Arendt and Nietzsche, both of who were political thinkers, in expression of their thoughts have capitalized on the issues of remembrance in their various articles, essays and writings. Though both thinkers have had divergent thoughts on various issues, their expression on the issue of morality in human beings in based on the remembrance of past experiences rather than the study of established laws; Arendt’s praising the significance of memory in politics while Nietzsche considers forgetfulness as a virtue.
The experience of totalitarianism in her life is one the major reasons that pushes Arendt to lay her emphasis strongly on the significance of memory in politics. The experience is always with us and therefore cannot and ought not to be forgotten. Survival of memory is believed to be quite crucial because the political future depends on it, which is why Arendt strongly emphasizes on the matter (Arendt 159). However, the idea of Nietzsche on the political future is not only the memory’s ability but forgetfulness as was also very crucial. This does not mean that we should forget the totalitarianism, but simply, the forgetfulness is required so that memory is preserved since it is important for the future. The manner that both Arendt and Nietzsche perceive the promises, which in this case are, their various perspectives, as well as their different proposals and methods, greatly reflects upon the answer of how to keep safe the past that is of relevance to our future in a political aspect (Arendt159).
According to Arendt (159), success that is based upon future control has been traced to various memory types. The promise is essentially the memory faculty that contains the power to take a group of people back to where they began, that is, at the point where they resolved on a certain aim or a purpose. The promise acts as a reminder which continuously bonds the group together in this sense. The bond also keeps linking the individuals back to the past which started and can also start again. For Arendt, this is the reason application of the promise is not an outside action but therefore, the group of people to become morally upright, must reflect on their past and conceive what happened to secure their future. Through the promise, the future is drawn closer to the past, thereby exercising its control by a reversal of time flow. This means that one is born in a past that is secured instead of a future that is uncertain.
Nietzsche’s conceives the promise in another different way but affirms his resolve to follow history to understand morality rather than studying the laws. Arendt has focused on Nietzsche’s writings, “On the Genealogy of Morals”, where he argues about the concept of breeding animals. According to Nietzsche, the robust health of animals is associated with its ability to forget. He therefore argues out that in order for human beings to be able to be relied on, they should ensure the animals forgetfulness is maintained, however, group conscious animals because humans are social animals (Arendt 160). Therefore, through imposing the “memory of the will” to the forgetful nature of the animal (human animal), this coincides with the forms of life socially and politically. Therefore, from the forgetfulness perspective the memory of the will, the societies can be knit together since no bringing forth animals that can make promises. The solitary animals can therefore serve the welfare of the society with utmost dedication. Therefore, according to Nietzsche, not by studying the laws set by a particular group can make a human being morally upright but following the theory of forgetfulness and the perception of the promise.
Living free life one that can be described as morally upright needs one to learn to live a life that is exclusive of the past failures, disappointments and regrets, says Arendt (Arendt 161). She remains consistent on the issue of keep the promise through forgiveness and forgetfulness. Though, Nietzsche agrees with the idea of forgetfulness, he distances himself from issue of forgiving since he believes that no one can truly forgive oneself. Nietzsche and Arendt arguments on the promise differ as one advocates for memory victory while the other advocates for the victory of forgetfulness (Arendt 159). For Arendt we have to consider the past to help us revolutionize the future since the past dominates the future in political setups.
In conclusion, the two political thinkers, Arendt and Nietzsche have based their argument about the issue of morals in human being based on their minds. They have focused on the conception of the promise as the sovereign control of human behavior, and political and social foundation. Though, they have different conceptions on the idea of the promise, their base of arguments are distanced from the studying of laws to understand morality. They both believe as well as build their argument and understanding of the human morality on the concept of reflecting on the past. For people to secure the future, they both agree the past has to be secured. Arendt takes the idea of understanding the past for the basis of remembering where we started to prevent such a start in future, Nietzsche takes the concept of forgetfulness to move on with life without association with the past. The political and social future of a country or a society is therefore tied on the two issues, memory and forgetfulness, according to the two scholars a good foundation of morality has to emanate from the same. Therefore this gives the reason why the two scholars devote on history to understand the human morality rather than laws.
Work cited
Arendt, Hannah., “Responsibility and Judgment” (2005). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Print.
