University of Isfahan Metaphysics 2476-3276 16 38 2024 09 22 A Philosophical Dialogue Between Arendt and Kundera: Poetic Individuality against History’s Humor A Philosophical Dialogue Between Arendt and Kundera: Poetic Individuality against History’s Humor 121 142 28308 10.22108/mph.2024.140368.1536 FA Aref Danyali Assistant professor , Department of Theology , Gonbad Kavous University, gonbad Kavous, Iran. Morad Esmaeeli assistant professor, Department of Persian Language and literature , Gonbad Kavous University, gonbad Kavous, Iran Journal Article 2024 01 08 The central focus of this article with an interdisciplinary approach revolves around the common concern shared by Hannah Arendt and Milan Kundera: the perils of history for the individual. A general question to ask in this research is why Arendt and Kundera in their books distrust History’s forces. This implies that the individual, under the influence of impersonal appeals and invisible hands, erases oneself from memory and surrenders to suprahuman forces. Totalitarianism has consistently drawn the individual into submission through the support of these suprahuman historical forces. Hence, according to Arendt, Eichmann, for instance, was corrupted by history, as he was stripped of any personal decision-making and choice, solely entrusting himself to the quasi-divine voice of history. Beyond these historical strategies, any transformative action becomes impossible. Returning to action (in Arendt's terms) and guarding the legacy of the novel (in Kundera's terms) constitute resistance against such historical overreach. In Arendt's view, every action initiates its narrative, while, according to Kundera, the novel's memory records experiences forgotten by official history. As a result, Arendt and Kundera prefer personal history over public history, action over reaction, and decision over command. Therefore, Arendt emphasizes the significance of action, and Kundera underscores the independence of the novel against history. Both advocate loyalty to a poetic individuality that is increasingly fading into oblivion in the modern era. The central focus of this article with an interdisciplinary approach revolves around the common concern shared by Hannah Arendt and Milan Kundera: the perils of history for the individual. A general question to ask in this research is why Arendt and Kundera in their books distrust History’s forces. This implies that the individual, under the influence of impersonal appeals and invisible hands, erases oneself from memory and surrenders to suprahuman forces. Totalitarianism has consistently drawn the individual into submission through the support of these suprahuman historical forces. Hence, according to Arendt, Eichmann, for instance, was corrupted by history, as he was stripped of any personal decision-making and choice, solely entrusting himself to the quasi-divine voice of history. Beyond these historical strategies, any transformative action becomes impossible. Returning to action (in Arendt's terms) and guarding the legacy of the novel (in Kundera's terms) constitute resistance against such historical overreach. In Arendt's view, every action initiates its narrative, while, according to Kundera, the novel's memory records experiences forgotten by official history. As a result, Arendt and Kundera prefer personal history over public history, action over reaction, and decision over command. Therefore, Arendt emphasizes the significance of action, and Kundera underscores the independence of the novel against history. Both advocate loyalty to a poetic individuality that is increasingly fading into oblivion in the modern era. https://mph.ui.ac.ir/article_28308_476486142f4e237ff1bede72f7832998.pdf