本周，肯和约翰讨论了汉娜•阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)，一位政治理论家(有些人可能会说他是哲学家)，其丰富的知识生涯跨越了20世纪四分之三的时间。她对学术界的贡献很大程度上与政治和极权主义有关，并探索了公共领域，作为一个阶段，引导和定义了使我们成为人类的重要方面。她在纳粹主义高潮时期生活在欧洲的德国犹太妇女的经历将她的工作和个人生活编织成一个紧密的整体。她的研究领域深深植根于她的个人历史，而不仅仅是她自己智力思考的表达，这为她的工作增加了可感知的意义。

本周的嘉宾，Seyla Benhabib，被要求谈谈阿伦特政治理论中的政治行动，并帮助深入探讨阿伦特思想中的一些关键元素。劳动和工作之间有这样的区别，这有助于向阿伦特介绍行动的重要性。特别是，这是阿伦特的概念，公共空间作为一个论坛的政治讨论和行动，Seyla讨论。

In Arendt’s view, the public space, a place for the exchange of political ideas and actions, is exactly what is eliminated by Totalitarian regimes. This action is often rooted in speech. It’s these actions that occur in the public sphere in which we reveal ourselves to each other. Totalitarianism undermines this crucial element of the public sphere. It takes away spontaneous interaction, which is a part of the human condition.

接着，对话转到阿伦特的一个著名而又被误解的概念——“邪恶的平庸”。塞拉谈到了好人是如何在大规模的官僚机构中陷入作恶的机器中。约翰提出了当前的国际政治，考虑到美国在战争时期参与海外事务，以及在海外使用酷刑。
Ken问Seyla，互联网是否是阿伦特意义上的公共空间的新实例。Seyla认识到它是促进公众互动的重要新媒体。但它也未能满足阿伦特概念所隐含的某些要求。有了互联网，相互理解和接受并不一定会变得容易，特别是因为匿名是可能的。虽然通信和信息的空间在增加，但我们亲自沟通的义务也在减少，这造成了更大的碎片化。阿伦特希望我们与公共领域的互动是一种体验，我们从他人的角度学习，走出个人的角度。

But Ken wonders whether it’s appropriate to assign such a greater weight to what we do in the public sphere, rather than in the private one, as Arendt does. It is not obvious why our actions in the public domain are so crucial to defining who we are. Seyla explains that we need moments where we engage with common interests, transcend ourselves, and emerge as a civic actor. Politics is not always like that, but it has its moments. This emphasis is not made at the expense of private interests either, because the political sphere is transformative. Individuals have to communicate and translate their interests into that which is of concern to everyone. We are thus forced to try and realize what is common to all of us.

• Roving Philosophical Report(SEEK TO 00:04:59): Julie Napolin speaks with Karen Feldman, an assistant professor of German from UC Berkeley, to find out the difference between who we are and what we are. Karen relates Arendt’s notion that what we are is defined by labels like ‘woman’ and ‘vegetarian’, whereas who we are is revealed by what we do in the political domain. Melissa Friedman, from the Epic Theater Ensemble, discusses how Arendt’s ideas relate to her work with public speech and action in theater. A play called “When Hannah Met Martin” explores some of Arendt’s lessons by looking at her own life and her relationship with Martin Heidegger.

• Conundrum(SEEK TO 00:45:43): William is from the college of Charleston in South Carolina. He is upset about the degree of smoking on campus and has spoken to everyone he can in the administration, but the school argues that they are not allowed to discriminate against smokers and cannot implement any bans on smoking. John speaks with William and takes a page out of Arendt’s book, and encourages him to separate his personal concerns from those relating to the entire situation. He might have more success if he appeals to the motives that help the entire students body and not just himself.