The private realm, the realm of the household, was focused on the sustenance of biological life. It lacked the freedom necessary for political, which is to say public action. Now every citizen belongs to two orders of existence and there is a sharp distinction in his life between what is his own (idion) and what is communal.’ It was not just an opinion or theory of Aristotle but a simple historical fact that the foundation of the polis was preceded by the destruction of all organized units resting on kinship …Īrendt draws our attention to the literal sense of the word private: the private realm was a realm of privation, of lack. The rise of the city-state meant that man received ‘besides his private life a sort of second life, his bios politikos. The human capacity for political organization is not only different from but stands in direct opposition to that natural association whose center is the home (oikiri) and the family. “According to Greek thought,” Arendt wrote, The ancient world, the world of the Greeks particularly, knew only the private and the public realm. In her argument, the social sphere is chiefly a modern development. Early on, Arendt distinguishes among the private, social, and public spheres. Let me start with a few observations from Hannah Arendt in The Human Condition.
Naturally, I’ve been thinking about how technology has contributed to this state of affairs. If this is the case, then there are, I’m certain, multiple and varied causes. When I think back on the year–especially the interminable and demoralizing election cycle, but much else beside–I’m left with one dominant impression: the forces pulling us apart appear stronger than those pulling us together. Much that went on in between was likewise regrettable and mournful. It greeted us with a spate of high-profile deaths and, with a touch of macabre symmetry, it seems intent on leaving us with the same. Few will look fondly upon 2016 as it makes its exit.
0 kommentar(er)
