"About the Revolution"

first The unique thinker that Arendt, I would borne away in feeling that you want to strongly at the same time and attracted, also strongly resistance. A wide range of deep culture and, insight, supported by it. Oozing even while being restrained, love for human beings, and, unique thought language. It's what the very top-notch thinkers, but that's why, there is a place to come shakes here of the existential to the strange. The reason is that what wonder, and it has been thought for a long time, once you read this book, indeed, Arendt's a too impressive "critics", that there is that it was strangely convinced I thought. By making full use of the wide range of liberal arts in freely, to capture sharp historical or contemporary events. But that ability is too too impressive, I also all events, including, but she thought that would be housed comfortably within the frame of the, there is such uncomfortable. It is, of course, there is a condition of strong philosophical thinking. But I, in its style, was carrying at the same time subtle discomfort and admire you. Although totally personal taste issue, I like Arendt, "world I'm this happens, but what would be so" to "criticism" style that, you feel some uncomfortable. I, hopes polish that "it is possible to envision so much affluent society Come to think of it like this, Come What about", such a style rather. And though it is completely personal taste issue, unique thinkers that Arendt, like this, there is something like make me thinking from the ground what it means to "idea". Anyway, for this book. While comparing the American Revolution and the French Revolution, why the former to some extent "success", why the latter ended in "failure", you are trying to sharp analysis. What is a revolution, something its significance is, and how if, whether we can create a prosperous society. Thinking of Arendt is still Saewata~tsu. 1. Meaning of revolution According to Arendt, the purpose of the revolution is the "freedom of establishment". It does not mean liberation from mere old power. Arendt says. "Would be released when the (liberation) and freedom (freedom) is obvious is not the same. Although release is in the freedom of conditions, there is no intended bring never automatically free. And of release notion is included in among the, if not out of the realm of Negative to be considered. Therefore not the same thing as the desire to even the intention to release it. " Regardless distinguish between liberty and freedom. Revolution and is not a liberation from mere old power, which means a "new beginning" with the aim of freedom of configuration. And also, the he must such. Arendt says so. Similar to the phenomenon of "revolution that can not be explained only change, is not sufficient explanation alone violence. In other words, occurs a change in the sense of a new beginning, set a governance form of violence is completely different, a new political body is used to form, only if the release from oppression is aiming to at least freedom of construction, it is to be able to talk about revolution. " 2. The American Revolution and the French Revolution Well, the revolution that happened in reality in the, really really, I wonder was aimed at freedom of configuration "new beginning". In the evaluation of Arendt, the American Revolution was so. But the French Revolution, have no choice but to say it was a revolution that failed to freedom of configuration. For some reason. In the French Revolution, freedom of the purpose of the revolution that the configuration is, because had been converted unawares to extinction of "social problems" of "poverty". This has become a direct contributing cause of the terror by Robespierre. So Arendt said. "I unleash terrorism, and the drove up to the downfall of the revolution is a necessity [poverty], was the people of tense deficiency." "During this time the revolution is changing its direction, it had become no longer freedom of revolutionary purpose." At the bottom of the desire of solving social problems of poverty of extinction, there is sympathy for the poor. This, Rousseau is brought to social thought, Robespierre is practice, thus it is power that sparked a terror. So Arendt see. . "The compassion that were considered virtues of the source, have demonstrated that you have the ability to become cruel than cruelty itself" for compassion, for love human beings against, non-humanly and familiar! "- -. These words that were almost out punching in any from among the petition section was addressed to the National Convention with Paris Commune, nor also extreme rather than be one of accidental This is a word of mercy of truth It is there By the way, in my opinion, Rousseau criticism of Arendt is something somewhat unfair. "Social Contract," I wrote in the pages of, as Rousseau, is respected, thinkers also are hated at the same time is not in the other. And one of the reasons why he is hated horribly, the Robespierre is in the place where had appointed himself the faithful embodies's Rousseau's theory. There are Rousseau is at the root of terror. This was long in common belief. But in my opinion, this criticism is something almost unfair. For example, Arendt Although regarded as a violent concept to request a "perfect match" and "general will", this is a criticism that was removed exactly the target. "General will" is, social power is a principle of "legitimacy" only be referred to as "legitimate", of power that when it can on behalf of the "will" of all citizens, fully to match everyone's interests not simply the principle of the requirement that such must be (see page of Rousseau "Social Contract"). Also, certainly Rousseau has been preached the importance of "compassion," "mercy" (see page of Rousseau "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality"), because that, and the like Horobose thoroughly rich for the poor I did not say a word to. I do think Rousseau criticism of Arendt is the unfair is, like this, there is a place where Arendt has gone interprets Rousseau quite forcibly their own context. Anyway, we intend to move ahead. French Revolution, whereas had to convert the purpose and to solve social problems from the free configuration as above, the American Revolution is, from beginning to end, was Perpetuate the purpose of freedom of configuration. "The American position is actually declared, all mankind are not to be more than the fact that they need a government that has been civilized. In contrast, the French stance is, independent of the political body , also the external rights are declared to be present, further progressing, this so-called right - that of human beings as a human right - have rights and equal view of the citizens. " French Revolution, people gave birth to the idea that it is equally born. This, however, would speak, it led to the idea to deny all power and domination. However, human beings, along with others, yet in order to live as a free present, what is public, it needed or "political body" is. In order to be free, to establish a public space that can guarantee freedom. Americans knew this thing. So Arendt said. The reason, she is described as follows. First, the fact that the United States has caused a revolution in the lower "limit monarchy" in the United Kingdom. The French Revolution was a revolution under "absolute monarchy". People had to be first anyway overthrown the power absolutely. Therefore, he idea of ​​the revolutionaries who make up the new power was not born easily. In contrast, in the United States, the idea of ​​constituting a "power" better than alternative to "limit monarch" has been present from the beginning of the first place. Alternatively, the "social issues" that like France "poverty" is I was also fortunate that there was little in the United States. (Referred to slavery, but further problems that obscure the poverty problem was present.) So, we that were able to continue defined the purpose of the revolution always to the "freedom of the Configuration". something that the American Revolution was taught to we. Arendt says. It is human only in the human connection that was based on a multiple of, thing that truly humanly possible "activities", and. "It's reliable also human as individuals, live in more than one person on this planet rather than one person, is because between them there is a fact that shaped the world. People from the human nature of pitfalls and the save is the man of this world of. " The "power, and the only human attributes that people are able to each other knot is related to each other among the founding act by keeping the promise without the promise, only applies to interventional (in-between) space of the world it is. And it would be fair to see the best of human ability in the political area. " (Most Arendt, subsequent America are disappointed that it was not possible to sustain and develop such a revolutionary spirit.) 3. = The space appeared to be free Thus Arendt of the question, people are what society there is a need to make in order to become free, continue to fruition to the thing. Her answer is exactly the same in principle as that shown in the primary work "human condition" (see page of Arendt "human condition"). "Public without sharing the happiness not be said that everyone is happy, everyone is without experience of public freedom is also not be said to be free and to participate in public power to share it to none, I can not "to the fact that everyone is happy is free. The space for such freedom, Arendt called a "spatial manifestation." "Freedom in Positive sense is possible only between the equal persons. The equality itself, by no means universally valid principle, and also with the marginal pickled, inside the space limitations only The present invention can be applied such free spaces, -. Rather than using intact John Adams terms, just speaking according to its gist - manifestation of the space (space of appearance) can also be referred to as a use. " First, equal - and good is better to translate and equal than translated as equality I believe - is a condition. And, as equal presence with each other, I someone, you are someone, and, mutually vividly the question dress space. This is the space appear. Where flying about the diverse opinions (opinion), people are all the "" expressed, to discuss, and determining "engaged in activities" that can. Our political society, something that is easy to will be moved in the decision by the "representative" of our citizens absence. But we, mutually expressed as much as possible everyone opinion, it is necessary to plan the society so that it can leave appear in political society. The first time to become so, we he can be a reality a free society. Arendt argue so.