—Ron Rosenbaum, “The Evil of Banality: Troubling new revelations about Arendt and Heidegger”, Slate, Friday, 30 October 2009, 12:37 PM ET
lt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosoph y.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.peeves,alt.fon dle.vomit,rec.arts.books
Subject: Hannah Arendt's Wrinkled Cunt (was re: PHILOSOPHIC CHALLENGE!)
From: email@example.com (Mikhail Zeleny)
Date: 15 Aug 93 02:14:28 EDT
du> <13AUG199323480156@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.e du>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
In article <13AUG199323480156@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.e
firstname.lastname@example.org (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug13.email@example.com
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <12AUG199321221266@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.e
>>email@example.com (KRESSJA) writes:
>>>Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
>>>of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
>>>phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
>>>so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
>>>atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
>>>Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
>>>thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
>>>have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.
>>I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
>>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
>I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I had thought that you were offering Arendt's
>report of Eichmann to help further the philosophical debate. I see now
>that you had no pretensions to philosophical, or polite, or even human
>discourse. Why are you on this board then? If you don't have anything
>better to do than spit sexist, sopomoric, anti-semetic bile, then I
>cordially invite you to go away, and not trouble us.
What philosophical debate? Do you truly have the naivety required to
dignify the borborygmic exchange of pleasantries between my esteemed
predecessors with that lofty appellation? Still, you are quite right,
-- I have absolutely no pretensions to any sort of "discourse".
Instead, I come here only to speak my mind, and, on occasion, to vent
my spleen. Should you choose to follow up my uncouth expression with
an effort of your own, I offer no guarantees to reply you in kind,
whatever it might be. As regards your charges, I plead guilty on all
counts: sexist and sophomoric and anti-semitic enough to be amused by
the unmitigated schlockiness and banality of an up and coming Jewish
philosophy student advancing her academic career in the traditional
fashion, by fucking her "Blood and Soil" proto-Nazi professor, or by
the unbridled presumption evinced by the same woman three decades
later, in assuming the high moral ground and publishing her scathing
condemnation of the banal, cowardly, and altogether scrofulous
victims, perpetrators, and bystanders in the greatest mass murder in
the human history, ever so nicely typeset on glossy paper, between
full-color advertisements of Steuben crystal, Tiffany jewels, and
Mercedes automobiles. Surely the redoubtable Miss Arendt had earned
the right to advance her career by the customary means; and if in the
midst of unprecedented pan-European carnage that claimed the lives of
twenty million men (including half of my immediate family), and
prompted a like number (including the rest of my kin), man and woman
alike, to take up arms against the oft-unwitting, yet exceedingly
enthusiastic followers of Herr Rektor's snazzy philosophical doctrine,
our intrepid heroine chose to sit out the hostilities in the cushy
haven of the American academe, no one should construe her reticence to
risk her own hide as abridging her subsequent right to decry from her
tony tribune the shameful shortcomings of her contemporaries on both
sides of the great conflict. Mea culpa.
>>dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
>>moral obtuseness and even obliviousness.
>It would seem that you lack the basic capacity for self-reflection.
Fer sure, whatever you say, bubba.
>>I submit that Baudelaire is
>>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>>Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
>>attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
>>greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
>>the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
>>judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
>>followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
>>their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
>I feel little need to justify myself to you, at this point.
Please do not flatter yourself by presuming that I stand in need of
> Since you
>seem to need something to do with your time, however, you might look up
>the Fallacy of Composition and the Genetic Fallacy.
I might do just that, but for the fact that neither of the above is
instantiated in anything that has been said earlier.
You are mistaken.
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."