1) yes, you are correct, and I'm tempted to change but I don't like to make substantive edits after I've published something, so I'll just let that stand clarified here. Nous exists in potentia only if/until it's actualized. I see nous as a little bit mystical, more on lines of Geist (spirit plus intellect), but that may be importing later language into it: I don't know Greek. Plus, you know Voegelin has had a big influence on me, he called them "mystic philosophers."
However, I would dispute that ideology is what we are left with when we can't perceive the way through reason. It may have been dogma or belief, but ideology has those two components that I think the former do not: its claim to be based on science, and to unfold in history. The inexorability, the infallibility, I think, is its hallmark. But you are right, Arendt makes that statement "logic of the idea" without those extra qualifiers.
Then again, is it only following the logic that allows us to navigate that dark and shifting space you refer to? Isn't it wonder as well, trust, expectation of insight? I think thinking has that component as well. And let's also not forget that I refer there to thinking about our actions, so this is not simply contemplation of divine Nous. So that brings much more than logic, also empirical observation, apprehension of effects, etc. Nous turned on the empirical world gives rise to phronesis, a whole different set of virtues. And I don't think those are inaccessible to all but practised philosophers.
2. I think that Arendt at the end was flummoxed on how to deal with Eichmann because in her view he was guilty, ie. he had done it, but also clueless as to what he had done--so the intent piece was missing. I think too of someone who murders but impaired mentally: they have to be removed from society anyway. Not sure it is thoughtlessness for an institution to insist on it.
"Then again, is it only following the logic that allows us to navigate that dark and shifting space you refer to? Isn't it wonder as well, trust, expectation of insight? I think thinking has that component as well. And let's also not forget that I refer there to thinking about our actions, so this is not simply contemplation of divine Nous. So that brings much more than logic, also empirical observation, apprehension of effects, etc."
I guess that invites the question, what is logic? The basic notion in the associated Greek cognates is that of gathering, choosing, collecting ('legein'), which is also cognate to Latin legere, reading, and not just as in reading a book, but reading things. Aquinas glosses Latin 'intellectus' (which translates Greek nous) as 'intus legere': reading into or reading within. And certainly we could also mention Hegel's logic. So logic is not something I would understand in the restricted sense that you are attributing to it here, as excluding or separate/separable from things like wonder, expectation, empirical observation. Logic/logos is in a sense the (divine) spark underlying, informing, vivifying, unifying, transcending all these modes of thinking.
So is cluelessness more or less valid as a mitigating factor as mental impairment or other types of insanity. I have always been appalled by rabbit hole into which we ( the US) have fallen by the defense known as innocent by reason of insanity. I would have much preferred guilty as charged in all,particulars
But in terms of foundational legal principles, the question of mens rea is pretty important, isn't it? (Forced confinement of the 'clinically insane' gets us into a whole 'nother contentious set of potential thought(lessness) crimes.) Although at the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse! Which introduces another complication into Eichmann's show trial (same problem at Nuremberg): the laws against the crimes being prosecuted didn't exist when the crimes were committed; they were formulated only after the fact precisely in order to enable the prosecutions. And that's obviously a massively problematic jurisprudential procedure. But better a show trial, than no trial! Maybe? Better than entirely extrajudicial execution by drone, anyway? People do say, "but they're murderers, terrorists, we have to remove them from society." Okay... but seems debatable (means, ends, principles, that kind of thing).
It may be worth noting that in an important sense every trial is a 'show trial' -- the show is essential to the trial, to the legal prosecution of justice; justice must not just be done but be seen to be done. (That's at least what is supposed to happen! -- even if in reality that begins to look more and more like a mere quaint theory.)
Yes, true. That was the whole impetus behind the Declaration of Universal Human Rights in 1948, wasn't it? The argument that the reality that entire regimes can go rogue and mandate mass murder cannot serve as an exoneration of the individuals who do it. That was new after Nuremberg.
Eichmann was following the law and as direct orders, even "thinking creatively" on questions how to implement them. So he was thinking as a good functionary would. I've seen it done here in Canada too.
His argument was that he had the bad luck of being a good bureaucrat in a bad period and to an some extent, he's right. He did have "bad luck" in his period when he served. Which is the whole problem with such regimes: to "think with" them is to become a criminal by standards outside them.
"He did have "bad luck" in his period when he served."
And I suppose ultimately at the perhaps insoluble heart of the problem of 'thoughtlessness' is the thought that maybe no one ever lives in a period where it is possible entirely to escape such 'bad luck.' (And thus you get people like Robert Sapolsky who flat-out declares against free-will and for universal blamelessness.)
Continued - Substack is not letting me edit - I would much have preferred guilty in all particulars as charged and then mental capacity/ insanity/ etc be allowed consideration as mitigating factors in determining punishment. But as you imply, Eichmann’s was simply a show trial with a predetermined outcome.
Appreciate the optimism and directive to improve; though we see specks of light on the horizon, it remains dark and the enemy is still within the gates.
On some more interesting properly philosophical issues:
1) Nous does not give us access to the truth on its own. Nous is the power (potency) that is the gift of nature/God, but access to the truth requires not just the natural potency but also actualization through nurture and activity. And even then the access to truth that actualized nous (intellect) gives us is a very mixed bag, mostly shot through with uncertainty and obscurity. And ideology, "following the logic of ideas," is our only means of navigating this dark and shifting space. It seems arbitrary and groundless to posit "thinking" as being something other, and better, than just this: "following the logic of ideas." So I don't understand your and Arendt's distinction there.
2) One fascinating thing about Arendt's report on Eichmann's trial, I found, was that it wasn't obvious that Eichmann was entirely wrong in his rationalizing of what he had done/what had happened to him. He was certainly right that both sides of the coin (the active and the passive) were deserving of consideration. And so the quote here should give us pause:
"We are concerned here only with what you did, and not with the possible noncriminal nature of your inner life and of your motives or with the criminal potentialities of those around you (278)."
Your comment on this, Jodi, was: "When thoughtless types like Eichmann become socially dominant, the whole society becomes easy prey for an ideology." But it seems to me that the point of the Arendt quote was actually precisely to assert the right of the Israeli court to a kind of thoughtlessness in its prosecution of Eichmann; the right to say, "there may well be more to this, but all of that, whatever it entails, is not something we are prepared or equipped to dwell on and sort out here; our job is to enact the necessary juridical-procedural prerequisites that will provide the formal legal warrant for you to be hanged to death, in accordance with the foreordained verdict of those who arranged for your kidnapping from Argentina." (That's a debatable, incomplete, but at least not, I think, a simply false way of framing it.)
So the problem with talking about "when thoughtless types like Eichmann become socially dominant" -- for me, anyway -- is, I don't have any clear notion of what a 'thoughtless type like Eichmann' is, or how to recognize one, or when/how such a type becomes socially dominant, or when/under what conditions such social dominance is in fact especially dangerous (where "the line" is, so to speak). So again, surely there's some truth here; but it's awfully uncertain and obscure what exactly it is.
Hi David, please check my comment on my own post: it wouldn't let me put my reply to you here, maybe because it is too long. I'll reply to your other comment in a bit. That one is easier...
In my view, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so Bhattacharya's a friend, sort of -- an ally, somewhat; but not a very good one. The Great Barrington Declaration was not great. It effectively endorsed the enforced solitary confinement (i.e., torture) of the innocent and vulnerable which was already happening ('focused protection': i.e., the rights of the elderly don't matter; they're just old people!). That is a truly abhorrent position, or should be, for any thinking person. And he endorsed the novel 'safe and effective' vaccines which any fool, provided he think!, could see had not been tested properly and could not possibly be certified by any intelligent thinking person as 'safe and effective' in any meaningful sense of those terms. (I know I exaggerate here with 'any fool,' but plenty of simple ordinary common sense people could see this issue accurately and clearly, it wasn't that complicated -- so why not Jay?) And he continues, it seems, to have an exaggerated view of the inherent dangerousness of the alleged novel coronavirus that allegedly caused the alleged pandemic (which is the core of what gato malo has very plausibly and astutely called "the one lie to rule them all" enabling the whole pandemic fiasco). (And a very interesting read: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/claim-of-function-it-wasnt-a-lab)
But at least he didn't fully cooperate with the evil program of the psychopathic totalitarian liars in government, media, and 'public health.' If he were a Communist, he definitely would have been purged for his failure of total and unquestioning devotion to the cause (think Darkness At Noon). And now Trump, who still utterly delusionally claims to have personally saved millions of lives with his 'warp speed' vaccine, has tapped him for a position of power. So... yay?
Hi David, I don't agree with your assessment of the GBD, its intent or content, but appreciate your having set yours here. I think his position on vaccines is more nuanced as well, but acknowledge that vaccines weren't his strength. His strength was lockdowns, for which he was roundly punished--no need to be a Communist. Should I mention that it was he who appears to have gotten the bad cat out of Twitter jail?
I did appreciate the role JB played in speaking counter-narrative and saving bad cat was a good deed, although I don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to love Twitter so much (and not just for the reasons a guy like cj hopkins would give). On GBD, I don't see how 'focused protection' was anything but a euphemism for 'focused lockdowns,' i.e., 'focused lockups,' i.e., "sorry, you're old and infirm, your basic rights and freedoms don't matter" or, more succinctly, "screw your freedom!" (h/t Arnie S.)
David, thanks again for the careful read.
1) yes, you are correct, and I'm tempted to change but I don't like to make substantive edits after I've published something, so I'll just let that stand clarified here. Nous exists in potentia only if/until it's actualized. I see nous as a little bit mystical, more on lines of Geist (spirit plus intellect), but that may be importing later language into it: I don't know Greek. Plus, you know Voegelin has had a big influence on me, he called them "mystic philosophers."
However, I would dispute that ideology is what we are left with when we can't perceive the way through reason. It may have been dogma or belief, but ideology has those two components that I think the former do not: its claim to be based on science, and to unfold in history. The inexorability, the infallibility, I think, is its hallmark. But you are right, Arendt makes that statement "logic of the idea" without those extra qualifiers.
Then again, is it only following the logic that allows us to navigate that dark and shifting space you refer to? Isn't it wonder as well, trust, expectation of insight? I think thinking has that component as well. And let's also not forget that I refer there to thinking about our actions, so this is not simply contemplation of divine Nous. So that brings much more than logic, also empirical observation, apprehension of effects, etc. Nous turned on the empirical world gives rise to phronesis, a whole different set of virtues. And I don't think those are inaccessible to all but practised philosophers.
2. I think that Arendt at the end was flummoxed on how to deal with Eichmann because in her view he was guilty, ie. he had done it, but also clueless as to what he had done--so the intent piece was missing. I think too of someone who murders but impaired mentally: they have to be removed from society anyway. Not sure it is thoughtlessness for an institution to insist on it.
"Then again, is it only following the logic that allows us to navigate that dark and shifting space you refer to? Isn't it wonder as well, trust, expectation of insight? I think thinking has that component as well. And let's also not forget that I refer there to thinking about our actions, so this is not simply contemplation of divine Nous. So that brings much more than logic, also empirical observation, apprehension of effects, etc."
I guess that invites the question, what is logic? The basic notion in the associated Greek cognates is that of gathering, choosing, collecting ('legein'), which is also cognate to Latin legere, reading, and not just as in reading a book, but reading things. Aquinas glosses Latin 'intellectus' (which translates Greek nous) as 'intus legere': reading into or reading within. And certainly we could also mention Hegel's logic. So logic is not something I would understand in the restricted sense that you are attributing to it here, as excluding or separate/separable from things like wonder, expectation, empirical observation. Logic/logos is in a sense the (divine) spark underlying, informing, vivifying, unifying, transcending all these modes of thinking.
So is cluelessness more or less valid as a mitigating factor as mental impairment or other types of insanity. I have always been appalled by rabbit hole into which we ( the US) have fallen by the defense known as innocent by reason of insanity. I would have much preferred guilty as charged in all,particulars
Yes it seems strange to come to a verdict of innocence there, especially when the person is to be locked up pretty much forever anyway.
But in terms of foundational legal principles, the question of mens rea is pretty important, isn't it? (Forced confinement of the 'clinically insane' gets us into a whole 'nother contentious set of potential thought(lessness) crimes.) Although at the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse! Which introduces another complication into Eichmann's show trial (same problem at Nuremberg): the laws against the crimes being prosecuted didn't exist when the crimes were committed; they were formulated only after the fact precisely in order to enable the prosecutions. And that's obviously a massively problematic jurisprudential procedure. But better a show trial, than no trial! Maybe? Better than entirely extrajudicial execution by drone, anyway? People do say, "but they're murderers, terrorists, we have to remove them from society." Okay... but seems debatable (means, ends, principles, that kind of thing).
It may be worth noting that in an important sense every trial is a 'show trial' -- the show is essential to the trial, to the legal prosecution of justice; justice must not just be done but be seen to be done. (That's at least what is supposed to happen! -- even if in reality that begins to look more and more like a mere quaint theory.)
Yes, true. That was the whole impetus behind the Declaration of Universal Human Rights in 1948, wasn't it? The argument that the reality that entire regimes can go rogue and mandate mass murder cannot serve as an exoneration of the individuals who do it. That was new after Nuremberg.
Eichmann was following the law and as direct orders, even "thinking creatively" on questions how to implement them. So he was thinking as a good functionary would. I've seen it done here in Canada too.
His argument was that he had the bad luck of being a good bureaucrat in a bad period and to an some extent, he's right. He did have "bad luck" in his period when he served. Which is the whole problem with such regimes: to "think with" them is to become a criminal by standards outside them.
Counter-point bureaucrat: Josef Hartinger and others who attempted to prosecute murders at Dachau. They did the best they could with existing laws, despite the times. There's a good book on that too: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/12/hitlers-first-victims-and-one-mans-race-for-justice-timothy-ryback-review
"He did have "bad luck" in his period when he served."
And I suppose ultimately at the perhaps insoluble heart of the problem of 'thoughtlessness' is the thought that maybe no one ever lives in a period where it is possible entirely to escape such 'bad luck.' (And thus you get people like Robert Sapolsky who flat-out declares against free-will and for universal blamelessness.)
Continued - Substack is not letting me edit - I would much have preferred guilty in all particulars as charged and then mental capacity/ insanity/ etc be allowed consideration as mitigating factors in determining punishment. But as you imply, Eichmann’s was simply a show trial with a predetermined outcome.
That was David's comment, the show trial part. Credit where due and all :)
Appreciate the optimism and directive to improve; though we see specks of light on the horizon, it remains dark and the enemy is still within the gates.
True enough, Gord. What can I say? I'm a glass half full kinda gal. And preparing a class on NS, Czech Communism, and Islamic Iran these days.
It could be worse, always.
So true.
Christmas madness made me miss this wonderful piece when you first published it. Now I have something to reread through the New Year.
Thanks so much, Jay, for the encouragement. So much madness, so little time. Just clearing my desk to write a new one now. Merde.
On some more interesting properly philosophical issues:
1) Nous does not give us access to the truth on its own. Nous is the power (potency) that is the gift of nature/God, but access to the truth requires not just the natural potency but also actualization through nurture and activity. And even then the access to truth that actualized nous (intellect) gives us is a very mixed bag, mostly shot through with uncertainty and obscurity. And ideology, "following the logic of ideas," is our only means of navigating this dark and shifting space. It seems arbitrary and groundless to posit "thinking" as being something other, and better, than just this: "following the logic of ideas." So I don't understand your and Arendt's distinction there.
2) One fascinating thing about Arendt's report on Eichmann's trial, I found, was that it wasn't obvious that Eichmann was entirely wrong in his rationalizing of what he had done/what had happened to him. He was certainly right that both sides of the coin (the active and the passive) were deserving of consideration. And so the quote here should give us pause:
"We are concerned here only with what you did, and not with the possible noncriminal nature of your inner life and of your motives or with the criminal potentialities of those around you (278)."
Your comment on this, Jodi, was: "When thoughtless types like Eichmann become socially dominant, the whole society becomes easy prey for an ideology." But it seems to me that the point of the Arendt quote was actually precisely to assert the right of the Israeli court to a kind of thoughtlessness in its prosecution of Eichmann; the right to say, "there may well be more to this, but all of that, whatever it entails, is not something we are prepared or equipped to dwell on and sort out here; our job is to enact the necessary juridical-procedural prerequisites that will provide the formal legal warrant for you to be hanged to death, in accordance with the foreordained verdict of those who arranged for your kidnapping from Argentina." (That's a debatable, incomplete, but at least not, I think, a simply false way of framing it.)
So the problem with talking about "when thoughtless types like Eichmann become socially dominant" -- for me, anyway -- is, I don't have any clear notion of what a 'thoughtless type like Eichmann' is, or how to recognize one, or when/how such a type becomes socially dominant, or when/under what conditions such social dominance is in fact especially dangerous (where "the line" is, so to speak). So again, surely there's some truth here; but it's awfully uncertain and obscure what exactly it is.
Hi David, please check my comment on my own post: it wouldn't let me put my reply to you here, maybe because it is too long. I'll reply to your other comment in a bit. That one is easier...
In my view, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so Bhattacharya's a friend, sort of -- an ally, somewhat; but not a very good one. The Great Barrington Declaration was not great. It effectively endorsed the enforced solitary confinement (i.e., torture) of the innocent and vulnerable which was already happening ('focused protection': i.e., the rights of the elderly don't matter; they're just old people!). That is a truly abhorrent position, or should be, for any thinking person. And he endorsed the novel 'safe and effective' vaccines which any fool, provided he think!, could see had not been tested properly and could not possibly be certified by any intelligent thinking person as 'safe and effective' in any meaningful sense of those terms. (I know I exaggerate here with 'any fool,' but plenty of simple ordinary common sense people could see this issue accurately and clearly, it wasn't that complicated -- so why not Jay?) And he continues, it seems, to have an exaggerated view of the inherent dangerousness of the alleged novel coronavirus that allegedly caused the alleged pandemic (which is the core of what gato malo has very plausibly and astutely called "the one lie to rule them all" enabling the whole pandemic fiasco). (And a very interesting read: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/claim-of-function-it-wasnt-a-lab)
But at least he didn't fully cooperate with the evil program of the psychopathic totalitarian liars in government, media, and 'public health.' If he were a Communist, he definitely would have been purged for his failure of total and unquestioning devotion to the cause (think Darkness At Noon). And now Trump, who still utterly delusionally claims to have personally saved millions of lives with his 'warp speed' vaccine, has tapped him for a position of power. So... yay?
Hi David, I don't agree with your assessment of the GBD, its intent or content, but appreciate your having set yours here. I think his position on vaccines is more nuanced as well, but acknowledge that vaccines weren't his strength. His strength was lockdowns, for which he was roundly punished--no need to be a Communist. Should I mention that it was he who appears to have gotten the bad cat out of Twitter jail?
https://x.com/boriquagato/status/1861908612248907872
I did appreciate the role JB played in speaking counter-narrative and saving bad cat was a good deed, although I don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to love Twitter so much (and not just for the reasons a guy like cj hopkins would give). On GBD, I don't see how 'focused protection' was anything but a euphemism for 'focused lockdowns,' i.e., 'focused lockups,' i.e., "sorry, you're old and infirm, your basic rights and freedoms don't matter" or, more succinctly, "screw your freedom!" (h/t Arnie S.)