲丕亍 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賱丕 丕賱賮毓賱貙 廿賳賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵禺氐亘賴丕.
丕賱賲賰賵賳丕鬲 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賮毓賱 毓賳丿 兀乇賳丿鬲 賴賶: 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丿丿 賵丕賱廿毓賱丕賳 兀賵 丕賱丕賮卮丕亍 . 賵鬲鬲毓賱賯 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賰賵賳丕鬲 亘丕賱乇賵丕亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱 賵丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱兀丿亘賶 賵兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲匕賰乇 兀賵 賲丕 鬲爻賲賷賴 兀乇賳丿鬲 " 賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 " . 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵爻丕丨丞 丕賱毓乇囟 兀賵 賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇 貨 賵乇賰夭鬲 兀乇賳丿鬲 毓賱賶 "爻賱胤丞 丕賱賵毓丿" 賵 " 爻賱胤丞 丕賱氐賮丨. "
*丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞 賵丕賱賮毓賱:
鬲賲賷夭 兀乇賳丿鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞 賵丕賱賮毓賱 丨賷孬 鬲賯賵賱: " 廿賳賳賶 丕賯鬲乇丨 賲氐胤賱丨 " 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 " 賱賰賶 兀卮賷乇 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賳卮胤丞 亘卮乇賷丞 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賴賶: 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞貙 賵丕賱賮毓賱 . 廿賳賴丕 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賱兀賳 賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲胤丕亘賯 賲毓 丕賱兀賵囟丕毓 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲毓胤賶 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟. "
*丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇:
"丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 毓賳丿 兀乇賳丿鬲 賲鬲兀氐賱丞 賮賶 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱馗丕賴乇賶 (丕賱賮賷賳賵賲賷賳賵賱賵噩賶) 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱馗賴賵乇貙 賵丕賱匕賶 賱丕 賷丨賲賱 賮賯胤 丿賱丕賱丞 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵賱賰賳 兀賷囟丕賸 丿賱丕賱丞 賵噩賵丿賷丞 ."
丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱氐丕賳毓 賵賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇 .
丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱毓賲丕賱賷丞:
丕賱鬲賲乇丿丕鬲 賵丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賯丿 胤丕賱亘鬲 丿丕卅賲丕賸 亘丕賱鬲丨乇乇 賵 亘丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賱賱噩賲賷毓 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷 " 賱賲 賷胤丕賱亘 丕賱毓亘賷丿 兀亘丿丕賸 亘丕賱鬲丨乇乇 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 丨賯丕賸 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲賳丕夭賱 毓賳賴 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 廿賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱亘卮乇貙 賵賱賲 鬲賵噩丿 兀亘丿丕賸 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 廿賱睾丕亍 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賰賲丕 賴賷 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賮毓賱 賲賳馗賲 廿乇丕丿賷丕賸."
兀賰孬乇 賲丕賷孬賷乇 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 廿卮賰丕賱賷丞 丕賱賴賵丞 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱賮乇丿賷 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳!責
鬲爻亘乇 鬲賲馗賴乇 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 賵囟毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貨 亘氐賮丞 禺丕氐丞 " 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 兀賵 丕賱氐丕賳毓 " 賲賳匕 賮噩乇 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲 貙 廿賱賶 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵賲丕 鬲賱丕賴丕貙 賵氐賵賱丕 丕賱賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 . 賰賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賯丿賲鬲 賳賯丿丕賸 賲賵囟賵毓賷丕賸 賵賲賵噩夭丕賸 賱賱廿乇孬 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賱 賰丕乇賱 賲丕乇賰爻. 賵鬲賯賵賱 兀乇賳丿鬲 賮賷 匕賱賰 : 兀賯賵賲 亘鬲匕賰賷乇 賲丕賯丕賱賴 亘賳噩丕賲賷賳 賰賵賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丨賷賳賲丕 卮毓乇 亘兀賳賴 賲噩亘乇 毓賱賶 賲賴丕噩賲丞 乇賵爻賵:"爻兀噩鬲賳亘 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 丕賱丕賱鬲丨丕賯 亘賳丕賯丿賷 乇噩賱 毓馗賷賲. 賵 丨賷賳賲丕 鬲丨賯賾賯 丕賱氐丿賮丞 丕賱鬲賯丕卅賷 賲毓賴賲 賮賷 丕賱馗丕賴乇 丨賵賱 賳賯胤丞 賵丕丨丿丞貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲丨丿賶 賳賮爻賷 賵賱兀賵丕爻賷 賳賮爻賷 賱兀賳賳賷 亘丿賵鬲 賱丨馗丞 兀卮丕胤乇賴賲 賲賵賯賮賴賲 . .. 廿賳賳賷 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 賳賰乇丕賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱鬲丕亘毓賷賳 賵廿賱賶 廿囟毓丕賮賴賲 賯丿乇 賲丕 賴賵 賮賷 賵爻毓賷."
亘毓囟 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賳賯丕胤 兀賵 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀賵 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤乇賯鬲 賱賴丕 兀乇賳丿鬲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳賴賲丕 賮賷 爻賷丕賯丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿丞:
"賷胤乇丨 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮丕乇賯丕鬲 賵丕賱廿卮賰丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賷禺囟毓 賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵賰賱 兀賵囟丕毓 賵卮丐賵賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賱賱爻丐丕賱貙 賵賱毓賱 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賰賲賮賴賵賲 賲鬲丿丕賵賱 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 (賵毓賱賶 丕賱兀禺氐 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞) 賷噩丿 賲丿禺賱賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱丨賲賷賲賷 賵丕賱賱丕賲卮乇賵胤 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賰匕丕鬲 賲賮賰乇丞 賵毓丕賲賱丞 賵賮丕毓賱丞 賲毓 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩賴丞貙 賵賲毓 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶貨 廿賳賴 賲丿禺賱 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 賵丕賱噩賲毓賷 賵丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲貙 丕賱匕賷 賷賮乇囟 毓賱賷賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱賵賯賵賮 毓賱賶 賰賱 兀亘毓丕丿 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賵賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞-丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱卮乇胤 丕賱囟乇賵乇賷 賱鬲丨丿賷丿 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳/丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 毓賳丿 兀乇爻胤賵貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 -丕賱丿賵賱丞 匕丕鬲賴丕 鬲卮鬲乇胤 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓丕賲 賵賴賵 丕賱卮乇胤 丕賱匕賷 賵囟毓鬲賴 丨賳丞 兀乇賳丿鬲 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 囟賲賳 賲丕 兀爻賲鬲賴 丨賷丕丞-賮毓賱 亘丨賷孬 丕賳胤賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱爻賷丕爻丕鬲 賱兀乇爻胤賵 賱乇氐丿 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱亘賳賷丕鬲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵賲丕 乇丕賮賯賴丕 賲賳 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷貙 賱賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬.
賷毓賵丿 丕賱賮囟賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 廿賱賶 賰丕賳胤 丕賱匕賷 丿丕賮毓 亘賯賵丞 毓賳 丕賱噩乇兀丞 賮賷 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱毓賯賱貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱噩乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲乇囟 丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻丐賵賱賷丞 賵丕賱廿乇丕丿丞貙 賵賱賰賳: 兀賷 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 賲賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱責 賷賲賷夭 賰丕賳胤 亘賷賳 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱禺丕氐 賱賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷 賱賱毓賯賱貙 賵賴賵 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱匕賷 爻丕賴賲 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 賳丨鬲 賲丕 爻賲丕賴 賴丕亘乇賲丕爻 亘丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷貙 匕賱賰 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲丿丕禺賱 賮賷賴 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱鬲兀胤賷乇 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 亘賵丕爻胤丞 丕賱丿毓丕賷丞 賱鬲賵噩賷賴 丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱毓丕賲 賵噩賴丞 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞貙 亘丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱賷貙 賵賴賳丕 鬲氐賷乇 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲毓賷丕乇丕賸 賱賰賱 鬲賮賰賷乇 賷丨賰賲 兀賷 賮毓賱 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丕賱夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳貙 賵賰賱 賯囟賷丞 賲賳 賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲: 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞貙 丕賱丨賯貙 丕賱爻賱胤丞貙 丕賱賯賵丞貙 丕賱毓賳賮貙 丕賱賵丕噩亘貙 丕賱卮乇毓賷丞貙 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓賷丞貙 廿賱禺. 賵賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱賷 賵賲丕 賷賮乇囟賴 賲賳 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕鬲 賱賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 賵丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿噩賲丕毓 兀賵 丕賱鬲賳丕夭毓貙 賵賲丕 賷賮乇囟賴 賴匕丕 賲賳 爻噩丕賱 賱毓賱 兀亘乇夭賴 亘賷賳 賰丕乇賱 兀賵鬲賵 兀亘賱 賵賴丕亘乇賲丕爻 貙 賵賰賱 丕賱賲爻丕賴賲丕鬲 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀鬲丨賮賳丕 亘賴丕 賱賷賵鬲丕乇 賵亘賵賱 乇賷賰賵乇 賵丿乇賷丿丕 賵賳丕賳爻賷 賮乇賷夭乇 賵亘賷鬲乇 爻賱賵鬲乇丿丕賷賰 賵乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 乇賵乇鬲賷 . 賵亘賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓賳賶 兀氐亘丨 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷丞 賲卮乇賵胤丕賸 亘丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱賮囟丕亍 丕賱毓賲賵賲賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷 賲賳賴 賵丕賱丕賮鬲乇丕囟賷 賲毓丕賸. "
賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賮毓賱:
廿賳 兀賰亘乇 賲賲孬賱賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賴賲 賲丕乇賰爻貙 賵賳賷鬲卮賴貙 賵亘乇睾爻賵賳貙 賵丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賷爻丕賵賵賳 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿. 賵賱賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓丕丿賱丞 賮廿賳賴賲 賷孬賯賵賳 亘丕賱丕爻鬲亘胤丕賳貙 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓貙 " 丕賱賵噩賵丿" 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賲賰賳 賱賱丕賳爻丕賳 兀賳 賷毓賷賴 亘賲噩乇丿 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴. 賵 丕賱賮乇賯 亘賷賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵爻丕亘賯賷賴賲 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 鬲馗賴乇 毓賳丿賴賲 兀賰孬乇 賳卮丕胤丕賸 賵兀賰孬乇 丕賳鬲丕噩丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賵毓賷貙 丕賱匕賷 賷亘丿賵 噩丿 賲爻鬲賳丿 賵亘卮賰賱 丨賲賷賲賷貙 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賵廿賱賶 丕賱兀賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賱賱丨賯賷賯丞. 廿賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 貙 乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕丨爻賳 賵氐賮賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 貙 鬲賲乇丿 賷亘丿兀 賲毓 賰賷乇 賰賷睾丕乇丿 賵賷賳鬲賴賷 賲毓 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 貙 賵賷馗賴乇 賲賳匕 丕賱亘丿亍 賲丐賰丿丕賸 毓賱賶 賲毓丕乇囟丞 丕賱賮毓賱 賱賱鬲兀賲賱. 睾賷乇 兀賳賴 丕匕丕 鬲賲毓賳丕 噩賷丿丕賸貙 鬲亘賷賳 賱賳丕 兀賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賲賳 亘賷賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賴鬲賲 亘賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱 亘賲丕 賴賵 賰匕賱賰 . 賵賷賳锟斤拷睾賷 兀賳 賳鬲乇賰 噩丕賳亘丕賸 賴賳丕 貙 賰賷乇 賰賷睾丕乇丿 賵亘卮賰賱 丕賱賮毓賱 賱丿賷賴貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 亘丕胤賳賷丕賸 賵睾乇賷亘丕賸 毓賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 . 賵賷氐賮 賳賷鬲卮賴貙 賵亘乇睾爻賵賳貙 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱氐賳毓-丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱氐丕賳毓- 毓賵囟 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇- 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賲孬賱賲丕 賷賮賰乇 賲丕乇賰爻 賮賷 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱丕賳噩丕夭 貙 賵賷氐賮 丕賱毓賲賱 賮賷 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀孬乇. 賵賱賰賳 賲乇噩毓賴賲 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賱賷爻 丕賱兀孬乇貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲賲丕亍 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賱丕 丕賱賮毓賱貙 廿賳賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵禺氐亘賴丕.
丕賱賲賰賵賳丕鬲 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賮毓賱 毓賳丿 兀乇賳丿鬲 賴賶: 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丿丿 賵丕賱廿毓賱丕賳 兀賵 丕賱丕賮卮丕亍 . 賵鬲鬲毓賱賯 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賰賵賳丕鬲 亘丕賱乇賵丕亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱 賵丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱兀丿亘賶 賵兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲匕賰乇 兀賵 賲丕 鬲爻賲賷賴 兀乇賳丿鬲 " 賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 " . 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵爻丕丨丞 丕賱毓乇囟 兀賵 賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇 貨 賵乇賰夭鬲 兀乇賳丿鬲 毓賱賶 "爻賱胤丞 丕賱賵毓丿" 賵 " 爻賱胤丞 丕賱氐賮丨. "
*丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞 賵丕賱賮毓賱:
鬲賲賷夭 兀乇賳丿鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞 賵丕賱賮毓賱 丨賷孬 鬲賯賵賱: " 廿賳賳賶 丕賯鬲乇丨 賲氐胤賱丨 " 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 " 賱賰賶 兀卮賷乇 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賳卮胤丞 亘卮乇賷丞 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賴賶: 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨乇賮丞貙 賵丕賱賮毓賱 . 廿賳賴丕 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賱兀賳 賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲胤丕亘賯 賲毓 丕賱兀賵囟丕毓 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲毓胤賶 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟. "
*丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇:
"丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 毓賳丿 兀乇賳丿鬲 賲鬲兀氐賱丞 賮賶 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱馗丕賴乇賶 (丕賱賮賷賳賵賲賷賳賵賱賵噩賶) 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱馗賴賵乇貙 賵丕賱匕賶 賱丕 賷丨賲賱 賮賯胤 丿賱丕賱丞 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵賱賰賳 兀賷囟丕賸 丿賱丕賱丞 賵噩賵丿賷丞 ."
丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱氐丕賳毓 賵賮囟丕亍 丕賱馗賴賵乇 .
丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱毓賲丕賱賷丞:
丕賱鬲賲乇丿丕鬲 賵丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賯丿 胤丕賱亘鬲 丿丕卅賲丕賸 亘丕賱鬲丨乇乇 賵 亘丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賱賱噩賲賷毓 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷 " 賱賲 賷胤丕賱亘 丕賱毓亘賷丿 兀亘丿丕賸 亘丕賱鬲丨乇乇 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 丨賯丕賸 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲賳丕夭賱 毓賳賴 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 廿賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱亘卮乇貙 賵賱賲 鬲賵噩丿 兀亘丿丕賸 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 廿賱睾丕亍 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賰賲丕 賴賷 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賮毓賱 賲賳馗賲 廿乇丕丿賷丕賸."
兀賰孬乇 賲丕賷孬賷乇 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 廿卮賰丕賱賷丞 丕賱賴賵丞 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱賮乇丿賷 賵丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳!責
Displaying 1 - 30 of 621 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.