Are We All A Bit Totalitarian?
On Hannah Arendt and Freedom
I just wrote a mega thread on Hannah Arendt. One idea that Arendt proposes is that our political freedom derives our freedom to think thoughts that are spontaneous and underivable from first principles. As I wrote:
One problem with Arendt’s analysis, though, is that it glorifies founding, but eschews maintaining. Discovery and innovation are the fount of freedom, while implementation, codification, transmission, and methodology are forms of thoughtlessness. In reality, we can’t live in a world of total spontaneity, and some amount of planning and derivation are necessary. To make goal-oriented thought the intellectual source of totalitarian ideology seems hyperbolic or apocalyptic (or both).
My question, then, is how much spontaneity vs. planning you’d like to accommodate in your personal life, your work life, and your political life. Clearly, over-planning leads to rigidity, while a life of pure presence leads to incompetence (unless, you’re a Zen Master). But where on the spectrum is the best balance to be found? Or is it context-specific? Does saying that balance is an ideal mean that the difference between freedom and totalitarianism is a matter of degree, not kind?
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.