The Relationship between “Radical evil” and “The Banality of Evil”
From “radical evil” to “the banality of evil”, the understanding from Arendt of totalitarianism and contemporary society does not transform ultimately, but it is going further constantly. If the key of the “radical evil” is to disclose the formation of the totalitarian system, the propaganda of the bureaucracy, the operation of the organization and the extreme society which makes people become banal, “the banality of evil” should move the attention to the ethical crisis in contemporary society. The tranditional human morality is reversed to unhuman, totalitarianism makes the morality in the society completely collapsed and massacre becomes a standard behavior that can be accepted …show more content…
Arendt realizes that “evil” is not a phenomenon that beyond the constraint of people’s understanding, but is a abnormal behavior that comes from the superficial intention. The intention of “evil” is usually the weakness of the human nature because everyone can understand and it does not need too many abstract theories to explain. “The banality of evil” does not refer that “evil” is not ferocious, but it means the ferocious “evil” is still empty. The cavity of “evil”makes it has no progress from the philosophical research. As Arendt says in her letter to Gershom Shorelim, “it is indeed my opinion now that evil is never radical, that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like fugues on the surface. It is thought-defying, as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its banality. Only the good has depth and can be radical” (Arendt, paragraph …show more content…
It will eventually cause the moral decline among the whole society. Arendt chooses “banality” to describe “evil”, at first, she would like to refuse to demonize “evil”. The unbelievable crime usually committed by the person who does not have their own thoughts and just knows to obey blindly. This kind of “banality” is very easy to become the tools from the totalitarian govern. In “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”, Arendt says “That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together which, perhaps, are inherent in man - that was, in fact, the lesson one could learn in Jerusalem” (Arendt, pg. 180). Meanwhile, she also refuses to use a specific history to make a mystery of “evil” because “evil” itself does not have any deep meanings. Arendt would like to refer specifically to the characteristics of the thoughts and behaviors of the inflictors like Eichmann. The word “banality” shows the terror of the offence from the Nazi and exposes the horrific intrinsic quality of
From “radical evil” to “the banality of evil”, the understanding from Arendt of totalitarianism and contemporary society does not transform ultimately, but it is going further constantly. If the key of the “radical evil” is to disclose the formation of the totalitarian system, the propaganda of the bureaucracy, the operation of the organization and the extreme society which makes people become banal, “the banality of evil” should move the attention to the ethical crisis in contemporary society. The tranditional human morality is reversed to unhuman, totalitarianism makes the morality in the society completely collapsed and massacre becomes a standard behavior that can be accepted …show more content…
Arendt realizes that “evil” is not a phenomenon that beyond the constraint of people’s understanding, but is a abnormal behavior that comes from the superficial intention. The intention of “evil” is usually the weakness of the human nature because everyone can understand and it does not need too many abstract theories to explain. “The banality of evil” does not refer that “evil” is not ferocious, but it means the ferocious “evil” is still empty. The cavity of “evil”makes it has no progress from the philosophical research. As Arendt says in her letter to Gershom Shorelim, “it is indeed my opinion now that evil is never radical, that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like fugues on the surface. It is thought-defying, as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its banality. Only the good has depth and can be radical” (Arendt, paragraph …show more content…
It will eventually cause the moral decline among the whole society. Arendt chooses “banality” to describe “evil”, at first, she would like to refuse to demonize “evil”. The unbelievable crime usually committed by the person who does not have their own thoughts and just knows to obey blindly. This kind of “banality” is very easy to become the tools from the totalitarian govern. In “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”, Arendt says “That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together which, perhaps, are inherent in man - that was, in fact, the lesson one could learn in Jerusalem” (Arendt, pg. 180). Meanwhile, she also refuses to use a specific history to make a mystery of “evil” because “evil” itself does not have any deep meanings. Arendt would like to refer specifically to the characteristics of the thoughts and behaviors of the inflictors like Eichmann. The word “banality” shows the terror of the offence from the Nazi and exposes the horrific intrinsic quality of