Keeping Company With Oneself (Arendt on Eichmann contra Kant) a lecture by JUDITH BUTLER

The lecture Judith Butler gave was a response to Hannah Arendt, furthermore on how Arendt attempted to understand the actions of Adolf Eichmann. Arendt in her writing discussed how Eichmann was condemned to death for the wrong reason, she proceeds to speak on behalf of a judge and herself in response to statements spoken by Eichmann during his real trial to explain on what true bounds Eichmann should have been condemned. According to Arendt Eichmann should have been condemned to death for lack of thinking. The idea of thought is the topic which Butler focuses on along with its relationship to oneself, judgment and humanity.
When Eichmann was being tried he stated to “have lived a life according to Kant”. Arendt uses Eichmann’s claim to Kantianism to show his failure to think and judge in practical reason and thus show a lack of value for human life. Eichmann according to Arendt took the decision in his own right with whom to share the earth and so no other being should share the earth with him. Thus came in Butler with the idea of the I and We and if we can separate the two or is judgment a plurality of the self because we are ourselves but part of a larger humanity which is what Eichmann failed to see. Eichmann committed a crime against plurality, so in the voice of plurality is that which she condemns him in her writing. Another main point in Arendt’s piece was that human judgment was not bound by existing law, questioning its legitimacy. In addition that sometimes the law is incorrect and is not an excuse for practical reason.
Being a part of a larger humanity Butler then came in to discuss the plurality of the self. Responsibility is the act of thinking and it is by thinking that we maintain company with ourselves. The self is redoubled and didactic. To think is to be in open and silent dialogue to have a conscience and responsibility. As splitting and division of oneself is a pre condition of responsibility. Having a split presence is being conscientious and the splitting off is the leaving of conscience. Thus those who rejected the Nazi were disobedient to the law but still had their conscience, as opposed to those we were obedient to the Nazis were divided with the self and to such a degree were not in conversation with the self which meant that they were NOT thinking and not being responsible. Eichmann was divided from himself and not thinking, he did not see himself as a larger part of humanity and committed mass murder. According to Butler in response to Arendt he lost his right to the plurality of being human and his right to live.
This lecture brought up the death penalty and whether it is a just means for punishment. Also in questioning the legitimacy of the law the question was raised who has the right to decide when to be obedient and disobedient. Is it possible for one to be in dialogue with oneself (to have a conscience) and firmly believe that one’s actions are justified? Are these not the grounds with which Holy Wars have been started?