Two of the most iconic thinkers of the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) and Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) fundamentally disagreed on central issues in politics, history and philosophy. In spite of their overlapping lives and experiences as Jewish émigré intellectuals, Berlin disliked Arendt intensely, saying that she represented “everything that I detest most,” while Ar...
Two of the most iconic thinkers of the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) and Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) fundamentally disagreed on central issues in politics, history and philosophy. In spite of their overlapping lives and experiences as Jewish émigré intellectuals, Berlin disliked Arendt intensely, saying that she represented “everything that I detest most,” while Arendt met Berlin’s hostility with indifference and suspicion. Written in a lively style, and filled with drama, tragedy and passion, Hannah Arendt and Isaiah Berlin tells, for the first time, the full story of the fraught relationship between these towering figures, and shows how their profoundly different views continue to offer important lessons for political thought today.
Drawing on a wealth of new archival material, Kei Hiruta traces the Arendt–Berlin conflict, from their first meeting in wartime New York through their widening intellectual chasm during the 1950s, the controversy over Arendt’s 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, their final missed opportunity to engage with each other at a 1967 conference and Berlin’s continuing animosity toward Arendt after her death. Hiruta blends political philosophy and intellectual history to examine key issues that simultaneously connected and divided Arendt and Berlin, including the nature of totalitarianism, evil and the Holocaust, human agency and moral responsibility, Zionism, American democracy, British imperialism and the Hungarian Revolution. But, most of all, Arendt and Berlin disagreed over a question that goes to the heart of the human condition: what does it mean to be free?
1958年,费伯出版社征求了刚担任牛津大学社会与政治理论奇切利讲席教授的以赛亚·伯林对出版《人的境况》(The Human Condition)一书的意见。伯林在回信的开头就直截了当地说:此书不会有销路,写得也不好。(It will not sell, and it is no good.)半个多世纪后再看这封信,你简...
(展开)
原载《波士頓書評》 Boston Review of Books 2024年9月11日 本文原文為英文,發表於Journal of the History of Ideas(2024年6月25日)博客,作者乔纳斯·巴克里·艾德(Jonas Bakkeli Eide)為意大利佛罗伦萨欧洲大学学院的博士研究生。 原文編輯為Artur Banaszewski。 翻譯孟...
(展开)
0 有用 长夜余火 2022-05-20 00:19:40
为了下周考试读了freedom和inhumanity两章!(因为感觉不会在读剩下的了),作者对各自思想阐释非常的简洁易懂,而且这两章还有一个逻辑的渐进,可以说平复了之前课堂上的两人的争议,但让人好奇的是比较之后的内容…不知道后面章节会不会涉及这部分
0 有用 山大王 2023-09-08 13:39:44 湖北
八卦不少,非常清晰
0 有用 das Seyn 2022-06-07 03:13:46
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-022-00730-y 這篇书评不错,要之:1. 哲学传统、2. 犹太复国、3. 政治理念,这三者差异;4. 个人因素:第一次见面印象就不好等;但根本上就是对人性的理解不同。美中不足之处书评也提到了:B 如此讨厌 A,与后者对前者不理不睬程度完全不同,这本书太看重不偏不倚,是不是不大能反映出这点?又,... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-022-00730-y 這篇书评不错,要之:1. 哲学传统、2. 犹太复国、3. 政治理念,这三者差异;4. 个人因素:第一次见面印象就不好等;但根本上就是对人性的理解不同。美中不足之处书评也提到了:B 如此讨厌 A,与后者对前者不理不睬程度完全不同,这本书太看重不偏不倚,是不是不大能反映出这点?又,书评提到 B 跟 Isaac Deutscher 的事情,结论是,不能太信他对所讨厌的人的论断,可谁不是这样?另,B 对 A,是有些男性特权的意味,竟似 Adorno。B 抱怨 A 给他“宣传”犹太复国,男性讨厌女性这样,可男性自己不也常如此? 不过,读毕此书,我的感觉是:讨厌一个人,无需太多理由。 (展开)
0 有用 油炸托克思 2024-04-12 13:33:16 陕西
角度切入挺有趣,对阿伦特和伯林的梳理都非常细致,尤其是阿伦特。唯一的小瑕疵是,在论述自由和极权主义的问题时,两人的思想是各自展开的,比较性穿插较少,当然也可能是两人的思想在这个维度本身就不好直接比较分析。总体上看,这本书非常值得一读
0 有用 Mathko 2023-12-15 13:56:37 美国
舒服了