I think she is certainly right when she suggests that totalitarianism is not linked to Hitler and Stalin in any essential way.
Only Sigmund Freud, as far as I know, really got to the root of it in an important way. Why we will have these repetitions in the future?
If there was ever a great American book by a historian (really a philosopher too) it was “...
The first thing to keep in mind is that Arendt was one of the earliest theorists dealing with this issue. "The Origins of Totalitarianism" was published in 1951, we means she probably started writing it just at the end of WWII. I'm not certain her thoughts are fully developed on the issue. Certainly they are only loosely integrated into her later wok on ...
Arendt writes about totalitarianism as follows:
perpetual-motion mania of totalitarian movements which can remain in power only so long as they keep moving and set everything around them in motion
Here, she implies that totalitarian movements can only retain their power if they continually are presenting themselves as the ones in charge, the shining ...
Most every concept in philosophy has roots stretching back to prehistory. Philosophers don't 'invent' ideas like property as much as they express and examine something that is already present but unspoken in the world. When we talk about a 'first' philosopher on some topic, we're actually pointing at whomever best expressed some observation that has been ...
Given our limited knowledge of the earliest Western and Eastern philosophy, we shall probably never know who originated or first analysed the concept of property. But in the Western tradition, a provisional first place may be held by Plato.
Plato is clear in Republic III.416d-417a, IV.543b , and V.464c-e, 466b-c that the Guardians are not permitted ...
societies tend to arrange themselves into exactly two political camps
Could we really guarantee the veracity of this thought though? I would've imagined the less turn up of voters in elections was a sufficient testament of society's growing uncertainty, or even disinterest in championing either of the mentioned extremes.
First, allow me to point out that this is (at least partly) mere appearance. The human mind likes to arrange things in opposing pairs, and will often shortcut complex relationships into simple dichotomies. It's a duality bias.
But with respect to politics specifically, there is a factor pointed out by Benedetto Croce back in the early part of the 20th ...
Good question, though it sounds like more of a topic for a political science forum, or maybe even a psychology forum. I can't offer a complete answer, but I have some comments.
It's probably largely a product of both convenience and mind control.
Convenience - Political parties are prominent feature of the modern political scene. While thirteen parties ...
One of my favourites:-
Group Psychology and Political Theory by C. Fred Alford
In this text, the author argues that the group, not the individual is
the most fundamental reality in society. Political theorists should
realize that the group is the state of nature and that civil society
is the product of the individual's attempt to develop a sense of ...
I'm not an expert, but here is my answer anyway. I should note that I answer draws from a Western philosophy perspective.
I think it helps to have a broad historical overview of philosophy and an idea about its interactions with (European) history and religion. See aso another answer on SE. You don't need much knowledge but it helps.
This could include ...
John Locke was a philosopher who's commonly known as the father of liberalism. Another important figure from that period was Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Of course, there are many others to consider...List of political philosophers
Are there major gaps I need to fill to even make sure I have a grasp
of these, or can I move on?
You said you took this course ...
It's best to read the quote in the context of the entire essay. The quote is taken from Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique, edited by David Howarth in his essay titled Dislocation and Capitalism, Social Imaginary and Democratic Revolution (1990):
Any repetition that is governed by a structural law of successions is space. If physical ...
I think the link between freedom and the good society and the idea of maximising freedom need a bit of scrutiny. I offer this below.
The free society and the good society
If freedom is the sole good, then a society that maximised freedom would be a good society. But freedom isn't the sole good; and I can't see any principle of freedom ...
This rule is the standard Libertarian formulation of the problem. It's superficially fine, as long as we are willing to make a lot of (problematic) assumptions about equal playing fields, but in practice it generally ends up being fairly oppressive.
It ends up being oppressive in that sense because it (consciously or not) neglects the fact that human ...
You will not change the system from the outside. If you do not serve you will have much less power to initiate change later. Since almost everyone else serves, your chances at public service will be hampered significantly if you choose not to serve.
So... 1- You need to have military service to achieve your political goals. 2- You need an insiders ...
Let's take this reasoning to its logical extreme and see if it helps you find the answer.
I'm going to start by focusing on some things you state in the question, specifically this bit (emphasis added by me):
So I would say that I believe it’s immoral to serve in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) if given the option not to because if I serve I’m ...
It depends whose acceptance you value most
Disclaimer: I appreciate this will be a disputed answer, as it intuitively goes against most people's moral compass. I am posting it not to persuade you, but to provide another angle to consider. I also appreciate, that this answer effectively splits people into "two camps", despite there being the clear potential ...
To me, these are the conflicting points.
If you join the army:
you will be contributing to unjust harm of Palestinians
If you do not join:
you will not be protecting Israel in the unlikely event there is a war
you will be shamed by your friends and family.
However consider this: If Israel is invaded, or gets involved in a war that you do perceive as ...
You bring up valid points. But also remember that you can enroll into the military(because as you say there are valid reasons for a military, namely defense), but deny to perform immoral acts(Like occupying, attacking). The thing with this approsch is, that you will probably have to live with the consequences; be thrown into military prison or otherwise get ...
[This not professional and/or legal advice, this is philosophy.
There is a lot going on in the OP's question, so please be careful. Please stay calm.]
First: Ask yourself if analytical philosophy is the right place to get advice on this topic.
There other options available to you. You can sign up as a medic. Also, the medic ...
It is already up to you, to serve or not to serve in the IDF. To serve is moral, not to serve is also moral, since you have the choice to serve or not to serve.
Since your country is not at war, thus you should be of resting mind, not afraid of remorse or mind conscience.
There is no Immorality at all for choosing not to serve, it's all up to you. This is ...
There would be so many people who think like you.
So let us verify some of your views to take a stern moral decision:
I have the option to exempt from the military if I wish to.
if I don’t serve, a lot of my family and friends will also hate and
shame me for it.
if I serve I’m contributing towards unjustified harm towards