Talk:The Human Condition

message: The now-deleted "criticism" section appears to be original research by an IP belonging to "News International Ltd," a British newspaper publisher owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. 
I kind of agree with the content, but it was full of weasel words and had no citations. There are enough people writing about Ardent that we can at least get some cited criticism. Therealhazel (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  or 

message: Arendt attack on science has been very popular, but it is very misinformed and biased.
Proposal:
Chapter VI The Vita Activa and the Modern Age
Arendt argues for a tripartite division between the human activities of labor, work, and action. Moreover, she arranges these activities in an ascending hierarchy of importance, and identifies the overturning of this hierarchy as central to the eclipse of political freedom and responsibility which, for her, has come to characterize the modern age.
Chapter VI contains an unbridled attack on modern science with a curious focus on the telescope: her attack reveals a journalist's understanding of the geometry of space-time and a complete failure to distinguish "moral relativitism" from other relativisms or relativity. The 1st Edition capitalized "Being" but there is no reference to Heidegger and the book had no bibliography and a very inadequate index with no references to terms crucial to her remarks on her "fears" and "worries" about science. In this chapter she repeated conflates mathematics with mathematical physics, mathematical physics with experimental physics, natural science with experimental science in her reintroduction of Heidegger's diagnosis of Aristotle and the western world: in this chapter she has a lengthy plea for Plato which could usefully be contrasted to that of Iris Murdoch.
One of the most curious lapsus concerns the challenges faced by the historic makers and innovators of telescopes, for which see any of the several excellent articles at en.wikipedia.org   Note that glass was not unknown to her Attic Greeks nor was smelting unknown to them.  She appears unaware that Plato knew that for Pythagoras the Morning Star was identical to the Evening Star.
See my review at Amazon.com
Note: Heidegger never sat for his science and math exams; his teacher, Husserl, a mathematician, started in astronomy.  Until 1930 Arendt was a political ignoramus; she remained a scientific ignoramus and is now considered by scholars to be a bogus historical commentator - whcih leaves her as a thinker rather than a philosopher - Arendt onphysics is rather more like Tom Criuse on psychiatry than Richard Feynman on biology or nano-tech. I both studied phenomenology and continue to read phenomenologists in French and German; my Greek and Latin are adequate to reading Heidegger and Arendt.
See the wikip article on Emmy Noether for references for my Amazon review.
G. Robert Shiplett 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new Section VI will require references 

message: "Three great events stand at the threshold of the modern age and determine its character:
...
the invention of the telescope and the development of   a   new   science   that   considers   the   nature   of   the   earth   from   the 
viewpoint of the universe."
G. Robert Shiplett 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote from opening of Chapter VI "World Alienation" 

message: Link to the movies with the same name should be included  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.39.223 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the movies with the same name should be included 

message: This article is abysmally written. It is rife with ambiguities, contradictions, inconsistent usage of terms, unclear definitions, poorly crafted sentences, and seemingly irrelevant tangents. The article is sporadically cogent at best, and though the overall gist seems to be discernible, there are many points requiring clarification. Having never read The Human Condition, I cannot in good conscience attempt to rectify any errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or misrepresentations, regardless of how obvious or blatant they may appear. However, I can certainly say that this article is in desperate need of revision, and I'm hoping someone with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the book can help by turning this mess of an article into something informative and comprehensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.24.73 (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul sorely needed