The evil of mediocrity arises when one gives up thinking. The word evil always seems to be associated with adjectives like extreme, radical, cruel, disgusting, etc., as if anything else is not evil. Just like an inherent impression, ordinary people are difficult to get rid of, intellectuals are difficult to get rid of, and victims who have been beaten by evil forces are even more difficult to get rid of. But the truth is that irony, in addition to the diabolical evil, there is the trite, inconspicuous, and far more general, banal evil that exists between you and me. The evil of mediocrity may exist among the perpetrators, just like Eichmann who was judged, because he gave up thinking and strictly obeyed orders, so that countless lives were lost. However, he is not extreme anti-Semitism or anti-humanism, he just operates like a machine, and he does not even choose to think when he is tried, but just repeats his work process like a repeating machine. And the evil of mediocrity may also exist on the side of the victim. When emotions take the upper hand of reason, the thinking brain is also blinded, so there is the so-called nationalism that has been quietly restored to seek justice. As the film says, you are judging the killer, or you are becoming the killer. The court is not a place to kill people wantonly in order to quell the anger of the people, or even if Eichmann bears legal responsibility, there must be a one-to-one corresponding justified reason, just like the defense given by Eichmann, is Can speak for itself. In the end, the strangulation of "justice" is not clear, which is a bit ironic. Finally, is it possible for the so-called rational thinker to carry the shadow of banal evil? In fact, I think there is. Heidegger spent his life thinking, thinking about existence, thinking about time, thinking about thinking itself, but in the end he was on the side of the Nazis. Because thinking leads to choice, choice triggers the deepest evil in people, which is selfishness. At least from the impression I got in the film, I think Heidegger gave up thinking about what the Nazi party would do to tens of thousands of lives, and chose to be in his own favor. I think it's also a banal evil. I think the heroine Hannah has it too. She can be said to be completely objective and fair about this trial, not letting her emotions control her thinking, and even adding innovative and inspiring philosophical thinking. But for those victims like her, this is a betrayal that is even more grief-stricken than the perpetrators, and an existence that is even more detestable. I believe that those who accuse her are not all irrational nationalists, such as her two close friends, because this neutral indifference hurts the most, not to mention the wounds are still dripping with blood and want to kill The perpetrator's heart was still beating violently, and Hannah's actions were undoubtedly rubbing salt on the wounds of "my own". But Hannah didn't think, or When suppressing her emotions, she stopped thinking about these victims, including her own feelings, and chose the truth she pursued. It can be seen that there are mediocre and evil people, but there is no thinking that can lead to different results. If Eichmann hadn't given up thinking, everyone's ending, and his own, might have been different. If the Jews had thoughtful leaders, a third option might have been explored, reducing the number of victims. Even if people like Heidegger and Hannah carry or lead to banal evil, but because they are thinking, the fruit left to us later can give us the ability to recognize and fight banal evil, whether it is our own or others.
View more about Hannah Arendt reviews
