I was attacked because they said I hated my race, which meant defending the Nazis and despising my own race. This is not a debate at all, it is a slander!
I've never written a single word of defense for Eichmann, but I did try to reconcile this utterly banal man with his sensational villainy. Trying to understand is not the same as forgiving, I see understanding as my duty, the duty of all who put pen to paper on this subject.
Beginning with Socrates and Plato, what we usually call thinking, I begin a silent dialogue with the self. Refusal to be a human being, Eichmann completely surrendered that characteristic of being a human being, that is, the ability to think, so he no longer has the ability to make moral judgments. One possibility, committing a crime on a massive scale, something like this is something the world has never seen before, it's true.
I have thought about these issues with philosophical methods. The wind of thinking shows not knowledge, but the ability to distinguish right from wrong, the ability to judge beauty and ugliness. It is my hope that thinking can give people the power to prevent catastrophe in these few moments, in times of crisis.
With the comments of my friend Hans: "I came here with an unrealistic wish, hoping to reason with you, but you will never change. Hannah, because of your arrogance, you are not interested in Jewish affairs. Incorrigible ignorance, you turned a court trial into a philosophy lesson. You looked down on us Jews by posing as high-ranking German intellectuals, you accused us of being accomplices in the Holocaust, and you could never accept the shameless betrayal by the Germans for you, they drove you away and killed you if they could, your friend Eichmann is responsible for the car that Goul drove, and if you weren't lucky enough to get away in time, you'd stay there The same thing happened to the women who were there. They were transported away, transported to those .
(Let's look at this accusation from Hans, the first half is a personality attack that doesn't involve opinions, the middle part appeals to emotion to show that Hannah shouldn't do this, and the last part is known by the unknown, assuming that if not lucky, Hannah is also a big Victim of the massacre. None of the three logical fallacies make sense, and at the same time Hannah has interrupted many times to express her feelings, but he has repeatedly expressed her feelings. It is difficult to say that he has empathy.)
"Everyone wants to prove me wrong, but no one notices my real mistake. Evil cannot be both trite and radical at the same time. Only extremes constitute evil, never radical. Only good things can be both great and radical. radical."
Conversation with husband
Husband: "Would you still write about this trial if you had known in advance what happened?"
Hannah: "Yes, I can still write, maybe I have to figure out who my real friends are,"
Finally, I would like to add my own experience of reading and watching movies. It is understandable to defend one's point of view with an emotion, especially a legitimate emotion. Therefore, it is the shrewdness of the master. The current disputes will follow the history and achieve a fair result.
View more about Hannah Arendt reviews
