Podcast appearances and mentions of Hannah Arendt

"He lied more than I thought he did—and I thought he lied a lot." — Tom Wells on Henry KissingerIn our Epstein age, everyone seems to have access to everyone else's dirtiest secrets. But half a century ago, in the Watergate era, it was harder to get one's hands on the secret files, phone calls and other private data. But historian Tom Wells has done exactly that with the private phone calls of Henry Kissinger. Wells' new book, The Kissinger Tapes, is based on transcripts of Kissinger's secretly recorded phone conversations—recordings he made primarily for his memoirs and to keep track of what he told to whom.Wells came to the project as a Kissinger critic but found himself respecting certain things about him: particularly his stamina, the work ethic and political skills. What Wells didn't expect was to discover that Kissinger lied even more than most of us assume. Especially about Vietnam and Cambodia. The most damning revelation is his callousness. Kissinger reveled in body counts, Wells reports. He even supported American planes indiscriminately bombing Vietnam so as to hit something. Anything. Anyone.So was Kissinger evil? Or was he, to borrow from Arendt's account of the Adolf Eichmann trial, banal? Whereas Eichmann might have been following orders, Henry Kissinger was following his own career. One was an efficient bureaucrat, the other a supreme networker. Neither had any sensitivity to human suffering. Five Takeaways●      He Lied More Than Expected: Wells came to the project already critical of Kissinger. But going through the transcripts, he discovered Kissinger lied even more than he'd assumed. About the secret wiretaps of government officials and journalists. About the false reporting system for the Cambodia bombing. He kept saying he didn't know anything, had nothing to do with it. He did.●      The Callousness Is Stunning: Nixon and Kissinger reveled in body counts. Nixon said, "I don't care about the civilian casualties." During the Laos invasion, he said he didn't even care if they lost 10,000 South Vietnamese troops. Kissinger remarked that if American planes just dropped bombs out the door without aiming, they'd have to hit something. This wasn't indifference. It was gratification.●      Morality Was Not Part of the Calculation: Kissinger saw most conflicts through the lens of U.S.-Soviet rivalry. The balance of power mattered. The human cost didn't. They secretly armed the Pakistani military during the Bangladesh genocide—between 300,000 and 3 million dead—because they needed Pakistan as a channel to China. The opening to Beijing was more important than the slaughter.●      He Was Supremely Two-Faced: Kissinger was always deferential to Nixon's face, always addressed him as "Mr. President." Behind his back, he said nasty things. He trashed Secretary of State William Rogers constantly. He and Defense Secretary Melvin Laird were rivals, both master leakers, both devious. They came to respect each other for it.●      Evil or Banal?: Hannah Arendt wrote about the banality of evil after covering the Eichmann trial. Some apply that framework to Kissinger. But there's a difference. Eichmann was following orders. Kissinger was following his career. One was an efficient bureaucrat. The other a supreme networker. Neither had any sensitivity to human suffering. About the GuestTom Wells is a historian and the author of The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam. He is based in New Mexico.ReferencesBooks mentioned:●      The Kissinger Tapes: Inside His Secretly Recorded Phone Conversations by Tom Wells — his new book based on transcripts of Kissinger's phone recordings.●      Zbig: The Man Who Cracked the Kremlin by Edward Luce — biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kissinger's rival.People mentioned:●      Hannah Arendt wrote about "the banality of evil" while covering the Eichmann trial—a framework some apply to Kissinger.●      Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers; his son's book Truth and Consequences is discussed next week on the show.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction: The age of Epstein vs. the age of Kissinger (01:31) - Why did Kissinger secretly record his calls? (02:54) - Did you come to this as a Kissinger hater? (05:43) - He lied more than I thought he did (06:08) - Breaking news: The callousness (07:47) - Realpolitik vs. indifference to human suffering (09:47) - Did Kissinger recognize moral critics? (11:06) - What kind of man was Kissinger? (14:18) - His relationship with Nixon (15:15) - Who did Kissinger trust? (16:40) - His private life and playboy reputation (19:00) - What the tapes reveal about Vietnam (20:56) - Did he care about American casualties? (22:19) - The monstrous quality (24:20) - Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil (25:52) - What the Kissinger tapes tell us about Trump (27:31) - What would Kissinger make of Ukraine and Gaza?

(01:32) De VS heeft onder Trump een oud doel weer opgepakt: Cuba afknijpen, totdat het communistische regime valt. En nu, doordat Venezuela geen olie meer levert, is de druk op Cuba extreem hoog. Edwin Koopman, Latijns-Amerikakenner en journalist bij Bureau Buitenland, vertelt meer  (11:26) Napoleon veroverde Europa met kanonnen. Madame Germaine de Staël bestookte het met ideeën, en dat maakte haar gevaarlijker dan een leger. Wie was deze vrouw, die zo gevaarlijk werd gevonden door de machtigste man op aarde? Margot Dijkgraaf is te gast met haar nieuwe boek   (25:50) Hij staat te boek als zeeheld, admiraal en - niet onomstreden- nationaal icoon: Michiel de Ruyter. Zijn huis in Vlissingen wordt nu op internet te koop aangeboden. Gepensioneerd archivaris Ad Tramper bezocht de woning en vertelt meer.   (29:57) In Marokko werd hij gezien als culturele grootheid, maar in Nederland is hij vrijwel onbekend gebleven. De Oost-Groningse kunstverzamelaar Bert Flint (1931-2022) vertrok in de jaren ‘50 naar Marrakech. Journalist en documentairemaker Lejo Siepe schreef het boek Een vreemdeling in de Medina en is te gast.  (40:02) Op 10 februari 1941 verschijnt Het Parool voor het eerst tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Vijfentachtig jaar later is het een gevestigde krant, maar de vraag waar het ooit om begon blijft urgent, want de vrije pers staat wereldwijd onder druk.  We gaan erover in gesprek met een van de schrijvers van het jubileumboek Vrij, onverveerd, journalist en onderzoeker Teun Dominicus.   (53:00) Het recht van de sterkste #5: filosoof en journalist Thomas Muntz over Hannah Arendt    (01:07:21) Vanwege die vieringen van het Chinees nieuwjaar was het deze week weer veel te zien: de leeuwendans. Een bekend beeld — een rij mensen, gezamenlijk kleurrijk verkleed, die zich als één leeuw voortbewegen. Wat is het verhaal achter deze dans? We vragen het sinoloog en vaste OVT-recensent Fresco Sam-Sin.   (01:13:06) OVT Doc: Jeugd versleten Deel 1    Begin februari vond in Marrakech in Marokko de 6e Wereldconferentie over de uitbanning van kinderarbeid plaats. 2025 had het jaar moeten zijn dat er wereldwijd een einde aan kinderarbeid zou komen, maar dat doel is bij lange na niet gehaald. Nog altijd werken er 138 miljoen kinderen, van wie 54 miljoen gevaarlijk of schadelijk werk doen.   In Nederland is kinderarbeid wel uitgebannen. Maar wie denkt dat al zo is sinds het ‘Kinderwetje van Van Houten' in 1874, zit ernaast. Nog tot ver in de 20e eeuw werd er in Nederland door kinderen gewerkt. In de tweedelige documentaire ‘Jeugd versleten' horen we de verhalen van mensen die dat zelf hebben meegemaakt.   Programmamaker Katinka Baehr maakte dit tweeluik, op basis van interviews uit 1989 uit de OVT-serie ‘Arbeiderslevens'.     Meer info: https://www.vpro.nl/ovt/artikelen/ovt-22-februari-2026   (https://www.vpro.nl/ovt/artikelen/ovt-22-februari-2026%20)  

Play recounts detention in German cell In 1933, after the Reichstag parliament burned in Berlin, Hitler took power and imposed martial law. Fear and loathing roiled the Prussian State Library, where a young writer and philosopher, Hannah Arendt, drew the attention of the newly formed Gestapo. In Jenny Lyn Bader's play, Mrs. Stern Wanders the Prussian State Library, based on actual events, Arendt spends eight days in a basement holding cell while being interrogated about her affiliations. To convey the tight confines, The Depot Theater, where the production opens Friday (Feb. 27), is using a singular set, says artistic director Alice Jankell. The premise provides readymade tension. "Some of my favorite plays take place in rooms with no escape," says Jankell, who is directing. "Tight ensemble pieces where we can dig into the characters and let the actors fly make my socks go up and down." The Nazis suspect Arendt and her coterie are sending so-called "horror propaganda" about the mistreatment of Jews to media outlets abroad. In Arendt's words, she collected "antisemitic statements in ordinary circumstances," which made her "very happy. First of all, it seemed a very intelligent thing to me, and second, it gave me the feeling that something could be done after all." She may have sympathized with leftist and Zionist causes but never joined any organization. Even better, Arendt had cover while conducting research at the repository for her biography of Rahel Varnhagen, an influential German Jew with an identity crisis who died in 1833. The drama is driven by the intellectual interplay that animates the interrogation room, where Arendt (Lily Ganser) is interviewed by Karl Frick (Logan Schmucker), 26, a polite policeman promoted to the Gestapo. This is Frick's first interview of a political suspect, and he's required to hit tight deadlines, "follow the rules" and "fill in these boxes." Pivoting from bringing charges against perps to quantifying thought crimes is a perplexing task. The kernel of the story came to Bader when she found a brief mention of the detention in a translation of a three-hour interview Arendt did in 1964 with a German television station. "I made friends with the official who arrested me," said Arendt. "He was a charming fellow" who "had no idea what to do." He kept telling her, "ordinarily, I have someone there in front of me, and I just check the file, and I know what's going on. But what shall I do with you?" In response, "I told him tall tales," Arendt recalled. "Arendt only told that story once in public, and even though it's just a snippet, it's such a surprising description of a Gestapo interview," says Bader. After the play's 2024 premiere, more than 100 versions bounced around Manhattan to Martha's Vineyard and New Jersey. Bader humanizes Frick so well that "people often come up to me and say, 'I loved the Nazi character,'" she says. "I'm always out to defy stereotypes." The Depot Theater is located at 10 Garrison's Landing. Tickets are $35 ($30 students) at depottheater.org. Performances continue weekends through March 15. For more information on Arendt, see the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College (hac.bard.edu).

Barry begins a short series during the season of love. He turns to Hannah Arendt and St. Augustine to guide us through a confusing topic that has plagued the church throughout history: how to love the world yet not become attached to it.     Scripture: 2 Cor 4:16-18 Books: Love and St. Augustine, Hannah […]

durée : 00:58:07 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - Arendt a beaucoup écrit sur le jugement, s'appuyant largement sur certains écrits de Kant. En quoi sa lecture du philosophe allemand sur cette question est-elle inédite ? Et qu'a-t-elle légué à la philosophie politique et contemporaine ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Carole Widmaier Maître de conférences en philosophie à l'Université de Franche-Comté; Aurore Mréjen Ingénieure de recherche à l'Université Paris Nanterre, chercheuse au Laboratoire du Changement Social et Politique (Université Paris Cité)

durée : 00:58:05 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli, Antoine Ravon - Sur le sujet du labeur, et des douleurs qu'il suscite, aliénation, revenu insuffisant, Arendt discute avec Marx. Et si Arendt était finalement une des très rares philosophes à avoir pris au sérieux cette part de nos vies qui sera peut-être toujours pénible, à savoir le "labeur" ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Katia Genel Professeur de philosophie à l'Université Paris-Nanterre; Jean-Claude Poizat professeur de philosophie en classe de Terminale au lycée Georges Pompidou de Castelnale-Lez dans l'académie de Montpellier

"You either need to call it fascism or you need to invent a new word with more or less the same meaning." — Jonathan RauchJonathan Rauch's viral Atlantic essay has reignited the debate over what to call the Trump administration. Having previously settled on "semi-fascist," Rauch now argues that Trump ticks all 18 boxes on his checklist of fascist characteristics — from the glorification of violence and territorial ambitions to Carl Schmitt's philosophy of "enemies, not adversaries." We spar over whether the term obscures more than it reveals: Is this really fascism, or just authoritarianism with American characteristics? The conversation sharpens around Minneapolis, where citizens were shot face down, and the government initially denied it happened. You don't do that to win votes, Rauch argues — you do it because you believe that's how the social contract should work. He predicts Trump will fail to turn America into a fascist country but warns that institutions like the newly expanded ICE will outlast this administration. About the GuestJonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He is the author of nine books, including The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (2021), Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (2025), and Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1993). He received the 2005 National Magazine Award.ReferencesThinkers discussed:·      Carl Schmitt was a Nazi political theorist whose "friend-enemy distinction" argued that politics is fundamentally about identifying and crushing enemies, not managing disagreements with adversaries.·      George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" that "the word 'fascism' has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies something not desirable."·      Hannah Arendt was a German-American political theorist and refugee from Nazi Germany whose book The Origins of Totalitarianism examined both Nazism and Stalinism, preferring "totalitarianism" to "fascism" as the more encompassing term.Historical figures:·      Benito Mussolini invented the term "fascism" (from the Latin fasces, a bundle of rods symbolizing collective strength) and ruled Italy as dictator from 1922 to 1943.·      Francisco Franco ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975. Whether he was truly a fascist or merely an authoritarian remains debated; he never got along well with Hitler and outlasted the fascist era by three decades.·      Viktor Orbán is the prime minister of Hungary whose systematic capture of media, courts, and civil society has become known as the "Orbán playbook" — a template Rauch argues the Trump administration is following.Contemporary figures mentioned:·      Stephen Miller is a senior advisor to Trump who declared that "force is the iron law of the world" and told progressives "you are nothing" at a memorial service where the widow of the deceased had just offered Christian forgiveness to an assassin.·      Russell Vought is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, identified by Rauch as one of the younger ideologues building Trumpism into something more like a coherent ideology.·      Chris Rufo is a conservative activist and culture war strategist who has employed what Rauch calls "revolutionary language" in his campaigns against universities and public institutions.Essays and books mentioned:·      "Politics and the English Language" (1946) is Orwell's essay arguing that the corruption of language enables the corruption of politics, and that vague or meaningless words like "fascism" make clear thinking impossible.·      The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is Hannah Arendt's study of Nazism and Stalinism as parallel forms of total domination, examining how mass movements, propaganda, and terror enable regimes to control entire societies.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:00) - (00:13) - The viral essay (02:10) - Why Rauch changed his mind (03:41) - Fascism vs. authoritarianism (05:54) - Carl Schmitt and "enemies not adversaries" (06:14) - Orwell on the word "fascism" (09:12) - Can old people be fascists? (11:51) - Blood and soil nationalism (14:14) - Minneapolis (17:51) - Kristallnacht comparisons (20:07) - The postmodern right (26:34) - Following the money (32:05) - ICE as paramilitary force

Dr. Ryan McGeough is back! We're unpacking what happens when plans don't go as planned—and how that slowly erodes trust in ourselves, our follow-through, and even other people. Here's what we're covering: Why broken micro-commitments chip away at self-trust The difference between self-confidence (broad) and self-efficacy (skill-specific) Attribution theory: Do you blame yourself or circumstances when goals fail? How the US became a low-trust culture ("stranger danger" anyone?) Hannah Arendt on forgiveness (breaking the past) and promises (building the future) Ryan's morning hack: Headspace before scrolling My Instagram/Facebook sabbatical experiment The trust erosion cycle: You make plans → things don't go as planned → you stop trusting that planning matters → you break commitments to yourself → self-trust crumbles. The key insight: Some people fail at goals and think "bad goal, bad circumstances." Others internalize it: "I'm a piece of crap." Attribution theory explains why—and how to change the pattern. Ryan's trust lesson: That 6am lake running goal? Bad goal. Not because he can't accomplish things—because it didn't fit his reality. Now he knows which goals are longer shots and builds more structure around those. The Valentine's Day truth: Annual goal-setting together builds trust beyond reliability. When your partner actively supports what matters to you, it creates space to take risks and pursue things that excite you—even if they don't match your 10-year-old plans. Mentioned in this episode: Attribution theory Hannah Arendt's Between Past and Future Headspace app Self-efficacy vs. self-confidence Connect with me: Email: support@plangoalplan.com Facebook Group: Join Here Website: PlanGoalPlan.com LinkedIn: (I post most here!) www.linkedin.com/in/danielle-mcgeough-phd-

durée : 00:59:10 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli, Antoine Ravon - Hannah Arendt est convaincue que le nazisme et certaines périodes du stalinisme ont dessiné un tout nouveau type de régime politique : le totalitarisme. Afin de le penser, elle part de la classification des régimes proposée par Montesquieu au 18ᵉ siècle pour inventer de nouveaux concepts. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Martine Leibovici maîtresse de conférences émérite en philosophie politique à l'Université Paris Cité; Vincent Lefebve chercheur au Centre de recherche et d'information socio-politiques (CRISP) en Belgique

Episode Summary:In this episode of Explaining History, Nick continues his exploration of Eric Hobsbawm's seminal work, The Age of Extremes.We focus on the first part of Hobsbawm's "historical triptych"—the Age of Catastrophe (1914–1945). Nick argues that this period was essentially a European Civil War, where the violent techniques of imperialism—gas, machine guns, and racial extermination—boomeranged back onto the continent itself.From the collapse of the liberal order in 1914 to the rise of totalitarian regimes in the 1930s, we examine how the certainties of the 19th century were shattered. We also critique Hobsbawm's Eurocentric view, asking: Was the post-war "Golden Age" truly golden for the colonized peoples of Vietnam, Kenya, or Algeria? Or was the Second World War merely the moment when the violence of empire finally came home?Plus: A final call for history students! Our Russian Revolution Masterclass is on Sunday, January 25th. Book your spot now for a deep dive into essay technique and historical argument.Key Topics:The European Civil War: Viewing 1914-1945 as a single, devastating conflict.The Imperial Boomerang: How colonial violence returned to Europe.The Collapse of Liberalism: Why democracy nearly vanished from the map between the wars.Hobsbawm's Blind Spot: Critiquing the Eurocentric view of the "Golden Age."Books Mentioned:The Age of Extremes by Eric HobsbawmBlood and Ruins by Richard OveryThe Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (referenced via the "boomerang" thesis)Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is Keir Starmer already on his last legs, or is he exactly the kind of leader modern Britain deserves: bland, managerial, and strangely unkillable? In this episode of Mark and Pete, we take a sharp (and mildly sarcastic) look at the Prime Minister's growing credibility problem, and ask whether Labour is quietly heading toward another internal panic.Starmer was sold as the competent adult in the room, the calm lawyer who would restore order after years of political circus. But instead of Churchillian grit, we've been given something closer to a Human Resources memo with a haircut. He's cautious, polished, and relentlessly careful… yet the country feels like it's wobbling on the edge of something much darker than “policy disagreements.”We explore why Starmer increasingly gives off the impression of a leader who is not steering events, but reacting to them. Is he trapped between factions inside Labour, trying to keep the activist wing happy while reassuring the wider public? Is he losing the confidence of working-class voters who once formed Labour's backbone? Or is he simply the latest example of what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil”: a technocratic, bureaucratic type of leadership that isn't flamboyantly wicked, but quietly hollow?Mark brings his usual poetic fire, while Pete brings a Christian worldview lens, asking the deeper question: can a nation survive on management language alone? Because Britain doesn't just need competence. It needs conviction, truth, moral courage, and a sense of purpose bigger than economic spreadsheets and government slogans.Along the way we touch on Labour party dynamics, leadership alternatives, media narratives, public mood, and why so many people feel politically homeless in the UK today. If Starmer falls, what replaces him? And if he survives, what does that say about the state of British democracy?Sharp analysis, dark humour, and a Bible verse to keep us honest. Welcome back to Mark and Pete.

On episode 252, welcome Benjamin Saltzman to discuss the gesture of turning away, the shame and grief behind it, how it became a moral topic, turning away in art and Timanthes's lost painting of Agamemnon, Plato's tripartite concept of the soul and turning away as a mark of confusion, rigidity and steadfastness as signs of courage and character, cognitive flexibility and knowing when to turn away, Hannah Arendt and misinterpreting averted gazes as the foundation of totalitarianism, and understanding aversion without its moral trappings. Benjamin A. Saltzman is associate professor of English at the University of Chicago, where he coedits the journal Modern Philology. Saltzman is the author of Bonds of Secrecy: Law, Spirituality, and the Literature of Concealment in Early Medieval England and the coeditor of Thinking of the Medieval: Midcentury Intellectuals and the Middle Ages. His new book, available April 6, 2026, is called Turning Away: The Poetics of an Ancient Gesture. | Benjamin A. Saltzman | ► Website | https://www.bsaltzman.com ► Twitter | https://x.com/b_a_saltzman ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/b_a_saltzman ► Turning Away Book | https://bit.ly/TurningAwayBook Use the code "UCPNEW" for a 30% discount on Turning Away when ordering from the link above!  Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast  

On September 7, 1945, only a few months after the Allies accepted the Nazis' unconditional surrender, the Deutches Theater in Berlin reopened its doors with a very deliberate choice of performance. Like many theaters across the country reopening in the wake of the Second World War, Deutches Theater began its new run with a production of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's comic drama about religious tolerance and reconciliation, Nathan der Weise, or Nathan the Wise, which had been banned under the Nazis. A tale of friendship across religious divisions and near-fatal misunderstandings, Nathan the Wise is the story of a wealthy Jewish merchant –the titular Nathan–and the series of complications that arise when he returns home to Jerusalem to discover that his adoptive daughter, Recha, has been rescued from a fire by a former Knight Templar, who himself owes his life to the unlikely mercy of the Muslim Sultan Saladin. Here as elsewhere, Lessing's play functioned as a cipher for an entire history of anxieties about German national identity, Jewish emancipation, and the promise and peril of secular modernity. In this episode, we talk with Jonathan B. Fine, Assistant Professor at Brown University, about Lessing's complex legacy and his pivotal role in the German Enlightenment and the formation of the early bourgeois public sphere. Lessing is nothing short of an embodiment of cultural modernity and the spirit of the European Enlightenment, and one of the main progenitors of the sphere of public debate and discussion that we take for granted in liberal democratic societies and which serves as such an important counterweight to state power. Upon receiving the Lessing Prize from the Free City of Hamburg in 1959, the political theorist Hannah Arendt returned to Lessing's critical role as a public intellectual in a lecture on humanity in dark times. We return to both Lessing and Arendt in this episode with a similar feeling of foreboding. How can the public realm, the world in which free and equal citizens can exercise their reason in deliberation and govern their lives in common, be salvaged from the rising tide of authoritarianism and the ascendance of technocapitalism? To understand where we are going, we must understand where we came from, and for this there is no better place to begin than Lessing.Follow Professor Fine on Twitter(X): @jonathanbfinePlease consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Patreon to get exclusive bonus episodes, early access releases, and bookish merch: https://www.patreon.com/MoralMinorityFollow us on Twitter(X).Devin: @DevinGoureCharles: @satireredactedEmail us at: moralminoritypod@gmail.com

Ik wil je, als trouwe luisteraar van Lekker Uitgelegd, graag meenemen naar een nieuw project dat ik ben gestart. Het is net iets anders dan je van me gewend bent, maar je zult merken dat het heel dicht bij me ligt. Het heet: Tussen de Regels | Even echt luisteren."In de podcast doe ik iets eenvoudigs: ik zet ergens een microfoon neer en ik luister. Zo hoor je een plein in Maleisië en een kantoorpand dat tegen de vlakte gaat; ik koppel die geluiden aan denkers als Hannah Arendt en Cees Nooteboom en laat horen wat in de vluchtigheid van alledag onopgemerkt blijft.Want de essentie zit niet altijd in wat we direct horen. Soms ligt de boodschap verborgen in het geluid. Ergens tussen de regels.Je kunt Tussen de Regels | Even écht luisteren volgen op Spotify of in je favoriete podcast-app.www.tussenderegelspodcast.nl

In dieser Folge nehmen wir eine ungewohnte Perspektive ein: Mit den Theorien von Hannah Arendt blicken wir auf die Ernährungsweise der Deutschen mit all ihren gesundheits- und klimaschädlichen Folgen. Zu Gast sind die politische Theoretikerin Maike Weißpflug sowie die Internistin Dr. Lisa Pörtner, die an der Charité und am Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung forscht. Eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Wende hin zu einer gesunden und klimafreundlichen Ernährung im Stil der „Planetary Helth Diet“ hätte immense Vorteile. So würden viele Fälle von nicht übertragbaren Krankheiten wie Diabetes oder Krebs gar nicht erst entstehen. Aber wie gelingt dieses Umdenken? Moralischen Druck auf Einzelne auszuüben, ist jedenfalls der falsche Weg, sind sich die beiden Gästinnen einig. Wer ihrer Meinung nach stattdessen tätig werden muss, hören Sie in der Folge.

Hannah Arendt, bohaterka wykładu dr Sylwii Góry, była niemiecką i amerykańską teoretyczką polityki, filozofką i publicystką. Zajmowała się m.in. naturą siły i zła oraz polityki, demokracji bezpośredniej, autorytetu i totalitaryzmu. Najlepiej zapamiętana za kontrowersyjną tezę na temat banalności zła, którą wysunęła po procesie Adolfa Eichmanna w Jerozolimie. Właśnie sformułowanie o banalności zła w naszym życiu jest znane i interpretowane na różne sposoby. Hannah Arendt uważana jest za jedną z najbardziej wpływowych filozofów XX wieku. W 1998 Walter Laqueur powiedział: Żaden dwudziestowieczny filozof ani myśliciel polityczny nie odbija się teraz tak dużym echem. Dziedzictwo Arendt jest czasem opisywane jako kult. O Hannie Arend wykłada dr Sylwia Góra, która poświeciła tej pisarce i filozofce dużo wykładów. Audycje przygotował Marek Mierzwiak.

Odcinek kaloryczny, wymagający spokojnego przyswojenia. Udajemy się z wizytą do trójki filozofów, żeby zapytać o co, do diaska chodzi z tą wolnością? Z jakiego powodu problemy z nią wracają do nas z uporem - zarówno w naszym życiu osobistym, jak i społecznym. Może istnieć wrażenie, że jest to problem teoretyczny lub slogan polityczny, ale okazuje się że jest bardzo realnym problemem. Nie tylko w kontekście dopaminy czy uzależnień, ale także tego jak podejmujemy decyzje i czym się w życiu kierujemy. Książki:- Erich From, Ucieczka od wolności, wyd. Vis-a-Vis Etiuda.- Hannah Arendt, O rewolucji, Wydawnictwo X.- Timothy Snyder, O wolności. Przewodnik po świecie, który można ocalić, Znak Horyzont.- Octavia E. Butler, Przypowieść o siewcy, WAB.

“The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world … [gets] destroyed.”HANNAH ARENDT 

Invité: Philippe Vilain. "Les promesses n'engagent que ceux qui les reçoivent" disait Jacques Chirac. La philosophe Hannah Arendt estimait elle que "contre l'imprévisibilité, contre la chaotique incertitude de l'avenir, le remède se trouve dans la faculté de faire et de tenir des promesses". Pourquoi fait-on sans cesse des promesses, aux autres, à soi, sans toujours parvenir à les tenir? Les promesses sont-elles des boussoles morales ou des prisons? Tribu reçoit Philippe Vilain, auteur et enseignant de littérature française à lʹuniversité Federico II de Naples. Il publie "La promesse. Echapper aux vaines paroles", paru aux éditions autrement.

My frequent conversation partner Blake Smith is back on the pod today to talk about his book-in-progress on the pioneering gay editor Michael Denneny as well as a related essay, “For the Love of the Gay World,” just published in a new anthology.In both endeavors, I think, he's doing some version of the same thing, which is to make his case, that gay men briefly had, then lost, but could have again a coherent, self-reflective cultural and intellectual world by and for themselves. As he writes:Part of what the playwright Larry Kramer called, two decades ago, the tragedy of today's gays is that in order to begin a potentially generative, or productively divisive, conversation about the state of male homosexuality (its culture and politics, its problems and affordances) we must undergo an ordeal of conceptual and historical clarification. Without doing so, we are likely to miss the real objects of our agreement and disagreement, wasting time with opinions expressed in each interlocutor's jumble of inherited, half-comprehended categories.It is hard for gays to talk sensibly to each other about where we are and how we got here; the ideas by which we understand that ‘we' and its emergence in time are so contested and confused. This makes gay thinking peculiarly dizzied, harried and disoriented. It is often in doubt whether there is any gay ‘we' (or any gay thinking) —or whether ‘we' do in fact wish for our talk to reach out to such a ‘we' rather than merely confirm ourselves individually in what we already take ourselves to think and know.In the following I will try to do two things at the same time. I will try to clarify the routes through history by which certain concepts have come down to us, and to trace their relationships and contradictions. Disentangling homosexual, gay, and queer, and the movements by which these terms were conceived and contested, may allow us to talk more with more clarity about the objects of our dis/agreement. At the same time, as I lay out—in a sketchy, rapid, and admittedly contestable fashion—this history, I will show how there came to be, at a few different times and places, a self-conscious articulation of the interest and pleasure that we take in talking to each other about ourselves, and of the desire to perpetuate ourselves individually and collectively that is adumbrated in this talk.Our talking together both reflects and forms what Hannah Arendt (whose relevance to gays will become clearer over the course of this essay) called a world. Which is not a physical place. A world, in this sense, is what is communicable to a group of people, what they can hold together in their talk. It is also the set of practices by which that communicability is maintained (the fact, for instance, of our having a shared vocabulary and grammar, but also of our having reasonably similar psychologies and common objects of perception). Worlds can expand and contract, and also collapse. Whether we want to speak to someone about an apparently external object or an apparently internal thought, the possibility of our doing so successfully depends there being already a world that contains us, our intended interlocutor, and the topic we want to address.His framework involves a periodization of three distinct eras: the “homosexual” phase of the late 19th and early 20th century, when doctors, psychologists, and the men they studied were constructing new categories of identity; the “gay” era that emerged in the mid-20th century and flourished after Stonewall; and the “queer” phase that began in the 1980s and now dominates how we talk about sexual minorities.His argument, stripped down, is that the gay era represented something genuinely new in the world. Before that point there existed various ways of characterizing sex between men, but there wasn't a publicly visible and accessible identity oriented around the idea of two men being together as romantic equals, without one becoming feminized, without requiring a status differential, old and young, top and bottom.This emerged organically from bars and cruising spots and men finding each other in mid-century American cities, and then from that base there evolved a self-conscious culture, one in which Denneny, through his magazine Christopher Street and his editorial work at St. Martin's Press, was a central figure.Then in some respects this culture died, or attenuated. Literally died, in many cases, with so many deaths from AIDS. But also at the hands of the queer paradigm, which supplanted it first in the universities, and then much more broadly in the culture. Queer as an identity, in Blake's construction, did a few things. It conceptualized the queer as a potentially universal, or universally accessible, counter-normative, transgressive force. Anything could be queer, or queered, if it stood or was understood at certain angles to the normative.More problematically, from Blake's stance, it subsumed the gay male identity into a larger queer collective identity that included first lesbians and transgender people but soon anyone, including old fashioned straight folks, who wanted to align themselves with the queer. And this has meant, among other things, that there is simply less psychological and cultural energy available for the maintenance and development of the gay world, as Denneny understood it, particularly in the aftermath of the death of so many gay men from AIDS and particularly because gay men don't biologically reproduce themselves. They need more conscious, deliberate reproduction of their culture, their world.A subtext of our discussion, which we reference but don't really delve into, is that Blake's political orientation has shifted a lot over the last year or so, since Trump was left. He hasn't gone left, precisely. His policy preferences remain roughly the same, basically old new school new deal left liberal social democracy-esque. He's just not interested anymore in aiming his fire at certain elements of the left.I think I've undergone a shift as well, though to a much lesser degree, and with no guilt. I'm more interested in critiquing and thinking about the flaws of the right, now that those flaws are so evident and so damaging to the country. That's definitely a shift. But it still feels important to me to critique the left, in part because that's just my beat, but also because the stakes are really high.To this point, my brother Jonathan said something to me the other day that I hadn't thought about but made a lot of sense. He lives in St. Paul, Minnesota, and has been involved in the organizing there against the ICE invasion. What he said is that it's pretty clear to him that people in the Twin Cities have internalized the hard lessons from mistakes made after the George Floyd killing. They're thinking, much more strategically than the last time, about how to act so as to elicit sympathy rather than aversion from the broad mass of people in the middle politically. They're sidelining the idiots from antifa and the abolish the police crowd. They're super conscious of the need to avoid riots and looting. Etc.And you can see the results, how powerful and effective their opposition has been. I think critique is a small but important element in the process that leads to that result. So I'll keep being a pain in the ass on that front, but spend more time looking at the right and also try to spend more time in the space where I think blake is right now, which is trying to think constructively, creatively about new possibilities for culture and politics that we might want to explore on the other side of the culture wars. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

Aufmerksamkeits-Milliardäre zerstören unsere Öffentlichkeit, schaffen die Demokratie ab und arbeiten an der "Digitalokratie": In seinem Vortrag warnt Medienwissenschaftler Martin Andree vor den Folgen – und macht Vorschläge. Martin Andree ist Medienwissenschaftler an der Universität Köln mit dem Schwerpunkt "Digitale Medien". Seinen Vortrag mit dem Titel "Digitalisierte Demokratie – Geht das überhaupt?" hat er am 7. Dezember 2025 gehalten, im Rahmen von "Verstehen, was ist. Ein Tag für Hannah Arendt" im Berliner Maxim-Gorki-Theater. Die Veranstaltung wurde ausgerichtet durch das Bard College Berlin, die Internationale Hannah Arendt Gesellschaft und das Maxim Gorki Theater.**********In dieser Folge mit: Moderation: Katja Weber Vortragender: Martin Andree, Medienwissenschaftler, Universität Köln**********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Gaming: Rechte Propaganda in Online-SpielenHassen und teilen: Was Wut im Netz mit uns machtRechtsextremismus: Die Vordenker der Neuen Rechten**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

In this episode of OffScript Josephine Burton is joined by Professor Lyndsey Stonebridge. They delve into Hannah Arendt's belief in collective action as the essence of freedom. Lyndsey discusses Arendt's life, her impact on political philosophy, and her relevance in contemporary social movements. Exploring how her theories inspire artists and activists today, the conversation highlights Arendt's idea of politics as something we perform in public and the power of human resilience and action.Get your tickets for the live events for We Are Free To Change The World by going to the Dash Arts website : https://www.dasharts.org.uk/we-are-free Our intro music is Fakiiritanssi by Marouf MajidiPhoto of Lindsay Stonebridge by Ione Saizar.---Headlines in the episode:00:00 Introduction to OffScript00:46 Exploring Freedom with Lyndsey Stonebridge 02:56 Hannah Arendt's Life and Influence 12:51 The Relevance of Arendt's Ideas Today23:24 Art, Performance, and Political Action 28:42 Navigating Dark Times with Hope 40:22 Conclusion and Upcoming Events Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hannah Arendt didn't write about monsters. She wrote about ordinary people who stop thinking — and what that does to the world. In this episode, we dig into the life of the Jewish philosopher who gave us the phrase “the banality of evil,” fled the Nazis, pissed off half the intellectual world, and refused to make evil feel dramatic or mysterious. This is the story of a woman who believed thinking clearly was a moral act.

Le pouvoir a longtemps été exercé quasi exclusivement par des hommes. Comment les femmes, victimes du pouvoir, ont-elles pu penser le pouvoir ? J'en parle avec Laurence Devillairs.Le livre de Laurence : https://www.lisez.com/livres/ce-que-la-philosophie-doit-aux-femmes/9782266352116Mon site : https://www.fabricemidal.comFacebook Fabrice Midal : https://www.facebook.com/FabriceMidalFacebook du podcast Dialogues : https://www.facebook.com/dialogues.fmInstagram Fabrice Midal : https://www.instagram.com/fabricemidalInstagram du podcast Dialogues : https://www.instagram.com/fabricemidal_dialogues/Tiktok : https://www.tiktok.com/@fabricemidalMes trois chaînes YouTube :Mes vidéos : https://www.youtube.com/@fabricemidal1Les Dialogues : https://www.youtube.com/@dialoguesfmLes méditations guidées : https://www.youtube.com/@mediteravecfabricemidalMes podcasts :Le podcast de Fabrice Midal (toutes mes vidéos en version audio) :

Hannah Arendt foi uma das vozes mais lúcidas do século XX. Uma pensadora que não apenas sobreviveu aos horrores do totalitarismo, mas também ousou analisá-los com uma clareza que poucos suportariam. Em Origens do Totalitarismo, Arendt descreve o que acontece quando a política — entendida como espaço da liberdade, do diálogo e do juízo — é substituída por ideologias que exigem obediência cega. Para ela, o totalitarismo não é apenas um regime autoritário. É algo mais profundo e mais devastador: é a morte da pluralidade, a destruição das condições da vida em comum, a eliminação do diálogo. Onde há totalitarismo, não há debate, não há responsabilidade, não há deliberação — há apenas a engrenagem funcionando, e o indivíduo dissolvido na máquina do sistema.

In seinem neuen Buch «Liebe! Ein Aufruf» plädiert der Essayist Daniel Schreiber für eine Politik der Liebe und radikale Freundlichkeit. Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, wie viel politische Sprengkraft in diesem Aufruf steckt, der im ersten Moment wie ein nett gemeinter, aber naiver Vorschlag klingt. Der preisgekrönte Essayist Daniel Schreiber spürt in seinem neuen Buch der Frage nach: Was bedeutet die Liebe zur Welt – und warum fällt es uns heute oft so schwer, sie zu empfinden? Bezugnehmend auf philosophische Stimmen wie Hannah Arendt oder Erich Fromm und persönliche Beobachtungen ruft Schreiber dazu auf, die derzeit bei vielen vorherrschende Resignation zu durchbrechen und sich radikal zurückzubesinnen auf Empathie, Solidarität und Verbundenheit. Doch können solch selbstverständlich klingende Appelle in der derzeitigen politischen Grosswetterlage etwas ausrichten? Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, ob nicht Wut die wirkungsvollere Kraft wäre für echte Veränderung und ob die Liebe in der Politik tatsächlich etwas verloren hat.

In seinem neuen Buch «Liebe! Ein Aufruf» plädiert der Essayist Daniel Schreiber für eine Politik der Liebe und radikale Freundlichkeit. Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, wie viel politische Sprengkraft in diesem Aufruf steckt, der im ersten Moment wie ein nett gemeinter, aber naiver Vorschlag klingt. Der preisgekrönte Essayist Daniel Schreiber spürt in seinem neuen Buch der Frage nach: Was bedeutet die Liebe zur Welt – und warum fällt es uns heute oft so schwer, sie zu empfinden? Bezugnehmend auf philosophische Stimmen wie Hannah Arendt oder Erich Fromm und persönliche Beobachtungen ruft Schreiber dazu auf, die derzeit bei vielen vorherrschende Resignation zu durchbrechen und sich radikal zurückzubesinnen auf Empathie, Solidarität und Verbundenheit. Doch können solch selbstverständlich klingende Appelle in der derzeitigen politischen Grosswetterlage etwas ausrichten? Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, ob nicht Wut die wirkungsvollere Kraft wäre für echte Veränderung und ob die Liebe in der Politik tatsächlich etwas verloren hat.

When we agree to practice joy through community, connection, and belonging in its own powerful way, it is an act of defiance to what's going on around us. We must ask ourselves, particularly in these difficult times, what we are fighting for? We fight for a meaningful world that yields joy. This commitment to fostering shared happiness becomes the ultimate evidence of resilience and a deeply healing public force. To discover how to find joy and hopefulness in difficult times, Harvesting Happiness Podcast Host Lisa Cypers Kamen continues her conversation with Roger Berkowitz, Founder and Academic Director of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College and coordinator of the upcoming JOY: Loving the World in Dark Times conference.. Roger shares his intentions for the JOY: Loving the World in Dark Times conference, which are rooted in Hannah Arendt's philosophy that freedom is not a private endeavor but is best found in the public sphere. Like what you're hearing? WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on https://harvestinghappiness.substack.com/ and https://medium.com/@HarvestingHappiness.

When we agree to practice joy through community, connection, and belonging in its own powerful way, it is an act of defiance to what's going on around us. We must ask ourselves, particularly in these difficult times, what we are fighting for? We fight for a meaningful world that yields joy. This commitment to fostering shared happiness becomes the ultimate evidence of resilience and a deeply healing public force. To discover how to find joy and hopefulness in difficult times, Harvesting Happiness Podcast Host Lisa Cypers Kamen continues her conversation with Roger Berkowitz, Founder and Academic Director of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College and coordinator of the upcoming JOY: Loving the World in Dark Times conference.. Roger shares his intentions for the JOY: Loving the World in Dark Times conference, which are rooted in Hannah Arendt's philosophy that freedom is not a private endeavor but is best found in the public sphere. Like what you're hearing? WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on https://harvestinghappiness.substack.com/ and https://medium.com/@HarvestingHappiness.

L'essai Le Monde après Gaza de l'écrivain indo-britannique Pankaj Mishra s'ouvre sur les derniers jours de l'insurrection dans le ghetto de Varsovie en 1943, réprimée dans le sang par les nazis. Comparant l'extermination des juifs pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale à l'anéantissement de Gaza par Israël sous le regard complice des puissances démocratiques occidentales, Mishra pointe du doigt la radicalisation de la société israélienne et s'inquiète de l'effondrement moral généralisé. Puisant sa réflexion aussi bien chez Primo Levi, Hannah Arendt, Edward Said que James Baldwin, ce livre relit l'histoire contemporaine à travers une grille morale et invite ses lecteurs à construire le monde d'après en s'appuyant sur une nouvelle conscience politique et éthique.    RFI : C'est le sentiment de découragement face à l'effondrement moral généralisé qui vous a conduit à vous lancer dans l'écriture du Monde après Gaza. J'aimerais que vous nous expliquiez les raisons de votre découragement ? Pankaj Mishra : Je me suis retrouvé dans la situation de nombreuses personnes complètement déconcertées par la réaction d'Israël au 7-Octobre. Nous avons vécu des mois d'extermination de masse diffusés en direct, quelque chose de sans précédent dans l'histoire de l'humanité. En même temps, ce qui a été également inédit ces derniers mois, c'est de voir les démocraties occidentales qui prétendent défendre un ordre international fondé sur des règles, qui prétendent se battre pour la démocratie et les droits humains, appuyer Israël en lui apportant leur soutien tant diplomatique, militaire que moral. En conséquence, tout un système de normes, tout un système de lois, toute une manière de comprendre le monde, notre place en son sein, notre perception de nous-mêmes, de nos possibilités, et de ce que nos sociétés pourraient être à l'avenir, désormais tout cela est remis en cause. C'est de cela que je parle quand je vous dis que nous assistons à un effondrement moral généralisé. Je suis étonné de votre réaction. Vous semblez avoir oublié les violences des guerres coloniales, les atrocités commises en Corée et au Vietnam, la mauvaise foi qui a conduit à la guerre en Irak… Je pense que les gens de ma génération n'ont pas oublié les longues guerres et les atrocités de l'impérialisme. Je n'avais pas vraiment beaucoup d'illusions sur la nature de la démocratie occidentale ni sur cette rhétorique des droits de l'homme. Mais je dois admettre que, même pour des personnes comme moi, formées à l'histoire mondiale, les événements de Gaza - au cours desquels on a vu les gens abandonner leurs principes pour se ranger du côté des auteurs d'un génocide - ont été un choc immense. À quand situez-vous la corrosion morale dans la société israélienne que vous pointez et que vous n'êtes d'ailleurs pas le seul à évoquer ? Pour la plupart des observateurs, cette corrosion morale commence avec l'endoctrinement de la population israélienne et la construction d'une identité nationale fondée sur la Shoah et l'expérience juive en Europe. Pendant les premières années de l'existence d'Israël, la Shoah ne faisait pas partie de l'image que ce pays se faisait de lui-même. Les premiers dirigeants israéliens méprisaient les survivants de l'Holocauste : ils les voyaient comme des êtres faibles qui déshonoraient le pays parce qu'ils étaient allés à la mort sans résistance. Ce n'est que plus tard, à partir des années 1960, que le récit de la Shoah a été redécouvert et élaboré afin d'imposer une identité nationale cohérente. Ainsi, plusieurs générations d'Israéliens ont été endoctrinées avec ce message très dangereux selon lequel le monde qui les entoure serait rempli de gens cherchant à les tuer et à les éradiquer. Dans votre ouvrage, vous revenez longuement sur les mises en garde lancées en leur temps par d'éminents philosophes tels que Hannah Arendt et Primo Lévi contre cet endoctrinement. Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas été écoutés? C'est parce que le récit de l'Holocauste a d'abord été confisqué par l'État d'Israël, puis perverti pour servir les intérêts d'un État violent et expansionniste. Des penseurs comme Hannah Arendt, qui avaient vu en Europe les pires excès du nationalisme, étaient très conscients du risque de voir ressurgir ces dangers dans un nouvel État-nation tenté par le fascisme, le suprémacisme ethnique et racial. C'est pourquoi elle s'est farouchement opposée à l'idée du sionisme comme doctrine constitutive de l'Etat d'Israël. Primo Levi, lui, qui croyait en l'idée d'un Israël socialiste, fut totalement horrifié en découvrant les preuves des atrocités israéliennes commises contre les Libanais et les Palestiniens. Ces penseurs ne pouvaient concevoir que la Shoah serve de fondement à la légitimité d'Israël. Pour eux, cette légitimité ne pouvait reposer que sur le comportement éthique d'Israël dans l'ici et maintenant. C'est pourquoi je crois qu'il est de notre devoir, d'une certaine manière, de sauver la mémoire de la Shoah des mains de ceux qui l'ont tant instrumentalisée en Israël. Ne me méprenez pas : il n'est nullement question d'oublier la Shoah, mais il est seulement question de la délivrer de l'emprise de l'État d'Israël. Comment voyez-vous le monde après Gaza, qui est le titre de votre essai ? Vous savez, lorsque je songe à l'avenir, ce qui m'inspire véritablement de l'espoir, c'est la façon dont la jeunesse a su incarner à travers le monde une forme rare d'empathie et de compassion envers les victimes de la violence à Gaza. Ils l'ont fait en se levant, en se mobilisant, en donnant voix à leur indignation, et, ce faisant, ils nous ont renvoyé à nos propres manquements — nous, les aînés, ceux qui détenons le pouvoir, dans la politique, les affaires ou les médias. Ils nous ont rappelé, parfois avec sévérité, combien nous nous étions compromis, soit en tolérant ce génocide, soit en gardant le silence face à lui. Ces jeunes manifestants, ces étudiants sont descendus dans la rue, ils ont dénoncé les atrocités, nous poussant à écouter davantage la voix de notre conscience. J'espère qu'à mesure qu'ils vieilliront, accédant à leur tour à des positions d'influence et de responsabilité, ils se souviendront des positions profondément morales qu'ils ont su adopter dans ces temps sombres que nous venons de vivre. Et j'espère qu'ils trouveront le moyen de perpétuer ces valeurs de compassion et de solidarité qu'ils ont su si magnifiquement incarner au cours de ces 15 derniers mois marqués par la brutalité et la souffrance. Oui, on peut dire qu'il y a de l'espoir. Le Monde après Gaza, par Pankaj Mishra. Essai traduit de l'anglais par David Fauquemberg. Editions Zulma, 304 pages, 22,50€

Professor Matthew Longo. Reflecting on the site thirty years later, Longo discusses the philosophical implications of freedom using Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt. He contrasts Western "negative liberty" with the solidarity desired by East Germans, noting how the former borderland has transformed into an unremarkable green belt. 1985 CZECH FRONTIER

Current research indicates that despite unprecedented levels of global connectivity, societies are experiencing an unparalleled state of metaphysical loneliness. This condition is a potent catalyst for political instability, making populations vulnerable to authoritarian and separatist movements. Political theorists explore the implications for democratic governance and social cohesion through Hannah Arendt's freedom theory. To discover how to recover joy in a loving world, Harvesting Happiness Podcast Host Lisa Cypers Kamen speaks with Roger Berkowitz, Founder and Academic Director of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. Roger shares what led him to Bard College and Hannah Arendt. And how one of the most read political thinkers of the twentieth century might interpret freedom in today's political landscape. His forthcoming book, A World We Share: The Power of Friendship in a Time Without Truth, is scheduled for release in 2026. Like what you're hearing? WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on https://harvestinghappiness.substack.com/ and https://medium.com/@HarvestingHappiness.

durée : 00:38:49 - L'Invité(e) des Matins - par : Guillaume Erner, Yoann Duval - Il y a 50 ans mourait Hannah Arendt, philosophe juive allemande dont la pensée continue de susciter débats et controverses. Son analyse de la Révolution française, sa critique de l'universalisme républicain, son concept de "banalité du mal" : autant de réflexions qui interrogent encore aujourd'hui. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère - invités : Barbara Cassin Philosophe, philologue, académicienne et directrice de recherche au CNRS; Stéphanie Roza Chargée de recherches au CNRS, spécialiste des Lumières et de la Révolution française.

durée : 02:30:22 - Les Matins - par : Guillaume Erner, Yoann Duval - - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

durée : 00:30:46 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - A l'heure de la modernité, où le travail est devenu omniprésent, Hannah Arendt pointe son oubli théorique de la part des économistes. Une invisibilisation que dénoncent aussi les féministes, auxquelles Arendt ne s'est pourtant jamais associée. - réalisation : Louise André - invités : Katia Genel Professeur de philosophie à l'Université Paris-Nanterre

durée : 00:59:31 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Onze mois après sa réélection, Donald Trump est confronté à la persistance de la vie chère aux Etats-Unis. Une question d'actualité qui sera suivie du deuxième épisode des "Pensées féministes du travail", dédié au labeur chez Hannah Arendt, en compagnie de la philosophe Katia Genel. - réalisation : Louise André - invités : Isabelle Lebon Professeure d'économie à l'Université de Caen ; Anton Brender Professeur associé honoraire à l'Université Paris-Dauphine; Katia Genel Professeur de philosophie à l'Université Paris-Nanterre

Winfried Kretschmann ist Ministerpräsident von Baden-Württemberg, erster grüner Regierungschef eines Bundeslandes und früherer Gymnasiallehrer. Wir haben uns live vor Publikum in Stuttgart unterhalten. Ich wollte von ihm wissen, was der Sinn von Politik ist, wie es sich anfühlt, über 5.000 Tage im Amt zu sein und warum er sagt, dass Politik keinen Spaß machen soll. Wir sprechen über Schicksal und Verantwortung, Heimat, Kindheit und über Hannah Arendt. Es geht um Macht und Freiheit, den Nationalismus als Gift für die Demokratie und darum, was es bedeutet, eine Politik des Gehörtwerdens zu machen. WERBEPARTNER & RABATTE: https://linktr.ee/hotelmatze MEIN GAST: https://stm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/ministerium/ministerpraesident/ DINGE: Winfried Kretschmann - Der Sinn von Politik ist Freiheit: https://bit.ly/4p1Q4om Markus Söder zur Amtszeitbegrenzung von Ministerpräsidenten: https://bit.ly/49gtjbm Lukas Hambach - Produktion Marie Schiller - Redaktion Lena Rocholl - Redaktion Mit Vergnügen - Vermarktung und Distribution Hotel Matze live - https://eventim.de/artist/hotel-matze/ MEIN ZEUG: Mein Fragenset FAMILIE: https://beherzt.net/products/familie Mein Fragenset LIEBE: https://beherzt.net/liebe Mein erstes Fragenset: https://beherzt.net/matze Meine Spendenaktion: https://machmit.wellfair.ngo/hotel-matze-spendenaktion-2025 Mein Newsletter: https://matzehielscher.substack.com/ YouTube: https://bit.ly/2MXRILN TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@matzehielscher Instagram: https://instagram.com/matzehielscherHotel LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/matzehielscher/ Mein Buch: https://bit.ly/39FtHQy

In this episode of We Are Free to Change the World, Dash Arts' Artistic Director Josephine Burton is joined by the legendary artist Peter Kennard.Inspired by Hannah Arendt's belief in our freedom to begin anew, Josephine and Peter examine how art becomes a form of political action—shifting public consciousness, exposing injustice, and giving shape to the possible futures.They discuss the challenges of making radical work in increasingly authoritarian and fearful times, and why visual art still has the power to mobilise, unsettle, and inspire.Peter shares stories from five decades on the frontlines of artistic dissent, reflecting on collaboration, solidarity, and the urgent need to make work now more than ever.Get your tickets for the live events for We Are Free To Change The World by going to the Dash Arts website: https://www.dasharts.org.uk/we-are-free Our intro music is Fakiiritanssi by Marouf Majidi Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

El periodista Jorge del Palacio expone en su seccion en La Brujula la vida de esta pensadora y su influencia en una teoria politica todavia vigente.

durée : 00:51:39 - Répliques - par : Alain Finkielkraut - Hannah Arendt arrive à Paris en 1933. Exil, amitiés, apatridie, camps : les années françaises forgent sa pensée politique et sa réflexion sur la condition des réfugiés. - réalisation : François Caunac - invités : Marina Touilliez Journaliste, conférencière sur les années 1930 et 1940 ainsi que sur l'histoire du racisme et de l'antisémitisme en France et en Allemagne ; Martine Leibovici Philosophe, maître de conférences émérite en philosophie politique

Today's episode is about a momentous trial and the incendiary book that followed: the trial was of Adolf Eichmann, convicted by an Israeli court in 1961 of orchestrating the Holocaust, and the book was Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), which questioned the grounds on which he was prosecuted. What did Arendt mean by ‘the banality of evil'? Why was she convinced that the case against Eichmann was badly misjudged? Was the trial really intended to serve as a history lesson? And if it was, what was it designed to teach? Next time in Politics on Trial: Nelson Mandela vs Apartheid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

durée : 01:23:42 - Toute une vie - par : Pascale Werner - Connue pour ses travaux sur le totalitarisme, notamment le concept de banalité du mal, la vie de la philosophe américaine d'origine allemande Hannah Arendt, marquée par le nazisme, représente une sorte de parabole de la tragédie moderne et son œuvre la poursuite de l'esprit de liberté. - réalisation : Jean-Claude Loiseau - invités : Blandine Kriegel Philosophe, professeure des Universités; Jacques Donzelot Maître de conférences en sociologie politique à l'Université de Paris X Nanterre.; Roger Errera Conseiller d'Etat honoraire et ancien membre du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature.; Luc Ferry Philosophe; Hannah Arendt Philosophe allemande

Hannah Arendt gilt als eine der einflussreichsten politischen Denkerinnen des 20. Jahrhunderts – unkonventionell, ideologiekritisch, streitbar. Ihr Denken, entstanden aus den Erschütterungen von Flucht, Exil und Staatenlosigkeit, bleibt 50 Jahre nach ihrem Tod von erstaunlicher Gegenwartskraft. «Denken ohne Geländer» – diesem Anspruch widmete Arendt ihr ganzes Leben. Sie durchlebte die Katastrophen des 20. Jahrhunderts, floh vor den Nationalsozialisten, stellte sich in den USA neu auf und widmete ihr Leben der Suche nach Wahrheit und Freiheit. Sie beharrte auf intellektuelle Beweglichkeit statt Zugehörigkeit und war konsequent ideologiekritisch. Freundschaft wurde für sie zur politischen Tugend, Pluralität zum Grundprinzip menschlichen Zusammenlebens. Wie wirken die biografischen Brüche und Neuanfänge in ihr Werk hinein? Warum spielt Zwischenmenschlichkeit und Freundschaft eine so zentrale Rolle in ihrer politischen Theorie? Und weshalb gewinnen Arendts Ideen gerade heute so an Brisanz? Olivia Röllin im Gespräch mit Grit Strassenberger, Professorin für Politische Theorie und Autorin der neuen Biografie «Die Denkerin. Hannah Arendt und ihr Jahrhundert».

Gabor Steingart präsentiert die Pioneer Briefing Weekend Edition.

In part 2 of Kenneth Frampton's Scaffold interview, we focus on his own experiences - from his early desire to become a farmer, and the long hesitation that kept him from starting a family, and his regrets around leaving architectural practice for a life of writing. These biographical threads are woven through his encounters with key thinkers – from Herbert Marcuse and Tomas Maldonado to Juhani Pallasmaa and Hannah Arendt – and with buildings like Corringham and Aalto's Villa Mairea and the transformation in perspective they represent.The discussion moves between the question of anti-capitalist architecture, the inundation of images in contemporary life, and the importance of what Frampton calls the microcosmos – architecture as the creation of “a small world” where society can begin to recognise itself. Along the way, Frampton reflects on what it might mean not to separate the reality of work from the pleasure of life.Scaffold is an Architecture Foundation production, hosted by Matthew Blunderfield. Download the London Architecture Guide App via the App Store or Google PlayBecome an Architecture Foundation Patreon member and be a part of a growing coalition of architects and built environment professionals supporting our vital and independent work. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 01:23:29 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Geneviève Huttin - Hannah Arendt, sa critique du totalitarisme, son analyse du peuple juif, et son positionnement face à l'Etat-nation. - réalisation : Virginie Mourthé - invités : Blandine Kriegel Philosophe, professeure des Universités; Roger Errera Conseiller d'Etat honoraire et ancien membre du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature.; Luc Ferry Philosophe

Architectural historian Kenneth Frampton remembers the exact moment of his political awakening. Arriving in the United States in 1965, flying over the blazing island of Manhattan and suddenly grasping the visibility of capitalist power there—“a ferocious panorama” of light, cars and consumption that stood in stark contrast to what he calls the “concealed” capitalism of mid-century Britain. From that moment, his architectural writing became inseparable from politics: shaped by Hannah Arendt's idea of the space of appearance, by phenomenology's insistence on embodied experience, and by a Marxist attention to exploitation, power and the global neoliberal order.In this first episode of a two-part interview, Kenneth Frampton, arguably the most celebrated and influential architectural thinker of the past half century, looks back over nearly six decades of his writing and teaching.In the first half of the conversation he addresses the idea critical regionalism as “an architecture of resistance” to commodification, connects phenomenology to political agency rather than aesthetic escapism, and defends his own “operative” criticism—writing that openly aims to influence how architects practice. He is unsparing about the state of architectural education, where social-justice rhetoric often displaces serious engagement with construction and craft, and where capitalism itself remains strangely unnamed. Along the way he reflects on being, as he puts it, “a Marxist who believes in phenomenology,” on the tectonic poetics of building, and, closing out the episode, he reckons with becoming a father at 52 and a grandfather in his mid-90s—thinking about legacy, continuity and what it means for architects, in Álvaro Siza's phrase, not to invent anything, but to transform reality.Scaffold is an Architecture Foundation production, created and hosted by Matthew Blunderfield. Become an Architecture Foundation Patreon member and be a part of a growing coalition of architects and built environment professionals supporting our vital and independent work. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Green Belt and Rethinking Liberty 30 Years Later. Matthew Longo reflects that thirty years after the Iron Curtain fell, the border site is now an unremarkable "green belt." Researcher Longo considers the meaning of freedom, contrasting Isaiah Berlin's negative liberty—freedom from state interference—with Hannah Arendt's concept of plurality and solidarity. He notes the disappointment felt by some East Germans who missed the community they knew in the East. Guest: Matthew Longo. Retry

durée : 00:03:29 - Le Fil philo - Quand il est temps de vous y mettre, comment éviter la tentation de remettre votre tâche à plus tard et de prononcer cette phrase magique, “Je le ferai demain” ? Hannah Arendt vous donne le secret pour éviter la procrastination. - réalisation : Françoise Le Floch

In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.With Lyndsey Stonebridge Professor of Modern Literature and History at the University of East Anglia Frisbee Sheffield Lecturer in Philosophy at Girton College, University of CambridgeandRobert Eaglestone Professor of Contemporary Literature and Thought at Royal Holloway, University London Producer: Simon Tillotson. In Our Time is a BBC Studios ProductionSpanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Melvyn Bragg and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.