> But his friend Hannah Arendt took up many of his ideas in her opus The Human Condition (1958), which argues that political life, like aesthetics, is characterised by an innate, albeit now widely ignored, human need for self-display through performances that are not labour, or routine, or ritual, but what she, following Rosenberg, called ‘action’. Like her friend, Arendt was concerned that possibilities for action in our society were being eroded by mechanisation and bureaucratisation on the one hand, and, on the other, illusory forms of pseudo-action, ranging from the benumbing pleasures of the entertainment industry to the chimeras of mass politics.
I feel like there’s some insight here on how we all interact not just on HN but on social media/forums more broadly but i can’t quite connect the disparate ideas floating around in my head right now.
> But his friend Hannah Arendt took up many of his ideas in her opus The Human Condition (1958), which argues that political life, like aesthetics, is characterised by an innate, albeit now widely ignored, human need for self-display through performances that are not labour, or routine, or ritual, but what she, following Rosenberg, called ‘action’. Like her friend, Arendt was concerned that possibilities for action in our society were being eroded by mechanisation and bureaucratisation on the one hand, and, on the other, illusory forms of pseudo-action, ranging from the benumbing pleasures of the entertainment industry to the chimeras of mass politics.
I feel like there’s some insight here on how we all interact not just on HN but on social media/forums more broadly but i can’t quite connect the disparate ideas floating around in my head right now.
I read a lot of the article.
Like the paragraph you quoted, it feels to me like a mix of ideology and insights. But I am not quite sure where the separating lines are.