Dismantling the Ivory Tower of Thinking

(Featured Image Source: tsonline on DeviantArt)

By Anabella Di Pego

“Thought, finally--which we, following the pre-modern as well as the modern tradition, omitted from our reconsideration of the vita activa--is still possible, and no doubt actual, wherever men live under the conditions of political freedom. Unfortunately, and contrary to what is currently assumed about the proverbial ivory-tower independence of thinkers, no other human capacity is so vulnerable, and it is in fact far easier to act under conditions of tyranny than it is to think. As a living experience, thought has always been assumed, perhaps wrongly, to be known only to the few. It may not be presumptuous to believe that these few have not become fewer in our time. This may be irrelevant, or of restricted relevance, for the future of the world; it is not irrelevant for the future of man.”

-- Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

The closing paragraph of The Human Condition refers to the act of thinking, an idea which is crossed by a paradox. Thought “is still possible, and no doubt actual,” but at the same time it is always conceived as a living experience of a few. The problematic question is not if these few have or “have not become fewer in our time.” It is whether the conditions that make thought possible have eroded despite the fact that our chances to cope with certain hazards in the 20^th century reside precisely with this faculty. “The future of man” is threatened by the uncertain future of thought, so this activity is shown in all its political implications. The decline of thinking could lead to the extinction of human life as we have specifically understood it until today. Therefore, Arendt’s book, which is dedicated to the vita activa, culminates with a call to thought--urgent but completely different from a call to arms—whose message is fundamental to the future of our common world. However, this return to thought in Arendt’s approach comes with a warning and a radical critique of the way in which thinking has been understood by the philosophical tradition.

[caption id="attachment_16123" align="alignleft" width="300"] (Source: Creepy Pasta)[/caption]

One of the central understandings of thought refers to the ivory tower representing one’s withdrawal from the world and the loneliness that would be necessary in order for one to engage in thinking--an activity that has been conceived mainly in a contemplative way. Arendt proceeds to dismantle this conception, warning us that it depends intimately on the world and that it requires “conditions of political freedom”. In this sense, the public space would not be merely an instance for the expression and dissemination of thought, but it would also require the confrontational dynamic of the public in order to continue to develop. Arendt argues that “it is in fact far easier to act under conditions of tyranny than it is to think” because where the spaces of interaction have been undermined, thinking cannot develop because it requires not only the inner dialogue of one with oneself but also the confrontation with potential critical partners.

Certainly, thinking requires a move away from the world that allows a more comprehensive look, but this never implies a disassociation from it, as does happen with the ivory tower where thought seems to remain sheltered from the inclemencies of the common world. Therefore, against the abstract character of philosophical thought, Arendt conceives of a positioned thought that remains rooted to the world that helped create it. This means that the objects of our reflection are the fundamental experiences of our time, that thought does not occur in solitude but requires plurality, at least, in potentiality. In this sense, Arendt understands that thinking does not require loneliness but solitude, which is something entirely different. When I am in solitude, I am not alone and unaccompanied as it happens in loneliness. I keep myself company in the dialogue of thought. Thinking produces a division of the self that enables a dialogue between me and myself. This is what Arendt called the “two-in-one”. In this duality, there appears an otherness, a form of plurality, which embodies the outstanding characteristics of the common world. Thinking, so conceived, represents a critique of the centrality and isolation of the subject, which not only prepares the self for the plurality of the world but can even, in extreme situations, constitute a possible safeguard.

[caption id="attachment_16124" align="aligncenter" width="531"] (Source: IMG Kid)[/caption]

Thinking does not imply a contemplative attitude that takes place protected in an ivory tower, but it is an activity that, although requiring certain withdrawal from the world, remains linked to it through the experiences that set it in motion and through the potential diversity of the two-in-one. Arendt thus defies the abstract philosophical thinking of the dominant tradition and, despite not having addressed thought in The Human Condition, ends by placing it in intimate connection with the vita activa. The fundamental task would be not only to highlight the political implications of thought but more precisely to break with the dichotomy between the perspectives of the actor and the spectator. Dismantling the ivory tower of thinking involves relocating the thinker as an actor in the world and at the same time proclaiming the urgent need for the actors to assume the task of thinking. Thinking is no longer an intellectual challenge, in this view, but a political task in which thinking itself gets a completely new meaning. Therefore, Arendt closes her book with the phrase of Cato: “Never is he more active than when he does nothing, never is he less alone than when he is by himself”. Thinking abandons passivity and loneliness and so becomes an activity that utilizes a potential plurality, which is a keystone for the future of our common world.