Podcast appearances and mentions of Hannah Arendt

Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben ist das philosophische Hauptwerk von Hannah Arendt. Das Buch wurde zunächst 1958 in den USA unter dem Titel The Human Condition veröffentlicht. Die deutsche Fassung, die sie auch selbst übersetzt hat, erschien 1960. Vor dem Hintergrund der Geschichte politischer Freiheit und selbstverantwortlicher aktiver Mitwirkung der Bürger am öffentlichen Leben in den USA entwickelte Arendt darin eine Theorie des politischen Handelns. Und genau darüber wollen wir in dieser Sendung sprechen. Und natürlich darf auch das Bier nicht zu kurz kommen. Wir verkosten das Maisel's Weisse Alkoholfrei Weissbier.

Jeudi 4 mai 2023Anselm JappeUn complot permanent contre le monde entier – Essais sur Guy Debord, éditions L'ÉchappéeEn dialogue avec Giancarlo Rossi« Une louche allure de complot permanent contre le monde entier » : telle était la définition que Guy Debord avait donnée des éditions Champ libre qui le publiaient. Elle pourrait bien s'appliquer à toute la trajectoire publique de Debord lui-même. Devenu apparemment « acceptable » depuis sa mort en 1994, transformé même, selon certains, en icône et gloire nationale, le fondateur de l'Internationale situationniste n'est cependant pas devenu, malgré toutes les allégations en ce sens, un auteur comme les autres.Ce livre se propose donc de sauver la puissance de dérangement que constitue son œuvre : y sont examinés entre autres la fin de l'art et la fin de la politique, sa lecture de Marx, sa contribution à la réflexion historique, les parallélismes possibles (ou pas) avec les écrits de Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt et Jean Baudrillard. Sa curieuse récupération par le monde de l'art y est évoquée, ainsi que la question de son « actualité ».Les gens les plus différents se revendiquent de Debord et des situationnistes : il convient de leur rappeler que l'auteur de La Société du spectacle a toujours voulu s'opposer au monde entier, ou presque. Après la lecture de ces textes, les historiens comme les artistes, les militants comme les cinéastes se demanderont s'ils ont bien fait de compter Debord parmi leurs amis. Théoricien de la critique de la valeur, Anselm Jappe a notamment publié La Société autophage (La Découverte, 2017), Béton. Arme de construction massive du capitalisme (L'échappée, 2020) et Sous le soleil noir du capital (Crise et Critique, 2021).

Hannah Arendt explora el juicio moral como diálogo interno entre el yo que desea y el yo que decide. Esta tensión define nuestra ética y nuestra libertad. Al distinguir entre mal radical y banal, advierte que el pensamiento es clave para evitar el daño. Pensar es, en última instancia, nuestra responsabilidad política.

Para la filósofa estadunidense, la pluralidad es la condición del mundo; sin embargo, tras décadas luchando por sistemas democráticos liberales e inclusivos, hay un retroceso, considera Lyndsey Stonebridge, profesora de Humanidades de Birmingham...

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt - w/Tom Libby and Jesan Sorrells---00:00 Welcome and Introduction: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt 01:00 The Nature of Conscience-less Leadership09:39 Thoughtlessness and Evil Uncovered11:49 Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy19:08 Lost Stories of Past Generations27:22 Questioning Authority and Responsibility29:06 Opioid Crisis and Accountability35:46 AI Accountability and Regulation Needed41:53 Eichmann's Distorted Kantian Ethics46:30 Courage to Say "No"50:58 Evolving Reactions to Pandemic Information59:20 AI Search Quality Issues01:04:38 Leaders Resisting AI Conformity01:07:05 Navigating Leadership and Feedback01:14:30 Staying on the Path: Lessons from Eichmann in Jerusalem.---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

In dieser Solo-Folge zeige ich dir, warum Unternehmenskultur kein Leitbild ist, sondern eine unsichtbare Kraft, die wirkt – in Pausen, Blicken und Schweigen. Ich spreche über die offizielle und die inoffizielle Kultur, über das, was gesagt werden darf – und das, was niemand ausspricht. Du bekommst Perspektiven auf Soziogramme hinter Organigrammen, erfährst, wie Empathie dir hilft, Kultur zu spüren, und warum Diagnostik dabei Orientierung geben kann. Ich teile auch eigene Erfahrungen: wo Kultur gelungen ist – und wo ich sie selbst aus dem Blick verloren habe. Am Ende stelle ich dir drei Fragen, die dich deine eigene Unternehmenskultur spüren lassen. Ehrlich. Ohne Buzzwords.Neues Buch von Uli Podcast Werte-Impulse: https://shop.tredition.com/booktitle/Werte-Impulse/W-354-354-643https://www.amazon.de/Werte-Impulse-Unternehmen-erreichen-Potenziale-entfalten/dp/3384572033/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.VmmGZYBfaAhzOHgyvf5zrQ.lJI3Pkc2MBifoYdXPB8xuCJot6rR2G_aWBJCriz4XDU&dib_tag=se&keywords=ISBN+978-3-384-57203-5&qid=1751544248&sr=8-1 Linkedin Profil Dr. Ulrich Vogel: https://de.linkedin.com/in/ulrich-vogel-profilingvaluesprofilingvalues Website: https://www.profilingvalues.comAutorenseite Dr. Uli Vogel: https://uli-vogel.com/Linkedin Profil profilingvalues: https://de.linkedin.com/company/profiling-values?trk=public_profile_topcard-current-companyprofilingvalues Blog: https://profilingvalues.com/ueber-uns/pv-blog/Keywords: Unternehmenskultur, Kulturwandel, Max Weber, inoffizielle Kultur, Empathie, Wertearbeit, Diagnostik, Golden Circle, Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt's 1963 book, “The Banality of Evil,” is actually wrong. It portrayed the lie Eichmann told when he was on trial. He said that he was “just following orders.” Arendt got conned. Eichmann was a true believer in Hitler's final solution and a committed Anti-Semite. On this episode of Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum, I spoke with accomplished Israeli filmmaker Yariv Mozer about his award-winning series The Devil's Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes documenting senior Nazi SS officer Adolf Eichmann's role as architect in the planning and implementation of the Holocaust's Final Solution. We also discussed Mozer's latest Emmy Award winning documentary, the Paramount+ movie, We Will Dance Again, based on footage, facts, and stories from the October 7th, 2023, Nova Festival, in which Hamas militants suddenly attacked Israel. He is a third-generation descendant of Holocaust survivors from his mother's family, which he noted was an essential aspect of his story and identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 1: We talk with Larry Tye about the role of the Pullman Porters in the early days of labor organizing and organizing to support civil rights.This is a rebroadcast of an interview with Larry Tye.Part 2:This is a rebroadcast.We talk with Elizabeth Minnich.We discuss the ideas of Hannah Arendt.This is a rebroadcast,  WNHNFM.ORG   production 

Rüdiger Haude und Thomas Wagner zur Frage der Stabilisierung staatsloser, egalitärer Gesellschaften.   Shownotes Rüdiger Haude an der RWTH Aachen (inkl. einer Übersicht seiner Publikationen): https://www.nz.histinst.rwth-aachen.de/cms/HISTINST-NZ/Der-Lehrstuhl/Mitarbeiterinnen-und-Mitarbeiter/Lehrbeauftragte/~jfqk/Dr-phil-Ruediger-Haude/ Haude, R., & Wagner, T. (2019). Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen. Texte zur Stabilisierung staatsloser, egalitärer Gesellschaften. Verlag Graswurzelrevolution. (Erstveröffentlichung 1999). https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/herrschaftsfreie-institutionen/ Haude, R. (2023). Als Adam grub und Eva spann. Herrschaftsfeindschaft in der Hebräischen Bibel.  Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/als-adam-grub-und-eva-spann.html?lid=1 Haude, R. (2022). Weise Wilde. Schrift und Politik bei den Hanunoo-Mangyan auf Mindoro. In: Ines Soldwisch/ Rüdiger Haude/ Klaus Freitag (Hrsg.), Schrift und Herrschaft. Transcript Verlag. S.205-248. https://www.transcript-open.de/doi/10.14361/9783839456262-008 Haude, R. (2008). Frei-Beuter. Charakter und Herkunft piratischer Demokratie im frühen 18. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft Nr. 7/8, 593–616. https://www.nz.histinst.rwth-aachen.de/cms/histinst-nz/forschung/publikationen/~gxhm/details/?file=131040&mobile=1 Wagner, T. (erscheint am 2.10.2025). Wege aus der Gewalt. Impulse für ein neues politisches Denken. Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/wege-aus-der-gewalt.html?lid=8 Wagner, T. (2022). Fahnenflucht in die Freiheit. Wie der Staat sich seine Feinde schuf – Skizzen zur Globalgeschichte der Demokratie. Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/fahnenflucht-in-die-freiheit.html Wagner, T. (2004). Irokesen und Demokratie. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie interkultureller Kommunikation. LIT Verlag Münster. https://lit-verlag.de/isbn/978-3-8258-6845-1/ zu Anarchie/Anarchismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchismus https://www.anarchismus.at/ zu Libertarismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarismus zu Pierre Clastres: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Clastres Clastres, P. (2020). Staatsfeinde. Studien zur politischen Anthropologie. Konstanz University Press. https://www.wallstein-verlag.de/9783835391215-staatsfeinde.html zu Christian Sigrist: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Sigrist Amborn, H. (2016). Das Recht als Hort der Anarchie. Gesellschaften ohne Herrschaft und Staat.  Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/das-recht-als-hort-der-anarchie.html Sahlins, M. (2024). Die ursprüngliche Wohlstandsgesellschaft. Matthes & Seitz Berlin Verlag. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/die-urspruengliche-wohlstandsgesellschaft.html zum Hambacher Forst und dem Widerstand gegen seine Rodung für den Braunkohleabbau: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambacher_Forst zu Niklas Luhmann: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Luhmann, N. (2012). Macht. UVK Verlag. https://www.utb.de/doi/book/10.36198/9783838537146 Gockel, S. (2016) Zur Trennung von Macht und Gewalt bei Hannah Arendt und ihrem Praxisgehalt. Soziologieblog. https://soziologieblog.hypotheses.org/9953 zu Liberalismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismus Kuch, H. (2023). Wirtschaft, Demokratie und liberaler Sozialismus. Campus Verlag. https://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/publikationsdetails/ifs-hannes-kuch-wirtschaft-demokratie-und-liberaler-sozialismus.html zu Ralf Dahrendorf: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Dahrendorf zu Adam Smith: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith zu funktionaler Differenzierung in modernen Gesellschaften: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktionale_Differenzierung zu Max Weber: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber Weber, M. (2002).  Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr Siebeck. https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/wirtschaft-und-gesellschaft-9783161477492/ zu Ferdinand Tönnies' Begriffspaar „Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_und_Gesellschaft zum Konzept des „Urkommunismus“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urkommunismus Reinisch, D. (Hrsg.). (2012). Der Urkommunismus. Auf den Spuren der egalitären Gesellschaft. Promedia Verlag. https://mediashop.at/buecher/der-urkommunismus/ zum (Anarcho-)Primitivismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivismus zum demokratischen Konföderalismus in Rojava: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demokratischer_Konf%C3%B6deralismus zum Weltpostverein: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltpostverein zu Thomas Hobbes: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes zum „utopischen“ Sozialismus/Frühsozialismus inkl. Robert Owen und Charles Fourier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%BChsozialismus zum „Ethnopluralismus“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnopluralismus zu Omri Boehm: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omri_Boehm zu Martin Buber: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber „Frieden“ von K.I.Z. (2024): https://youtu.be/lnsf4b69JbI?si=CInsjZZ6L-fWDgrr Lenz, I., & Luig, U. (Hrsg.). (1995). Frauenmacht ohne Herrschaft. Geschlechterverhältnisse in nichtpatriarchalischen Gesellschaften. Fischer. https://www.zvab.com/Frauenmacht-Herrschaft-Geschlechterverh%C3%A4ltnisse-patriarchalischen-Gesellschaften-Lenz/32223118773/bd zu Elizabeth Cady Stanton: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton zu Arnold Gehlen: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gehlen Gehlen, A. (1983) Philosophische Anthropologie und Handlungslehre. Vittorio Klostermann. https://www.klostermann.de/Gehlen-Philosoph-Anthropologie-Ln zu Habermas' Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns und dem Konzept der herrschaftsfreien Kommunikation: https://soztheo.de/soziologie/schluesselwerke-der-soziologie/juergen-habermas-theorie-des-kommunikativen-handelns-1981/#google_vignette Callenbach, E. (2022). Ökotopia. Reclam. https://www.reclam.de/produktdetail/oekotopia-9783150114179 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (Hrsg.). (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction zu David Graeber: https://davidgraeber.org/ Bey, H. (1994) T.A.Z. Temporäre Autonome Zone. Edition ID Archiv. https://monoskop.org/images/1/1b/Bey_Hakim_TAZ_Die_Temporaere_Autonome_Zone_1994.pdf Scott, J. C. (2020) Die Mühlen der Zivilisation. Eine Tiefengeschichte der frühesten Staaten. Suhrkamp https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/james-c-scott-die-muehlen-der-zivilisation-t-9783518299340 Scott, J. C. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed. An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/the-art-of-not-being-governed/ Thematisch angrenzende Folgen S03E41 | Hannes Kuch zu Liberalem Sozialismus https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e41-hannes-kuch-zu-liberalem-sozialismus/ S03E27 | Andreas Gehrlach zur ursprünglichen Wohlstandsgesellschaft https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e27-andreas-gehrlach-zur-urspruenglichen-wohlstandsgesellschaft/ S02E39 | Daniel Loick zu Freiheit, Souveränität und Recht ohne Gewalt https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e39-daniel-loick-zu-freiheit-souveraenitaet-und-recht-ohne-gewalt/ S02E31 | Thomas Swann on Anarchist Cybernetics https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e31-thomas-swann-on-anarchist-cybernetics/ S02E24 | Gabriel Kuhn zu anarchistischer Regierungskunst https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e24-gabriel-kuhn-zu-anarchistischer-regierungskunst/   Future Histories Kontakt & Unterstützung Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories   Schreibt mir unter: office@futurehistories.today Diskutiert mit mir auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast auf Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/futurehistories.bsky.social auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ auf Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories   Webseite mit allen Folgen: www.futurehistories.today English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #RüdigerHaude, #ThomasWagner, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Herrschaft, #Herrschaftsfreiheit, #HerrschaftsKritik, #Institutionen, #Anarchismus, #Macht, Ethnologie, #Soziologie, #Emanzipation, #Gesellschaft, #PolitischeImaginationen, #Staat, #Nationalstaat, #Liberalismus, #Anthropologie

Tomorrow's inauguration may spell the end for Donald Trump's disastrous presidency, but the monster he unleashed upon us January 6th will be with us for a generation. Michael discusses how the rioters were not some extraordinary group of hardened extremists, but rather, they come from our own communities; representing, as writer Hannah Arendt noted in her landmark 1963 New Yorker essay about the trial of Adolf Eichmann, "the banality of evil." The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson joins Michael to discuss how we go about dismantling Trump's ugly legacy and hold the rioters and those who supported them accountable. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices Tomorrow's inauguration may spell the end for Donald Trump's disastrous presidency, but the monster he unleashed upon us January 6th will be with us for a generation. Michael discusses how the rioters were not some extraordinary group of hardened extremists, but rather, they come from our own communities; representing, as writer Hannah Arendt noted in her landmark 1963 New Yorker essay about the trial of Adolf Eichmann, "the banality of evil." The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson joins Michael to discuss how we go about dismantling Trump's ugly legacy and hold the rioters and those who supported them accountable. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few people have spent more of their lives thinking about the Nazis than the English filmmaker and writer Laurence Rees. In his new book, The Nazi Mind, Rees offers a lifetime of knowledge about the Nazis to warn about today's fragility of democracy. Borrowing from his extensive interviews of both former Nazis and Holocaust survivors, Rees discusses how Nazi ideology developed, why democracy proved so vulnerable in 1930s Germany, and what modern societies must understand about the enduring appeal of authoritarianism. Institutions we take for granted, he warns, can be far more fragile than we imagine.1. Democracy is More Fragile Than We Think"Everything is fragile and often a great deal more fragile than we think. That's the recurring theme of many of the interviewees that I met. Never saw this coming... You can have the most fragile piece of glass on your mantelpiece and it can stay there for 50 years, but someone can just touch it and it breaks." Democratic institutions require constant vigilance to survive.2. The Nazis Started as a Fringe Movement"Crucial statistic people should hold onto is that in 1928, the Nazis only got 2.6% of the vote. The vast majority of Germans rejected them... And then five years later, Hitler's chancellor." Economic crisis and democratic failure allowed extremism to flourish.3. Nazi Anti-Semitism Was Uniquely Dangerous"Unlike in previous anti-Semitic attacks going back hundreds and hundreds of years, there wasn't a possibility of a Jew saving themselves by saying, no, I'm baptized Christian... The Nazis saw you as a Jew based on your Jewish heritage, and so you found that there was no escape." This racial ideology made the Holocaust uniquely all-encompassing and deadly.4. Charismatic Leadership Requires Hero Worship"It was vital for a charismatic leader that the population see him as a hero... The notion of a charismatic leader being a hero figure is incredibly useful and important." Modern propaganda techniques were pioneered by figures like Goebbels.5. Historical Ignorance Enables Extremism"The bigger issue is absolute historical illiteracy... All this nonsense, all this misinformation, all this fake history, to coin a phrase, comes in to fill the gap." Without understanding history, people become vulnerable to manipulation and conspiracy theories.Forget the 12 warnings. There are only two ways of thinking about the Nazi mind: either it's evil or it's banal. In his historical movies and books, Rees treats Nazis as uniquely literal manifestation of pure evil. In contrast, Hannah Arendt's 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, focuses on its human ordinariness - what she called the banality of evil. It's an argument that Jonathan Glazer brilliantly develops in his controversial 2023 Oscar-winning movie, The Zone of Interest. As you can probably sense from my conversation with Rees, I'm in the Arendt/Glazer camp on this. Evil is always all around us. It's in Guantanamo and Gaza, as well as Belsen and Auschwitz. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt ---00:00 Welcome and Introduction - Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt 01:00 Revisiting Nuremberg and Moral Accountability06:07 Revisiting Historical Narratives and Bias08:07 Highlighting Hannah Arendt: Political Philosopher13:24 Hannah Arendt: Controversies and Legacy15:02 Eichmann's Autobiographical Reflections18:52 Eichmann's Fabricated Past Exposed22:17 Eichmann's 1932 Turning Point25:43 Reportage in 20th Century Journalism32:29 Eichmann's Lack of Imagination35:22 Eichmann: Bureaucracy and Individual Guilt36:51 "Bureaucracy and Dehumanization"40:08 Eichmann Trial's Complex Controversy44:41 "Conformity, Thoughtlessness, and Evil"46:38 Leadership Lessons from Eichmann in Jerusalem52:32 "Secular Justice and Rising Antisemitism"54:23 Immaturity Endangers Political Responsibility---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Hannah Arendt witnessed the rise of Nazism in Germany and her groundbreaking works, including The Origins of Totalitarianism, sought to understand how regular people could be seduced by horrendous ideologies such as antisemitism and fascism. In this episode, Ben speaks with documentarian Jeff Bieber, whose new film Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny, documents Adendt's life as an intellectual, refugee and, eventually, an American citizen whose concerns about power remain as relevant today as they were half a century ago.   Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny premiered on PBS on June 27 and is available to watch on pbs.org by clicking here.   For more on Jeff Bieber's work, check out his website: JeffBieberProductions.org.   This episode was edited by Ben Sawyer.

On this episode, John and Rachael discuss the poetic output of Hannah Arendt's poetry, newly translated into English in a new book from Norton, translated by Samantha Rose Hill and Genese Grill, plus Fred Lambert delivers another masterful installment of the Booze News Roundup.

“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. And the people that no longer believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act, but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people, you can then do what you please.” Those are the words, written more than 6 decades ago, of political philosopher Hannah Arendt, whose life and work is vividly explored in "Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny," which will premiere on PBS broadcast and digital channels on June 27 as part of the "American Masters" series.   Jeff Bieber, the executive producer and co-writer/director of this timely and compelling documentary, joins host Michael Azevedo on this episode of Making Media Now.   The film explores Arendt's fearless examination of power, propaganda and moral responsibility in the face of authoritarianism.   Making Media Now is sponsored by Filmmakers Collaborative, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting media makers from across the creative spectrum. From providing fiscal sponsorship to presenting an array of informative and educational programs, Filmmakers Collaborative supports creatives at every step in their journey. About the host: www.writevoicecreative.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-azevedo/   Sound Engineer: A.J. Kierstead

Toño Fraguas rinde homenaje a la filósofa alemana Hannah Arendt en el año en el que se cumple medio siglo de su fallecimiento. Brillante y comprometida, luchó contra el nazismo, fue refugiada política y la primera mujer catedrática de la Universidad de Princeton, en Estados Unidos. Escuchar audio

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/geography

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/japanese-studies

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some might argue that the concept of evil is outdated in our relativistic age. And yet—how can we speak of war crimes, cruelty, or the neglect of human dignity without invoking the word evil? Perhaps it's time to take it seriously again, to revisit the thinkers who have grappled with its meaning. One of them, of course, is Hannah Arendt. This is a conversation about Hannah Arendt and the concept of evil, which took place in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, on June 1st, at the Kyiv Book Arsenal—one of the country's major literary events. Despite the ongoing war, the fair was full of people. My guest was Marci Shore, an American intellectual, historian, and university professor. She specializes in 20th-century European intellectual history, with a particular focus on Hannah Arendt. This year, Marci co-curated the Kyiv Book Arsenal's focus topic, alongside Oksana Forostyna. My name is Volodymyr Yermolenko. I'm a Ukrainian philosopher, the editor-in-chief of UkraineWorld, and the president of PEN Ukraine. UkraineWorld is an English language media outlet about Ukraine run by Internews Ukraine, one of the country's leading media NGOs. *** You can support our work at https://www.patreon.com/c/ukraineworld Your support is vital, as we increasingly rely on crowdfunding. Even a small monthly donation can make a big difference. You can also help fund our regular volunteer trips to Ukraine's front-line areas, where we provide aid to both soldiers and civilians—mainly by delivering vehicles for the military and books for local communities. To support these efforts, you can donate via PayPal at ukraine.resisting@gmail.com. *** Contents: 00:00 Intro 01:18 Support our work 04:44 Why is Hannah Arendt essential to understanding the 20th and 21st centuries? 06:16 What is Hannah Arendt's concept of 'radical evil'? 07:48 How are people made superfluous? 10:12 How has World War II shaped Arendt's thought? 17:17 From “radical evil” to the “banality of evil”: connecting Arendt's key concepts. 26:34 Marci Shore on the current situation in America 30:46 Thoughts on human dignity 32:14 Is the idea that 'everyone is replaceable' starting to repeat itself? 34:49 Why Sartre's idea of “nothingness” might be dangerous? 42:14 Hannah Arendt: vita activa versus vita contemplativa 50:15 Outro

It took author Madeleine Thien nearly a decade to write her new novel The Book of Records. In the story, 7-year-old Lina and her father take refuge at an imagined place called the Sea. There, buildings serve as a waystation for people who are fleeing one place to make home in another. Thien says she wanted to set her novel in a location where centuries and histories might converge. In today's episode, Thien talks with NPR's Ari Shapiro about her personal relationship to the three historical thinkers who enter the story: Hannah Arendt, Baruch Spinoza, and Du Fu.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookofthedayLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Help MuggleCast grow! Become a MuggleCast Member and get great benefits like Bonus MuggleCast! Patreon.com/MuggleCast  Grab official merch! MuggleCastMerch.com Pick up overstock merch from years past, including our 19th Anniversary Shirt! MuggleMillennial.Etsy.com On this week's episode, we're starting Pride Month 2025 off by revisiting the topic of Potter series author J.K. Rowling, whose recent actions along with the continued assault on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals worldwide, warrant further discussion. We are joined by a guest who is an ethicist, philosopher and college instructor, and all of our hosts dive head-first into sharing their feelings on what is happening. And to lead off our discussion, we cover the topic of the casting of the new trio for HBO's upcoming TV series. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Receive 10% off your first month of therapy at BetterHelp.com/mugglecast News: Harry, Ron and Hermione have now been cast in HBO's Harry Potter TV series! The hosts react. Welcome to the podcast, Sunny Williams! Sunny's roots in fandom and wizard rock, and her impressive academic career, make her a perfect fit for our episode today. We revisit the topic of J.K. Rowling, whose new 'Women's Fund' will help advance anti-trans legal cases. Our previous episodes that addressed the author were Episode 447b and Episode 469, both worth a re-listen. The hosts share their thoughts on the last 5 years of disappointment, from infinite double-downs to behavior that is antithetical to the works which we celebrate. Eric takes us through the most recent year in anti-trans legislation, featuring two huge pseudoscientific reports, not peer reviewed and forcefully discredited by major medical organizations, which are nevertheless being used to strip transgender people from accessing healthcare through legislation. The actual science is so in-favor of trans people receiving healthcare, that its opponents have suggested other ways of measuring its efficiency, like whether receivers currently have a job. Rowling's astonishing cruelty is on display daily on X, and her initiatives and gender-policing have been shown to affect ALL women, as the rise on assaults of women in rest areas has grown around hostility towards anyone seen as gender non-conforming by strangers empowered to act. The hosts use scenarios from the Potter books to illustrate what's presently happening. Sunny guides us through the ethics of financially supporting problematic creators, with thoughts from Socrates, Hannah Arendt, Henry David Thoreau, and others! To wrap, we discuss our continued strategy for keeping the fandom progressive and inclusive. Next week, a return to Chapter-by-Chapter will see us introduced to another bully, as it's time to experience Chapter 28, “Snape's Worst Memory.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

5/30/25: MTA Pres Max Page: Massachusetts legislation to save K-12 and higher ed. Hon. Mary Lou Rup & Ruth Griggs: celebrating Leah Kunkel's life, her music and advocacy. Elizabeth Minnich: "The Evil of Banality….” on Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt, Trump and ourselves

5/30/25: MTA Pres Max Page: Massachusetts legislation to save K-12 and higher ed. Hon. Mary Lou Rup & Ruth Griggs: celebrating Leah Kunkel's life, her music and advocacy. Elizabeth Minnich: "The Evil of Banality….” on Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt, Trump and ourselves

5/30/25: MTA Pres Max Page: Massachusetts legislation to save K-12 and higher ed. Hon. Mary Lou Rup & Ruth Griggs: celebrating Leah Kunkel's life, her music and advocacy. Elizabeth Minnich: "The Evil of Banality….” on Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt, Trump and ourselves

5/30/25: MTA Pres Max Page: Massachusetts legislation to save K-12 and higher ed. Hon. Mary Lou Rup & Ruth Griggs: celebrating Leah Kunkel's life, her music and advocacy. Elizabeth Minnich: "The Evil of Banality….” on Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt, Trump and ourselves

Today we talk about Kafka's book The Castle and how the symbolism is interpreted by two powerhouse philosophers: Theodore Adorno and Hannah Arendt. Hope you love it! :) Sponsors: Incogni: https://www.Incogni.com/philothis Quince: https://www.QUINCE.com/pt ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A new documentary explores how political philosopher Hannah Arendt's view on the roots of political terror and totalitarianism remains relevant today.

News headline roundup. The politics of tyranny.  Find us on YouTube. In this episode of The Bulletin, Mike and Clarissa discuss cruelty, the talks between the US and Russia, the bombing of a fertility clinic in California, former president Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, and the anniversary of George Floyd's death. Then, Mike talks with Roger Berkowitz about the politics of tyranny.  GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Join the conversation at our Substack Find us on YouTube. Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice. ABOUT THE GUEST:  Roger Berkowitz is founder and academic director of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities and professor of politics, philosophy, and human rights at Bard College. Berkowitz is the author of The Gift of Science, the introduction to On Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Hannah Arendt, and The Perils of Invention. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The American Interest, Bookforum, The Forward, The Paris Review online, and Democracy.  ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a twice-weekly politics and current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more. The Bulletin listeners get 25% off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more. “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Producer: Clarissa Moll Associate Producer: Alexa Burke Editing and Mix: Kevin Morris Music: Dan Phelps Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UNACCEPTABLE CCP 3/4: No Escape: The True Story of China's Genocide of the Uyghurs Kindle Edition by  Nury Turkel https://www.amazon.com/No-Escape-Chinas-Genocide-Uyghurs-ebook/dp/B09CMRPZL1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HQXI67T1UBCW&keywords=NO+ESCAPE+TURKEL&qid=1669243597&s=books&sprefix=no+escape+turkel%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1 In recent years, the People's Republic of China has rounded up as many as three million Uyghurs, placing them in what it calls “reeducation camps,” facilities most of the world identifies as concentration camps. There, the genocide and enslavement of the Uyghur people are ongoing. The tactics employed are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, but the results are far more insidious because of the technology used, most of it stolen from Silicon Valley. In the words of Turkel, “Communist China has created an open prison-like environment through the most intrusive surveillance state that the world has ever known while committing genocide and enslaving the Uyghurs on the world's watch.” As a human rights attorney and Uyghur activist who now serves on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Turkel tells his personal story to help explain the urgency and scope of the Uyghur crisis. Born in 1970 in a reeducation camp, he was lucky enough to survive and eventually make his way to the US, where he became the first Uyghur to receive an American law degree. Since then, he has worked as a prominent lawyer, activist, and spokesperson for his people and advocated strong policy responses from the liberal democracies to address atrocity crimes against his people. The Uyghur crisis is turning into the greatest human rights crisis of the twenty-first century, a systematic cleansing of an entire race of people in the millions. Part Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt, No Escape shares Turkel's personal story while drawing back the curtain on the historically unprecedented and increasing threat from China.

UNACCEPTABLE CCP: 1/4: No Escape: The True Story of China's Genocide of the Uyghurs Kindle Edition by  Nury Turkel https://www.amazon.com/No-Escape-Chinas-Genocide-Uyghurs-ebook/dp/B09CMRPZL1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HQXI67T1UBCW&keywords=NO+ESCAPE+TURKEL&qid=1669243597&s=books&sprefix=no+escape+turkel%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1 In recent years, the People's Republic of China has rounded up as many as three million Uyghurs, placing them in what it calls “reeducation camps,” facilities most of the world identifies as concentration camps. There, the genocide and enslavement of the Uyghur people are ongoing. The tactics employed are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, but the results are far more insidious because of the technology used, most of it stolen from Silicon Valley. In the words of Turkel, “Communist China has created an open prison-like environment through the most intrusive surveillance state that the world has ever known while committing genocide and enslaving the Uyghurs on the world's watch.” As a human rights attorney and Uyghur activist who now serves on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Turkel tells his personal story to help explain the urgency and scope of the Uyghur crisis. Born in 1970 in a reeducation camp, he was lucky enough to survive and eventually make his way to the US, where he became the first Uyghur to receive an American law degree. Since then, he has worked as a prominent lawyer, activist, and spokesperson for his people and advocated strong policy responses from the liberal democracies to address atrocity crimes against his people. The Uyghur crisis is turning into the greatest human rights crisis of the twenty-first century, a systematic cleansing of an entire race of people in the millions. Part Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt, No Escape shares Turkel's personal story while drawing back the curtain on the historically unprecedented and increasing threat from China.

UNACCEPTABLE CCP: 2/4: No Escape: The True Story of China's Genocide of the Uyghurs Kindle Edition by  Nury Turkel https://www.amazon.com/No-Escape-Chinas-Genocide-Uyghurs-ebook/dp/B09CMRPZL1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HQXI67T1UBCW&keywords=NO+ESCAPE+TURKEL&qid=1669243597&s=books&sprefix=no+escape+turkel%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1 In recent years, the People's Republic of China has rounded up as many as three million Uyghurs, placing them in what it calls “reeducation camps,” facilities most of the world identifies as concentration camps. There, the genocide and enslavement of the Uyghur people are ongoing. The tactics employed are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, but the results are far more insidious because of the technology used, most of it stolen from Silicon Valley. In the words of Turkel, “Communist China has created an open prison-like environment through the most intrusive surveillance state that the world has ever known while committing genocide and enslaving the Uyghurs on the world's watch.” As a human rights attorney and Uyghur activist who now serves on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Turkel tells his personal story to help explain the urgency and scope of the Uyghur crisis. Born in 1970 in a reeducation camp, he was lucky enough to survive and eventually make his way to the US, where he became the first Uyghur to receive an American law degree. Since then, he has worked as a prominent lawyer, activist, and spokesperson for his people and advocated strong policy responses from the liberal democracies to address atrocity crimes against his people. The Uyghur crisis is turning into the greatest human rights crisis of the twenty-first century, a systematic cleansing of an entire race of people in the millions. Part Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt, No Escape shares Turkel's personal story while drawing back the curtain on the historically unprecedented and increasing threat from China.

UNACCEPTABLE CCP   4/4: No Escape: The True Story of China's Genocide of the Uyghurs Kindle Edition by  Nury Turkel https://www.amazon.com/No-Escape-Chinas-Genocide-Uyghurs-ebook/dp/B09CMRPZL1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HQXI67T1UBCW&keywords=NO+ESCAPE+TURKEL&qid=1669243597&s=books&sprefix=no+escape+turkel%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1 In recent years, the People's Republic of China has rounded up as many as three million Uyghurs, placing them in what it calls “reeducation camps,” facilities most of the world identifies as concentration camps. There, the genocide and enslavement of the Uyghur people are ongoing. The tactics employed are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, but the results are far more insidious because of the technology used, most of it stolen from Silicon Valley. In the words of Turkel, “Communist China has created an open prison-like environment through the most intrusive surveillance state that the world has ever known while committing genocide and enslaving the Uyghurs on the world's watch.” As a human rights attorney and Uyghur activist who now serves on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Turkel tells his personal story to help explain the urgency and scope of the Uyghur crisis. Born in 1970 in a reeducation camp, he was lucky enough to survive and eventually make his way to the US, where he became the first Uyghur to receive an American law degree. Since then, he has worked as a prominent lawyer, activist, and spokesperson for his people and advocated strong policy responses from the liberal democracies to address atrocity crimes against his people. The Uyghur crisis is turning into the greatest human rights crisis of the twenty-first century, a systematic cleansing of an entire race of people in the millions. Part Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt, No Escape shares Turkel's personal story while drawing back the curtain on the historically unprecedented and increasing threat from China.