PortadaGruposCharlasMásPanorama actual
Buscar en el sitio
Este sitio utiliza cookies para ofrecer nuestros servicios, mejorar el rendimiento, análisis y (si no estás registrado) publicidad. Al usar LibraryThing reconoces que has leído y comprendido nuestros términos de servicio y política de privacidad. El uso del sitio y de los servicios está sujeto a estas políticas y términos.

Resultados de Google Books

Pulse en una miniatura para ir a Google Books.

Cargando...

Sobre la violencia (1969)

por Hannah Arendt

MiembrosReseñasPopularidadValoración promediaMenciones
1,006820,453 (3.7)4
Based on an article in the "New York Review of Books" devoted mainly to refutation of the ideas of Sorel, Pareto, Fanon and others on the use of violence in a democratic system.
Cargando...

Inscríbete en LibraryThing para averiguar si este libro te gustará.

Actualmente no hay Conversaciones sobre este libro.

» Ver también 4 menciones

Mostrando 1-5 de 8 (siguiente | mostrar todos)
Now this was a very interesting read. I expected this to be book about nature of violence but it is actually book that looks at rise of violence in 1960's during the student riots that shook the Western world and also had an occurrence in the East at the time but (as expected) with lesser effect than in the West.

Author makes a very good distinction between power and violence and what links them. Power as a means of controlling the society through majority of populace and violence that gets used when power is not possible in order to subdue the populace by minority [of populace]. Once power that-is gets challenged and it does not have proper answer to critique it starts to lose its authority and this is something every politician is scared sh**less off. This is why it is important to ridicule every idiotic decision government makes - laughter is sometimes more powerful weapon than actual weapon.

It is important to remember that knife-drawing never happens at the beginning but at the end and one needs to make sure that final moment never takes place.

With this in mind we are given rather disturbing picture of the 60's from where all the couch revolutionaries come from. I say couch revolutionaries because all these fiery philosophers are very akin to stock market analysts of our days - they will spit on the very society that gives them means to live (majority are professors) and they will talk whatever they think is the ultimate truth while constantly avoiding the fact that their speeches will incite the masses that are trying to find the way to communicate with the powers-to-be to change things for a better. And when finally proverbial sh*t hits the fan they will just stand aside and say "who, me? nooooo I was misunderstood". I find it very disturbing that people that live off the spoken word so blatantly disregard the power of the same spoken word.

So in 60's Left (same one as today) became more and more violent (same as today), led by philosophers arguing that violent action is required to force the change. This was a shift because so far at that moment call to violence was coming usually from the Right while Left was usually concentrated on peaceful (or as peaceful as possible, or even short-lived violent approach) action. So turning to the violent ways was unexpected for the Left but that is what happened for the first time in 60's.

So what was the goal? Roots for rise of violence in Left can be found in what author calls loss of trust in the institutions and growing disaffection of people with the way states were ran and frustration because there seems to be no way of initiating the change through normal means. Governments and other state institutions got heavily bureaucratized in such a way that ordinary people get frustrated because they dont have anyone to contact to talk about their problems. Entire government basically became one after another commission that has no responsibility for anything, everything feels like a quick sand. But even in that case current governments are elected through democratic process so what is alternative? I agree with author that change needs to be done on existing system because pursuing some utopian dream will only bring tyranny through forced change - simply for a reason that such change brings vacuum that gets quickly populated by very aggressive and power hungry people (usually very unscrupulous) that can not be removed from power that easily (just look at Soviet Revolution or last year when it became obvious how unwilling are politicians to denounce their powers once they attain them). Chaos is never good starting point.

Author gives a very disturbing observations on how people during the riotous 60's started to raise important questions that were constantly addressed in a very sloppy way that laid the foundation for future discord (especially in case of racial questions). She shows how universities started to decay through introduction of ever more useless classes that become nothing more but verbal exercise of the futile kind. In the 1960's universities were tightly coupled to industrial and military endeavors and it was rightly so that students and academics wanted this to stop, but what was the result? Research (and people) from universities moved to private sectors thus leaving universities to develop more and more unproductive studies. I especially liked author's observations on rise of various studies about violence from almost everyone - from zoologists to political theoreticians that are nothing more than reiterations of already known facts.

Author also gives a very chilling (considering this was written in 1970) view of influence of science and technology - people from scientific fields (physical science, not metaphysical one) did not have much impact in the 60's but given time they would gain more and more (and that happened) until finally we dont end up in technocratic tyranny (where it seems we are going to, I hope this does not happen). And that will be tyranny no matter the prefix.

I like how author constantly brings forth the fact that humans are humans, we react to certain things in a certain way and as long despair and feeling of futility and frustration rises in populace (and current situation for me does not look much different than 60's) levels of violence will also rise. Government needs to find the way to connect back to the very people that gave them power and hopefully they will do it in a productive way like De Gaulle did in 60's that actually brought some change.

Very interesting read, sometimes dense (German passage were tough) but with good insight into working of government-politics-populace. Author does not seem to be pure theoretician but someone who has hands-on experience with how political activities can deviate in a matter of seconds.

Recommended. ( )
  Zare | Jan 23, 2024 |
Hannah Arendt has some fascinating things to say about the difference between violence and power. This book couldn't be more timely given the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

That said, her logic is glaringly broken when she diminishes the interests of Black students during the protests of the 60s, and this is shockingly out of place as a Jew who escaped the Nazis; to minimize the needs of a whole group of people given the racism of the time defies explanation.

Outside of this incongruity, it is a book worth reading given our seeming destiny to pursue aggression. ( )
  macleod73 | Sep 14, 2022 |
UBB-2
  Murtra | Jul 28, 2021 |
"El término "violencia", en su sentido más elemental, refiere al daño ejercido sobre las personas por parte de otros seres humanos. Los experimentos totalitarios del siglo XX ampliaron este uso de la violencia, a una escala y una intensidad inéditas en la historia de la humanidad, y es en este contexto donde cabe encuadrar esta obra perenne de Hannah Arendt. Para la filosofía política, la violencia objeto de su estudio tiene dos caras: la violencia organizada del Estado o aquella que irrumpe frente al mismo. Esto ha hecho que muchos pensasen que la violencia es sobre todo una forma de ejercicio del poder. La posición de partida de la autora en Sobre la violencia consiste en el estudio minucioso de la violencia política en sus encarnaciones extremas dentro del mundo contemporáneo y en su cuidadosa separación entre violencia y poder político; este último es el resultado de la acción cooperativa, mientras que la violencia del siglo XX está ligada al alcance magnificador de la destrucción que proporciona la tecnología."--Contratapa.
  katherinevillar | Mar 23, 2020 |
Over geweld door Hannah Arendt

Voor het eerst in 1969 verschenen en jammer genoeg nog brandend actueel.

Hoewel moeilijk te lezen is dit ook een super boeiend boek. Vol ideeën en theorieën die je hoofd doen gonzen en duizelen. Dat maakt dat je maar traag vooruit komt, maar dat maakt ook dat je tijd hebt om te onderlijnen, even na te denken en te herlezen.

In Over geweld gaat het niet alleen over geweld van individuen of groepen maar ook over geweld gepleegd door de overheid. Arendt legt ons ook het verschil uit tussen geweld en macht, sterkte en kracht en autoriteit. En die verschillen, hoewel ze louter taalkundig relevant lijken, maken niet enkel theoretisch maar ook praktisch veel duidelijk.
Door het lezen van dit boek begrijp je dat het praten over, denken over, beslissen over,… geweld ook heel hard gekleurd wordt door ons taalgebruik en onze kennis. Daarom is het lezen van boeken als Over geweld ook zo belangrijk.

Arendt waarschuwt voor de vooruitgang van de technologie, omdat die geweld zo veel makkelijker maakt (de destructieve meeropbrengst bijvoorbeeld). Ze verwittigt ons op allerlei vlakken. Ze heeft het over onmacht van macht (door te veel centralisatie), wat tot geweld gaat leiden. Ook zegt ze dat grootheid gepaard gaat met kwetsbaarheid. Ze toont aan dat er een willen en kunnen is en dat we misschien wel steeds meer (wetenschappelijk) kunnen maar dat we ons moeten blijven afvragen of we dat wel willen. We lezen dat hoe minder geld een land/persoon heeft hoe minder hij te verliezen heeft dus hoe sneller men geneigd zal zijn tot geweld.

Op quasi elke pagina lees je iets dat je aan het denken zet, je met verstomming slaat (had zij een glazen bol?), je boos maakt (hebben we dan niets geleerd?) of je blik verruimt.

Geweld heeft instrumenten nodig. Intelligentie, menselijkheid en empathie ook. Dit boek, is een boeiend instrument om jezelf tot een beter (begrijpend) mens te ontwikkelen. ( )
  Els04 | Apr 2, 2019 |
Mostrando 1-5 de 8 (siguiente | mostrar todos)
sin reseñas | añadir una reseña
Debes iniciar sesión para editar los datos de Conocimiento Común.
Para más ayuda, consulta la página de ayuda de Conocimiento Común.
Título canónico
Información procedente del conocimiento común inglés. Edita para encontrar en tu idioma.
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Fecha de publicación original
Personas/Personajes
Lugares importantes
Acontecimientos importantes
Películas relacionadas
Epígrafe
Dedicatoria
Primeras palabras
Citas
Últimas palabras
Aviso de desambiguación
Editores de la editorial
Blurbistas
Idioma original
DDC/MDS Canónico
LCC canónico

Referencias a esta obra en fuentes externas.

Wikipedia en inglés (2)

Based on an article in the "New York Review of Books" devoted mainly to refutation of the ideas of Sorel, Pareto, Fanon and others on the use of violence in a democratic system.

No se han encontrado descripciones de biblioteca.

Descripción del libro
Resumen Haiku

Biblioteca heredada: Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt tiene una Biblioteca heredada. Las Bibliotecas heredadas son bibliotecas personales de lectores famosos que han sido compiladas por miembros de Librarything pertenecientes al grupo Bibliotecas heredadas.

Ver el perfil heredado de Hannah Arendt.

Ver la página de autor de Hannah Arendt.

Debates activos

Ninguno

Cubiertas populares

Enlaces rápidos

Valoración

Promedio: (3.7)
0.5
1
1.5
2 4
2.5
3 26
3.5 3
4 29
4.5 2
5 12

 

Acerca de | Contactar | LibraryThing.com | Privacidad/Condiciones | Ayuda/Preguntas frecuentes | Blog | Tienda | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas heredadas | Primeros reseñadores | Conocimiento común | 203,230,303 libros! | Barra superior: Siempre visible