Significance Of The Human Condition By Hannah Arendt
The existence of the concept of the human condition implies a certain significance and uniqueness to our existence as humans; however, the absolute essence of what the human condition is or consists of can and has been interpreted in many ways. One of many philosophers who tried to define this concept was Hannah Arendt in her novel The Human Condition. Arendt believes that the three basic conditions under which humans live are labor, work, and action which she characterizes by the term vita activa. Labor refers to the biological processes of the body and corresponds to the human condition of actual life. Work correlates with the aberrance of human existence and is characterized by the human condition of “worldliness.” Lastly, action is the
…show more content…
sole activity that occurs directly between men. Arendt discounted the idea of the individual and instead introduced an idea of plurality: “that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world” (Arendt 7). Action corresponds to this condition of plurality. Each of these activities and their conditions are closely linked to life and death, the basic condition of human existence, because they ensure survival, durability, and remembrance of human life. Arendt defines the human condition as the notion that we are simply conditioned by all of our surroundings including all those natural as well as those originated through human activity and capability. “Men are conditioned beings because everything they come in contact with turns immediately into a condition of their existence” (Arendt 9). Those things that exist entirely due to human activities and existence are constantly conditioning the humans who created them. These self-made conditions maintain the same ability to condition humans as the natural conditions which humans are originally born into. Because of this, humans will always be conditioned. The reality and objectivity of the world are both correlated conditioning forces and without “things” conditioning would be impossible. Arendt clarifies the distinct contrast between the human condition and human nature. She claims that all of the terms she defines such as vita activa could be taken away and human existence would still be considered human. The greatest change that could occur to the human condition would be if men departed to another planet other than earth. This is because they would then be forced to live under entirely man-made conditions completely disparate from those found on earth. Therefore, all of the things surrounding men which condition them -Arendt’s definition of the human condition- would change. However, despite this radical change, humans would still be conditioned beings. Arendt claims that there is no human nature beyond the life we are born into and that the question of “who” we are can never be truly answered. In contrast, Locke firmly advocates a state of nature that we are all born into. This state of nature refers to the human condition before the beginning of established communal life. It declares an immediate nature of freedom and equality of all men at the origin of life. This freedom consists of mans ability to act and do with his possessions as he pleases as long as he remains within the bounds of nature. Equality refers to the fact that all men are born to the same advantages of nature and no one person is superior to another. Locke claims that there is no natural hierarchy among humans due to this fact that we are all naturally free and equal. All men are naturally in this state until they consent to make themselves members of some political society. Although Arendt rejected the concept of radical individualism in the public realm, she saw a considerable significance in a private realm.
Arendt’s rejection of individualism simply meant that she believed all men lived together rather than as a bunch of individuals, but did not deny the importance of uniqueness between individuals throughout society. The importance of the private realm led to the concept of property. Property guarantees privacy and allows a man to become unique and to avoid the conformity expected by the public realm. Privacy ensures uniqueness as well as plurality in the public realm. Although Locke also believed men had a right to property, he did not see its significance related to the idea of privacy. He viewed property as something appropriated through labor and believed that one may take only as much as he can use before it goes bad and that he must leave enough for others. While Arendt believed property protected people from society, Locke claimed that men often entered a political society as a way to protect their property. Arendt and Locke expressed similar concepts relating to the human condition such as freedom, property, and labor, but interpreted them in varying ways. While Arendt believes the human condition is simply determined by men’s surroundings which conditions them, Locke states that the human condition consists of a state of nature which can only be altered by a man’s consent to join a political
society. Although I agree with Locke’s concept of equality, I do believe that a system of natural hierarchy exists in society. All humans are born with different skills and physical and mental attributes. These varying characteristics can place an individual at a social or natural advantage or disadvantage. For example attributes such as intellect, strength, health, and physical appearance can significantly affect a person’s position in the public and social realm. Despite this presence of a hierarchy, all humans should be considered equal in the sense that they are all deserving of the same rights and freedoms. Similar to Arendt, I believe that there is a certain ignorance that exists as to exactly who we are as opposed to what we are. Our meaning for existence is something that remains unknown and to cope with this incomprehensible concept, religion and gods are created to give us a sense of reason. The ability to understand non-tangible concepts such as time, love, appreciation, or hatred is all based on an individual’s perception because there is no true way to make another person understand one’s feelings or perceptions. The unknown is a notion that we as humans are generally uncomfortable with and therefore often find things or created beliefs to fill that void of uncertainty. At its core, I believe that the human condition is the inclination to survive and therefore all humans possess a sense of selfishness. It is for this reason that we desire equal rights as others because we believe we deserve the same chances to succeed. Likewise, it is for this reason that humans will often take advantage of the superior attributes they are born with to advance their position in the natural hierarchy of human beings. However, despite this instinct for selfishness and survival, we also desire companionship and goodness to cope with the concepts of human existence which are otherwise difficult to grasp. The human condition encompasses the concepts of equality, natural hierarchy, ignorance, and survival. It is the unique, unchangeable features that we all as humans possess concerning our innate existence.
sole activity that occurs directly between men. Arendt discounted the idea of the individual and instead introduced an idea of plurality: “that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world” (Arendt 7). Action corresponds to this condition of plurality. Each of these activities and their conditions are closely linked to life and death, the basic condition of human existence, because they ensure survival, durability, and remembrance of human life. Arendt defines the human condition as the notion that we are simply conditioned by all of our surroundings including all those natural as well as those originated through human activity and capability. “Men are conditioned beings because everything they come in contact with turns immediately into a condition of their existence” (Arendt 9). Those things that exist entirely due to human activities and existence are constantly conditioning the humans who created them. These self-made conditions maintain the same ability to condition humans as the natural conditions which humans are originally born into. Because of this, humans will always be conditioned. The reality and objectivity of the world are both correlated conditioning forces and without “things” conditioning would be impossible. Arendt clarifies the distinct contrast between the human condition and human nature. She claims that all of the terms she defines such as vita activa could be taken away and human existence would still be considered human. The greatest change that could occur to the human condition would be if men departed to another planet other than earth. This is because they would then be forced to live under entirely man-made conditions completely disparate from those found on earth. Therefore, all of the things surrounding men which condition them -Arendt’s definition of the human condition- would change. However, despite this radical change, humans would still be conditioned beings. Arendt claims that there is no human nature beyond the life we are born into and that the question of “who” we are can never be truly answered. In contrast, Locke firmly advocates a state of nature that we are all born into. This state of nature refers to the human condition before the beginning of established communal life. It declares an immediate nature of freedom and equality of all men at the origin of life. This freedom consists of mans ability to act and do with his possessions as he pleases as long as he remains within the bounds of nature. Equality refers to the fact that all men are born to the same advantages of nature and no one person is superior to another. Locke claims that there is no natural hierarchy among humans due to this fact that we are all naturally free and equal. All men are naturally in this state until they consent to make themselves members of some political society. Although Arendt rejected the concept of radical individualism in the public realm, she saw a considerable significance in a private realm.
Arendt’s rejection of individualism simply meant that she believed all men lived together rather than as a bunch of individuals, but did not deny the importance of uniqueness between individuals throughout society. The importance of the private realm led to the concept of property. Property guarantees privacy and allows a man to become unique and to avoid the conformity expected by the public realm. Privacy ensures uniqueness as well as plurality in the public realm. Although Locke also believed men had a right to property, he did not see its significance related to the idea of privacy. He viewed property as something appropriated through labor and believed that one may take only as much as he can use before it goes bad and that he must leave enough for others. While Arendt believed property protected people from society, Locke claimed that men often entered a political society as a way to protect their property. Arendt and Locke expressed similar concepts relating to the human condition such as freedom, property, and labor, but interpreted them in varying ways. While Arendt believes the human condition is simply determined by men’s surroundings which conditions them, Locke states that the human condition consists of a state of nature which can only be altered by a man’s consent to join a political
society. Although I agree with Locke’s concept of equality, I do believe that a system of natural hierarchy exists in society. All humans are born with different skills and physical and mental attributes. These varying characteristics can place an individual at a social or natural advantage or disadvantage. For example attributes such as intellect, strength, health, and physical appearance can significantly affect a person’s position in the public and social realm. Despite this presence of a hierarchy, all humans should be considered equal in the sense that they are all deserving of the same rights and freedoms. Similar to Arendt, I believe that there is a certain ignorance that exists as to exactly who we are as opposed to what we are. Our meaning for existence is something that remains unknown and to cope with this incomprehensible concept, religion and gods are created to give us a sense of reason. The ability to understand non-tangible concepts such as time, love, appreciation, or hatred is all based on an individual’s perception because there is no true way to make another person understand one’s feelings or perceptions. The unknown is a notion that we as humans are generally uncomfortable with and therefore often find things or created beliefs to fill that void of uncertainty. At its core, I believe that the human condition is the inclination to survive and therefore all humans possess a sense of selfishness. It is for this reason that we desire equal rights as others because we believe we deserve the same chances to succeed. Likewise, it is for this reason that humans will often take advantage of the superior attributes they are born with to advance their position in the natural hierarchy of human beings. However, despite this instinct for selfishness and survival, we also desire companionship and goodness to cope with the concepts of human existence which are otherwise difficult to grasp. The human condition encompasses the concepts of equality, natural hierarchy, ignorance, and survival. It is the unique, unchangeable features that we all as humans possess concerning our innate existence.