How was such a terrible self-contradicting low intelligence retard so influential

Her writings on fascism, totalitarism and Banality of Evil in particular are still well regarded in the modern academia, both in social sciences, history and philosophy (unless you're studying in the UK) departments.

Those anons are full of shit.

not joking. I'm French btw, and there's this asshole called Emmanuel Faye who recently wrote a book against her. He's an ignorant asshole indeed, but there was a symposium last month where several other scholars were like, "yeah he's right, now we realize that she sucks".

Not a big enough sample to make such a statement

That's why I stated that I'm French. She's still regarded as an important philosopher of the 20th century. But it's more fashionable to despise her these days than it was 20 years ago, at least in France. I have no idea whether it's justified.

and by the way, just to confirm that "fashion" thing (graphic only concerns texts written in english).
I'm well aware that this does not prove anything, but I wasn't expecting such a noticeable drop when checking Ngram Viewer.

I've only read her major works but dear lord she is legitimately, in the unironic sense of the word, stupid.

what are the main arguments against her?

link?

Like I can't read a page or an opening from the Human Condition where she does not contradict herself or show her ignorance. It was very frustrating to read.

The entire aspect of the social taking over the public and private is silly and she can't keep digging her own grave with it?

CANT STOP DIGGING SORRY

youtube.com/watch?v=7ZcmNkSih04
Haven't watched the entirety of it.

One thing I remember (at the beginning of the symposium in youtube link) is this guy saying : "So, regarding Eichmann and totalitarianism, she criticizes the absence of thought. But come on, Heidegger just said the same thing about modern society in general, and she agrees with it. So what ? If what makes totalitarian society terrible is also what characterizes modern society in general, how can she pretend that it's specific to totalitarianism ? She's just following Heidegger by condemning modern days !"
(very roughly, heh - and I don't know her well enough to to add my judgment to this scholarly judgment)

interesting, I think Emmanuel Faye was saying the same thing

rather, her philosophy is shit because she praises Heidegger in ways that makes her critique of totalitarianism (as banal) flat out wrong, she basically contradicts herself

She bareley has any coherent internal logic in her books (not even talking about how coherent the logic is, there just is none)

>But come on, Heidegger just said the same thing about modern society in general, and she agrees with it. So what ? If what makes totalitarian society terrible is also what characterizes modern society in general, how can she pretend that it's specific to totalitarianism ? She's just following Heidegger by condemning modern days !

I see where he's coming from, but I think that's unfair to Arendt. She agrees with Heidegger that modernity fosters absence of thought, and in her own view this is particularly pronounced under the totalitarianism of the USSR and the Nazis, making them a kind of hyper-modernity. She sees Western liberal democracies creeping down this road (at the time, this was mostly from the Left and it's Communist parties), and warns against it in order to preserve what remains of freedoms of thought, conscience, etc in those countries, even in modern society.

her writings on totalitarianism are worthless because they have very little to do with a total control over government

this is all Veeky Forums is these days

you weren't influential

Is it true that you guys hate every philosopher that your country produced in the 20th century? Or only late ones?

If they do, the entire French people are vindicated.

Fuck 20th cent. French thinkers

I wouldn't say so. I can only think of two things that could back this opinion :
- a few famous ones have a reputation of being too easy to be worth studying (Alain, a little bit Bergson, Sartre, obviously Camus).
- the postmodern ones are strongly hated by people who have embraced the British analytic tradition (and by the non-analytic ones that criticize the "pensée 68", and believe that deconstruction leads to irrational chaos - our former Ministry of Education is one of these critics).
But none of these two critical positions is very strong. Bergson, Sartre, Deleuze, Foucault etc. are still taught in Uni and studied by PhD students.