東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on T...

Holman, Thomas W.,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person // Thomas W Holman.
作者:	Holman, Thomas W.,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (282 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-07A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31639880
ISBN:	9798302167101

Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person /
Holman, Thomas W.,

Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person /Thomas W Holman. - 1 electronic resource (282 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.

The January 1953 issue of The Review of Politics contained an interesting exchange between Eric Voegelin and Hannah Arendt regarding her recently-released book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Voegelin provided a lengthy review of the book, while Arendt was given the opportunity to respond to Voegelin's criticisms in the same issue. This interesting arrangement reflected not only the stature of the two figures involved, but the weightiness of the issues at stake in their exchange. However, today there is little agreement as to the meaning of what was viewed at the time as an important meeting of minds on a timely subject.This dissertation revisits this exchange in order to demonstrate, contrary to the dominant view in the secondary literature, that Voegelin and Arendt show a remarkable convergence in their views on many of the issues that came up during this debate. The differences in opinion between Voegelin and Arendt are best characterized as a set of fundamentally compatible interpretative baselines. The disagreements in this debate are best read as surface-level questions of methodology that belie deeper strata of agreement. This is especially true regarding the question of who persons are and how they engage with their history.Engaging these thinkers over the longer arc of their intellectual development prior to and in the aftermath of their debate provides ample evidence that this is the case. Accordingly, this dissertation examines Voegelin's development from his early engagement with the methodological issues at play in the German-speaking universities after World War I, through his development of a theory of history that centered on an idea of persons who act out their nature through a meditative exegesis on what it means to be a person. However, Voegelin would not fully embrace these principles publicly until after the debate.Arendt evolved a remarkably similar understanding of persons. She emerged from her studies with Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers with a distinct philosophical focus on human existence. Over time, however, she developed her own unique understanding of what it means to be a person, by grappling with the meaning of her Jewish identity and the totalitarian atrocities in addition to her philosophical studies. In this way, she proceeded on a via negativa toward her understanding of the person and how to approach writing history in light of this understanding.During their debate, however, which on the surface focused primarily on historiographical issues, Arendt and Voegelin largely misunderstood each other. They focused primarily (as later scholars do) on surface-level methodological topics rather than the more central issues of persons and how they relate to their history, which had been an important theme for both in their work up to the debate and in the years immediately after it. During this period, they converge in their thinking about persons and their history in three ways: First, they came to agree that a focus on the experience of persons is foundational for understanding the past; second, that there is no apodictic "definition" of the person; and finally, that persons are always capable of transcending the facts of history. Persons are always shaped, but never determined, by their history.

English

ISBN: 9798302167101Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Voegelin, Eric

Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person /
LDR:04707nmm a22004333i 4500 001 2429806
005 20250430094136.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2025 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798302167101
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31639880
035 $a AAI31639880
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Holman, Thomas W., $e author. $0 (orcid)0000-0001-5714-3078 $3 3817839
245 1 0 $a Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin on Totalitarianism and the Person / $c Thomas W Holman.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2025
300 $a 1 electronic resource (282 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Walsh, David Committee members: Gustafson, Sarah; Promisel, Michael.
502 $b Ph.D. $c The Catholic University of America $d 2025.
520 $a The January 1953 issue of The Review of Politics contained an interesting exchange between Eric Voegelin and Hannah Arendt regarding her recently-released book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Voegelin provided a lengthy review of the book, while Arendt was given the opportunity to respond to Voegelin's criticisms in the same issue. This interesting arrangement reflected not only the stature of the two figures involved, but the weightiness of the issues at stake in their exchange. However, today there is little agreement as to the meaning of what was viewed at the time as an important meeting of minds on a timely subject.This dissertation revisits this exchange in order to demonstrate, contrary to the dominant view in the secondary literature, that Voegelin and Arendt show a remarkable convergence in their views on many of the issues that came up during this debate. The differences in opinion between Voegelin and Arendt are best characterized as a set of fundamentally compatible interpretative baselines. The disagreements in this debate are best read as surface-level questions of methodology that belie deeper strata of agreement. This is especially true regarding the question of who persons are and how they engage with their history.Engaging these thinkers over the longer arc of their intellectual development prior to and in the aftermath of their debate provides ample evidence that this is the case. Accordingly, this dissertation examines Voegelin's development from his early engagement with the methodological issues at play in the German-speaking universities after World War I, through his development of a theory of history that centered on an idea of persons who act out their nature through a meditative exegesis on what it means to be a person. However, Voegelin would not fully embrace these principles publicly until after the debate.Arendt evolved a remarkably similar understanding of persons. She emerged from her studies with Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers with a distinct philosophical focus on human existence. Over time, however, she developed her own unique understanding of what it means to be a person, by grappling with the meaning of her Jewish identity and the totalitarian atrocities in addition to her philosophical studies. In this way, she proceeded on a via negativa toward her understanding of the person and how to approach writing history in light of this understanding.During their debate, however, which on the surface focused primarily on historiographical issues, Arendt and Voegelin largely misunderstood each other. They focused primarily (as later scholars do) on surface-level methodological topics rather than the more central issues of persons and how they relate to their history, which had been an important theme for both in their work up to the debate and in the years immediately after it. During this period, they converge in their thinking about persons and their history in three ways: First, they came to agree that a focus on the experience of persons is foundational for understanding the past; second, that there is no apodictic "definition" of the person; and finally, that persons are always capable of transcending the facts of history. Persons are always shaped, but never determined, by their history.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0043
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a History. $3 516518
650 4 $a American studies. $3 2122720
653 $a Voegelin, Eric
653 $a Arendt, Hannah
653 $a Personalism
653 $a Totalitarianism
653 $a Twentieth century
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0323
690 $a 0578
710 2 $a The Catholic University of America. $b Politics. $e degree granting institution. $3 3817837
720 1 $a Walsh, David $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-07A.
790 $a 0043
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2025
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31639880