Thanks Victor. Credit to you for your diverse and interesting reading list, and of course for sharing your perspectives, questions and thoughts so clearly and honestly.
I also struggle with this point a bit…admittedly I didn’t read the book (and probably won’t) so I have no context. I guess for me the question is one of desire or motivation. If the work output is done for the purpose (sole or partial) of “wanting” or desiring something else - praise, notoriety, money, ego, whatever - then I can somewhat understand her point.
There is an expression in Zen (of course there is, Mike) that Zen meditation (what’s called Zazen) is “good for nothing.” I understand that this means that we engage in the practice for its own sake and see it as an end in and of itself. Said different, the practice is not working towards something, it is something itself. Said more simply, the practice is the practice. This way we see the practice, or in Arendt’s case perhaps, the work output, as its own end, rather than as a way of achieving something else.
Not sure. But I am now reflecting my own desire to comment here ;)
Haha, of course there is, Mike. Thanks for the thoughtful comment as always. Given how focused Arendt was on western culture and its relentless pursuit of output, I wonder if her ideas would have been different with a heavy dose of eastern influence. Then again I haven't read much of her either, so maybe she does poke into that side elsewhere. A means to a means instead of a means to an end, right?
Oh, German philosophy! I wonder what word Arendt used when she translated this book into German. Depends on what she means by “good” of course, but isn’t the goal of a work output (a book, a painting, a movie etc.) to start a conversation with a person who reads//sees it and interprets it? This is where the life of an art work begins, no?
I think so! But it seems like she feels that a work is only exactly what it is before it's shared — fully pure, maybe. Not even in a snobby sense, just a literal one.
Thanks Victor. Credit to you for your diverse and interesting reading list, and of course for sharing your perspectives, questions and thoughts so clearly and honestly.
I also struggle with this point a bit…admittedly I didn’t read the book (and probably won’t) so I have no context. I guess for me the question is one of desire or motivation. If the work output is done for the purpose (sole or partial) of “wanting” or desiring something else - praise, notoriety, money, ego, whatever - then I can somewhat understand her point.
There is an expression in Zen (of course there is, Mike) that Zen meditation (what’s called Zazen) is “good for nothing.” I understand that this means that we engage in the practice for its own sake and see it as an end in and of itself. Said different, the practice is not working towards something, it is something itself. Said more simply, the practice is the practice. This way we see the practice, or in Arendt’s case perhaps, the work output, as its own end, rather than as a way of achieving something else.
Not sure. But I am now reflecting my own desire to comment here ;)
Keep the essays coming!
Haha, of course there is, Mike. Thanks for the thoughtful comment as always. Given how focused Arendt was on western culture and its relentless pursuit of output, I wonder if her ideas would have been different with a heavy dose of eastern influence. Then again I haven't read much of her either, so maybe she does poke into that side elsewhere. A means to a means instead of a means to an end, right?
Oh, German philosophy! I wonder what word Arendt used when she translated this book into German. Depends on what she means by “good” of course, but isn’t the goal of a work output (a book, a painting, a movie etc.) to start a conversation with a person who reads//sees it and interprets it? This is where the life of an art work begins, no?
I think so! But it seems like she feels that a work is only exactly what it is before it's shared — fully pure, maybe. Not even in a snobby sense, just a literal one.