Just play.
Who knew? A professional philosopher
has opined that Hannah Arendt's end-
lessly contested characterization of
Eichmann's furtherance of the judeo-
code may be certified as erroneous,
because conclusions she reaches by
the exercise of philosophy show his
evil was not the banality of a bur-
eaucrat. I have less hope that this
proud self-promotion can enhance the
stature of that discipline, than I
have for biochemistry's criticism of
the dance. Readers who believe, none
of us has a dog in this hunt, expose
themselves to a potentially rude sur-
prise, as the floor they've stood on
to achieve that footing, quits early.
I have reasoned confidence in proces-
ses of literature in this matter, as
previously reported; and I have just
as much confidence that this is not
a taxonomic tournament, in the first
place. Arendt's perspective cast val-
ued light on the horrors of bureau-
cratic vitality - inertia, in floor-
speak - and left no daylight for any
inference of thoughtless "evil." But
the zest for a quarrel over terms is
undying, especially with philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment