[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 550x413, arendt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4723957 No.4723957 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think about private property that Hannah Arendt is talking about.

All kind of opinions would be great.

>> No.4723971

>>4723957
What's the position?

>> No.4723986

>>4723957
Care to cite a fucking work, because Hannah was prolific.

>> No.4724028

>>4723971
For her, living alone in the private life is being private of freedom. Talking about society.
>>4723986
The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).

>> No.4724076

>>4723957
Well at 70 (2nd ed) Arendt is arguing in favour of personal possessions, as they're commonly called today, as the basis of the maintenance of a self under conditions of collective ownership of the means and tools of production.

This seems a common place, and doubly so for Arendt deriving this from Locke and Marx in common language.

It appears as though Arendt's fantasy of socialism is the universalisation (she speaks internally to the class) of labour power; rather than the negation.

>> No.4724121
File: 22 KB, 306x475, 1396326642285.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4724121

All turn to chapter...
Well, whatever it is in your editions. I have some selection in here from Human Condition. Still too thick for me. Will force feed at a later date.

What is "being private of freedom" mean here exactly?

>> No.4724141

>>4724121
So we've decided the problem is about being in a private way, outside of freedom.
32: The polis was distinguished from the household in that it knew only "equals," whereas the household was the center of the strictest inequality. To be free meant both not to be subject to the necessity of life or to the command of another and not to be in command oneself. It meant neither to rule nor to be ruled.

Privacy therefore gives us relief from freedom by giving us bondage.

>> No.4724146 [DELETED] 
File: 58 KB, 384x407, le pious caananite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4724146

Jewish property

>> No.4724209

>>4724141
In my attempts to read these chapters I got the feeling we we just talking about the family unit's inherent inequalities. What's all this bondage? The owner of a house can get away with extra legal infringements on non-owning occupants civically experienced freedoms?

>> No.4724216

>>4724209
To hold others in bondage is for the greeks to be held in bondage.

>The owner of a house can get away with extra legal infringements on non-owning occupants civically experienced freedoms?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=when+did+rape+in+marriage+become+illegal

>> No.4724254
File: 45 KB, 500x404, 1239862590004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4724254

>>4724216

>> No.4726371

>>4724254
What about the family don't you understand?

>> No.4728643

>>4726371
sigh.

>> No.4728649

>>4723957

Is it just me or is Arendt kind of hot in a weird androgynous way?

>> No.4728654

>>4723986

lol u know her on a 1st name basic?

>> No.4728665

>>4728649
She looks kind of like Judith Butler there.

>> No.4728672

>>4728654
Seppos cannot into the banter.

>> No.4728702

This thread is strangely disjointed - I feel like a lot of people ITT are ESL? So I'm not sure I've quite got a handle on the discussion. So apologies in advance if I misstate anything. In particular, I am assuming that by "being private of freedom" you mean "being deprived of freedom".

It is not the case that living alone in the private life means being deprived of freedom. It's rather that living alone is unrelated to freedom; freedom is not something that exists or can be recognized in the private realm. Freedom exists, by its nature and its origin, only in the public realm (realm of equals, appearances, etc). The Greek experience was a particular experience of how those two realms were constituted in relation to each other: the household realm is the private sphere - it is not free or a relation of equals, it is shielded from public view, it is stable, etc. The forum or whatever is the public sphere. And of course the problematic element of this is that the freedom of the forum in the Greek experience relies on the bondage and non-freedom within the household.

The problem that Arendt's talking about on 70 and thereabouts is that the modern era has seen this complete transposition of things: concerns traditionally associated only with the private realm, basically economic in nature, have become the overriding concern of politics. This has had a number of changes, but the most relevant here is that it has destroyed the private - it has destroyed private property, as something stable and continuing, because wealth is mobile, and it has subsumed the private sphere in a personal sense into society, which is a sort of atomized, mass version of the relations of authentic intimacy. And this is awful in all sorts of ways for authentic lived human existence.

So it's in this context that she's defending private property (property qua property, not wealth): as something that is important for providing a space for private being. Really this ties in, more than anything else, to her discussion of work - she's really defending property as a constitutive element of the world, as the proper end of work. She's disagreeing with Marx and Locke because she doesn't want to talk about labor at all when she's talking about property, she thinks it's something basically different. Property isn't just important for some utilitarian reason under conditions of Marxist collective ownership - for Arendt, Marx is positively incorrect, because work and property are as central to the human being as labor and the bios are (along with action and the public sphere - this is essentially The Big Idea of THC as a whole). So I think that's where the defense of private property is basically coming from.

Hope this helps.

>> No.4728711

>>4728654
>>4728672
When I'm thinking of Arendt I almost never think of her by name. Just "she" or "her". This is something that I have noticed myself doing.

>> No.4728756

>>4728702
>In particular, I am assuming that by "being private of freedom" you mean "being deprived of freedom".
Nope. This is not what is meant. You'd do to read the source text.

>> No.4728765

>>4728756
I've read it, multiple times. I apologize for misconstruing your statement. Could you explain what you mean by it? Sorry. Or cite a passage in the text, or something. That would be sick.

>> No.4728766

>>4728702
Also Arendt states that the modern era ended in 1900; disposed of precisely by Marx and Nietzsche indicating that the proper subject of the active life was man.

>> No.4728772

>>4728765
>"being private of freedom" you mean "being deprived of freedom".
Opcit (given above).

To be private of freedom is to be removed from the world of freedom, or "action" in Arendt's terms and instead inhabit the private world of unequal and unfree conducts. There is a leisure in avoiding freedom, a leisure that means you can restrict yourself to "work" or "labour" instead of "action."

Freedom is burdonsome, it is being redroped into a jury. Privacy is a luxury of lacking freedom. To "be private of" isn't a deprivation, it is a privation (ha ha) that is self-imposed.

>> No.4728792

>>4728766
This is true, and it was wrong of me to phrase what I said the way I did. However Arendt is fairly clear that the rise of the social is a result of the modern era (that is, pre-1900). And I think it's reasonable to say it hasn't stopped since then, although Arendt doesn't say so.

I could quibble with the Marx/Nietzsche thing but w/e it's all good.

>>4728772
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Yes, this is true. Although it's not right to say "lacking" freedom so much as being able to retreat from the public sphere into the private is what's necessary. After all, freedom is not ONLY a burden - it is also a profound pleasure, and necessary as much as the private sphere is. And the private is not only leisurely, it is also other important things.

In general, I think I stand by what I said above? I guess?

>> No.4728801

>>4728792
Well, standing by ideologies is "modern" in an Arendtian sense. Living as we are in the world of man's privation from the earth, his privation from labour in a society of labourers; as Arendt terms us; the idea of a retreat into the private is a bourgeois luxury. Good for you if you're bourgeois. False consciousness, however, if the personal is the political. Where, then, is the private retreat?

4chan.

Get on your knees you sissy bitch.

>> No.4728837

>>4728801
lol

it's not even a bourgeois luxury most of the time, really. i think it's mostly just fucking impossible.

>> No.4728852

>>4728837
I know a couple of bourgeois via "methods" and they experience privacy.