The Interpretations of Nazi Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin

Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin thought that Modernity was inextricably connected with the rise of totalitarianism. They each defined Modernity, modern philosophy, and totalitarianism somewhat differently, but they fundamentally agreed that the conditions of the early twentieth century allowed the Nazis to seize power and create a dictatorship of unparalleled violence and destruction that was even championed by many intellectuals. ;Arendt, Strauss, and Voegelin each had compelling---even dramatic---personal experiences of suffering because of the Nazis. They, nonetheless, held almost incompatibly differing views from each other about what totalitarianism was. Arendt developed an existentialist interpretation of totalitarianism. Strauss thought that totalitarianism was better understood as a modern form of classical tyranny, and modern tyranny was directly related to the abandonment of classical conceptions of natural right by modern Liberalism. Voegelin interpreted Nazi totalitarianism as the outgrowth of a spiritual failure in modernity to recognize transcendental reality and the desire of ideological extremists to find a complete and immanent explanation of human existence. ;A discussion of the agreements and disagreements between Arendt, Strauss, and Voegelin helps to illuminate the issues and problems associated with studying Nazi totalitarianism. The concentration camps are the most dramatic manifestation of totalitarianism and dominate the thought of Arendt. Strauss and Voegelin sought, instead, to understand how men could be motivated to justify the necessity of the camps. Voegelin and Arendt disagreed over whether the ideology was essentially a rationalization or the actual cause for the concentration camps to become death camps. Voegelin concluded that the ideology led to the death camps. What becomes evident in this study is that the role of ideology in totalitarianism implied the logical progression toward a moral justification for violence and, ultimately, genocide

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism, and the social sciences.Peter Baehr - 2010 - Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
China the Anomaly Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Maoist Regime.Peter Baehr - 2010 - European Journal of Political Theory 9 (3):267-286.
Platón en la relación intelectual de Eric Voegelin y Leo Strauss.Bernat Torres Morales & Josep Monserrat Molas - 2011 - Anales Del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 28:275-302.
Hannah Arendt and the Redemptive Power of Narrative.Seyla Benhabib - 1990 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 57 (1):167-196.
Language and Loneliness: Arendt, Cavell, and Modernity.Martin Shuster - 2012 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (4):473-497.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references