Arendt's Argument Analysis

At this point in history, wealth has become dominant in the judgement of the success of an individual by the community. Why is this the benchmark for success in society? I believe that this is because people view the wealthy as comfortable and happy with no worries or any stress on survival. The question I am looking to answer in this paper has to do with whether this “success” is truly what a human being should strive for. Arendt and Aristotle have different views on the importance of what we should judge as success in individuals even though they express these views under the same name. Living well and living are almost synonymous in Aristotle’s viewpoint, while Arendt explains that there is a distinct difference between these two viewpoints and explains further that the true goal of the person is to live well. Aristotle, in his

Animals are organisms who move in packs like humans do, but humans have the ability to think critically and engage each other. This is the true backbone of the political community that has seemingly lacked in modern society. We currently have a system that discourages public speaking of the issues that plague society in favor for the issues to be in control of the political elite. This is the inequality that Arendt believe exists in the household and has leaked into the community. Arendt’s argument really drives home the values in which our society should be judged by. Her point is an important one and highlights the problems that plague humans as social beings. Her argument, in my opinion, really modernizes the importance between living large and living well. Arendt drives the need for equality and a political life into the light and explains articulately that we have lost the distinction between the public and the private spheres that were separated for much of history but has seemed to combine in modern