Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Andrew's Reviews > The Human Condition

The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
45836
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: philosophy-science, favorites

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:
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.83
In 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

142 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read The Human Condition.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

September 21, 2009 – Shelved
Started Reading
September 27, 2009 – Finished Reading
October 1, 2009 – Shelved as: philosophy-science
October 27, 2012 – Shelved as: favorites

Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Felipe Mc I agree with you in that it is a great historical and philosophical work, but that it lacks a clear stance regarding the purpose of our deeds and lives. I believe that the vita contemplativa should be part of the answer and find it quite difficult to understand why Arendt left this central topic outside the book. The vita activa is always theleological; moved by and inclined towards something outside our own selves, no matter how high or permanent that goal might be. The greatest philosophers (in my own personal opinion) aknowledge this and resort to contemplation as the only true "activity" that is an end in itself. Beauty, true astonishment towards existence, the participation in an immanent God as Spinoza thought of it... only them can fully pay for our existence. Cheers!


Andrew Thanks for the comment Felipe. There was a time that I would have agreed with you on the priority of contemplation, but I think overall my ADHD tendencies have won out. Now I see too much suffering and injustice around me to justify my doing nothing about it. They can't be ameliorated with mere contemplation, they need contemplation-based action.


Aldo Aspilcueta Hi Felipe, good comment! I think Hannah Arendt is involved more on vita contemplativa at her late work "Life of the Mind".
About the Human Condition, in my opinion, her purpose with this book is to show us that the roots of human freedom lay into the principle of action and plurality while warning us that western philosophical tradition for millennia since Plato has doomed action as unpredictable and unreliable, and influences us to replace it for "making" and the Homo Faber methods....which paradoxically devaluates the world as mere chains means and ends, and destroying what truly makes us humans. Hannah Arendt work has been for me, fundamental for understand the dilemmas of actual World, from a public and even up to a personal level.


Mike Radford Hannah Arendt was writing against the background of the betrayal of philosophy in light of the rise of Nazism. Philosophy did nothing to combat Nazism. Philosophers were reluctant to 'get their hands dirty' by engaging in the absurdity of Nazi dogma. If philosophers, in particular logical positivists, had engaged in attacking Nazi dogma in the same way as they had attacked religious belief then there might have been a bit of a chipping away at this horrifying perversion in human thought and action.


back to top