Bad and Good Sentences

Hey everyone. I have to admit my level of comprehension of this reading wasn't great, but bearing that in mind, let me give this a shot. I also forgot to pay attention to good and bad writing as I was reading this, but from skimming through some pages here are examples that stood out to me.

Bad sentence:

"What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polis life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the economic realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity-for instance, by ruling over slaves-and to become free."

I've read this several times and my brain always seems to get lost by the end, especially at the "and to become free" with as many interjections and commas as there are in this sentence, there are a few too many new things to jump around with to follow clearly. This sentence does not clearly articulate what I think she means which is that Greek philosophers regardless of their opinion on polis life took for granted about freedom is that it was only in economics, and not a characteristic of private places, and that because of this there was violence in the household against among other things slaves. At least I think that's what this was saying. It's written so badly I'm not even 100% sure of that.

Good sentence:

"The public realm, in other words, was reserved for individuality; it was the only place where men could show who they really and inexchangeably were."

This is about as straight forward and clear a sentence as one could be. In this sentence Arendt clearly coveys the point that the place where individuality flourished was in the public realm and that that's where men could really be themselves. Unlike many of her sentences, this did not require me to go back and reread it several times to grasp it.

I think part of my overall problem with most of Arendt's writing is that I am not very used to reading theory. Different writing styles are used for different things, and I don't generally read much beyond encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, and online sites, which are a very different kind of writing from many fictional stories and from philosophical and theoretical works. Perhaps as I read more of this type of writing I shall become more accustomed to it. I think Arendt's intended audience was fellow intellectuals, theorists, and philosophers, not the average Joe.