Being Judgmental

[This is the second of two “re-blogs” resulting from the visit of our granddaughters last week. I have reworked it a bit.]

I have been reading Hannah Arendt’s excellent book, Responsibility and Judgment. In that book, like so many of her other books, she draws lessons from the debacle that occurred in Germany before, during, and after the Second World War. Chiefly, she reflects on the nature of evil, which she thinks is “banal,” and the fact that so many of us seem to be capable of it. Evil comes, she is convinced, from our unwillingness, if not our inability, to think.

Arnold Toynbee once said that thinking is as difficult for humans as walking on two legs is for a monkey and we do as little as possible the more comfortable we are. We all assume that if we open our mouths and utter an opinion the process involves thought. Such is not the case, however. As Socrates showed many times, our opinions most often are mere “wind eggs,” unexamined prejudgments that  prevent real thought by convincing us that we know when in fact we do not. To make matters worse, we are urged these days not to be “judgmental,” when, in fact, it is precisely judgment that is at the heart of thought.  For Socrates, as for Arendt, thought requires a constant dialogue within oneself, a conversation with oneself, if you will. It requires doubt and an insistence that we do not know in spite of our pretensions. As Socrates was fond of saying, we only know that we do not know — at least that is the claim he made for himself. We don’t seem inclined to take on his mantle of humility.

Evil is “banal,” precisely because it issues forth from men and women who do not seek evil ends, but who simply don’t want to be bothered to think about what it is they are doing. Those few who opposed Hitler in Germany, for the most part, were not the intellectuals (who are supposed to be the thinkers), but the ordinary men and women who carried on an inner dialogue with themselves and simply decided they could not “look themselves in the mirror,” i.e.,  cooperate with those who would do terrible things. They would rather die than cooperate with evil men.

Hopefully we will never be called upon to make decisions that make us party to evil; but we are called upon daily to question, to doubt, to consider, and to think about the things we do and the things we choose not to do. And when we have reached a conclusion, the doubt and thinking should begin again. When we have reached a point where we no longer feel doubt is necessary, we are in danger of falling into a dogmatic trap. As Kant would have it, “I do not share the opinion that one should not doubt once one has convinced oneself of something.” Doubt must be ongoing if it is to rise to the level of real thought. This is why engaging with people who disagree with us is so terribly important to real thought. Arendt is convinced that if the German people had been more (not less) “judgmental” during the 30s of the last century Hitler never would have risen to power and the Second World War and its atrocities would never have happened. Today it is precisely the tendency we show not to think and to associate only with others of like minds that is the greatest danger as we are surrounded by the bloat and rhetoric of the salesmen, politicians, and demagogues who would capture our minds and take them prisoner.

Our best hope for staying out of this prison is, of course, our schools. But it is clear that they have taken a wrong turn and are now preoccupied with job preparation instead of mental preparation, and with cultural diversity rather than intellectual diversity. This trend feeds into the lethargy that makes it just too much trouble to think seriously about what is going on around us. That is the trap it would seem we have indeed fallen into, preoccupied as we are with our own agendas and with creature comforts. We need to recall Socrates’ words, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”


8 thoughts on “Being Judgmental

  1. Great post. Even today, people tend to follow supposed news sources or blogs that agree with their points of view no matter how unfounded. They do not examine other points of view to challenge their own thinking. You must read David Brooks as well as Ruth Marcus, e.g. As for Hitler, he seized opportunity and through his oratorial skills, said others were responsible for Germany’s lethargic economy. That was the time, people should have openly questioned his rise. Once the juggernaut got going, it was hard to say “no.” BTG

  2. Are Brooks and Marcus saying anything that wasn’t said by Plato two thousand years ago? As Dewey said: the history of philosophy is merely a set of footnotes to Plato! Socrates was the ultimate fighting champion of open minds!

  3. Good point. I picked two of the pundits that at least had learned opinions. Then there are those whose opinions shall we say are less grounded in reality. I wonder if Plato had to contend with an Ann Coulter of his day.

    • There have always been sophists! And Plato hated them. Socrates was labelled as one and Plato made every attempt to rescue him from the charge!


  4. So then should those of us who knew that Bush and his grisly gang were a pack of evil fools refused to pay the taxes that supported their adventures?

  5. Arendt has uncovered what I believe to be one of the least interesting or important aspects of evil, the idea of its banality. I am more concerned and more aware of its ubiquitous nature. Everywhere we turn, we find someone (or a group of someones) treating another someone (or group of someones) in a way we all understand to be evil. America invades Iraq and millions of Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and who had done no evil to America, die and suffer in the process. No need to mention Nazi-lead Germany; Arendt has undertaken that chore for us. A smaller incident of personal experience: a homeless friend of mine here in San Diego is out on the street and witnesses a robbery of another homeless person. He is seen by the perpetrators and gets beaten up by them. He did nothing expect turn up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I am convinced the problem does not find its source in the lack of thinking on our part. Its the ubiquitous nature of evil which persuades me of its inherent nature in humanity. All of us, in great ways or in small way, have all done evil to our fellow man. Evil is not just the invading of other countries and the murder of millions; evil is also beating up one homeless man on the streets of San Diego. Evil is not always doing something actively to cause harm. Evil is also the withholding of assistance, the turning away of those in trouble and in need. I am guilty of this type of evil. We all are. And the problem is not that you and I do not think about these evils. We do, We are aware of our shortcomings, yet we continue to do them. No, the answer lies not with more and/or better thinking. The answer lies further within. The answer lies in a change of the human heart. The answer lies in the removal of the basic evil nature that exists within every human heart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s