Throughout history, the world of politics has been so influential in our social and personal life. It pushes us towards a better social order and instigates political harmony among leaders and people as well. However, every ideal world may seem to be a pathological utopian world if the security, harmony and order are not well protected and governed, and if the laws are not well empowered. Thus, the political ideal of social harmony, and civic balance would only be possible if discipline and a rigorous law are implemented and demanded in every political ruling.

 To attain a political utopian state, as Plato would always dream of, it is inevitable and necessary to diagnose and critically examine the root cause of man’s adversary in a political society. This is what we call radical evil. The propensity of man to do evil, as Kant would argue, is rooted in the human will. For Arendt, it exists when one became thoughtless, that is, giving up everything without first thinking that eventually leads to the banality of evil.

 Human beings strive and seek access to so many things to improve and make their life easier. Maybe, that is why science assumes a certain role that overpowers man’s condition since it arouses and influences his social and political consciousness and status. It even motivates men to go beyond what he wants, to extend his power and domination and to push to the limit of his capacity that make him invincible or become a modern god maybe. It empowers persons to be and act like a god and strive to create as what God did. Human beings cannot be like God but he aspires to be like Him, and seek ways to destroy, if possible, to flourish and thrive a Godless city of man. As Sartre would assert, "to be man means to reach toward being God. Or if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God" (Sartre, 1997, 63). And he adds that,

 "All men desire to know," as the brilliant Aristotle would say. This universal realizable desire to know impel us to go beyond our limits and try to grab whatever knowledge we could gain. Several philosophers have tried and made some attempts to know reality as it is or to know the basic structure of reality or to lay the condition of the possibility to know reality. Yet even though they explained and described so well about reality, still it is not sufficient to embrace and grasp the totality and fullness of reality even through a single word. There must be something that obstructs men from knowing it and hinders him from pursuing to know and experience the radiance and multifacetedness of reality. And part of this is the reality of radical evil. Why radical? Because it is marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional and it has a tendency or a disposition to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, or conditions. In the political sphere, it advocates extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.

 The problematic existence of evil, "conditions" the existence of goodness. At first sight, it seems peculiar to assert evil as a conditioning reality of goodness but with further reflection and philosophical analysis, the intricacy of its existence has a substantial role in building up a nuance of a more creative and dynamic integration of goodness with reality. However, several implicative questions would arise whether the possibility of a well-ordered and harmonious society can, indeed, be achieved, if there is always an aspect of evil that infuses and permeates in the heart and mind of men even a microcosm of evilness.

 My intention is to depart from the metaphysical and moral discussion of evil. However, on certain occasion I will say something about its traditional definitive meaning. But the main focus of my discussion will be on Arendt’s elucidation of the political situatedness of evil in the society that grounds itself in the absence of thinking. Although it is quite ambitious for me to explain and elaborate the profundity of the subject matter; but I will try to present the prevalent matter-of-course with substantial insights on the "reasonableness" of evil in a way suitable in our present project.

 Aristotle would say that if ethics is the science of individual happiness, therefore politics is the science of collective happiness. And he adds that since man is by nature a political animal, which eventually leads his instincts to political association and organization, he is apt to create a state to organize a society for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people (Durant, 1966). For Augustine, the governance of the city of man must be in consonance with the city of God. For Kant, the politics of good governance can be attained if we diagnose and evaluate the possibility of the radical situatedness of evil in the fact of human freedom. Why do we choose evil? Is it for its sake or is it done because of certain potential goodness for political reason? For Kant, we do evil because we chose and follow a maxim that has a pathological content that we allow becoming the motive of our action. But the crux of the matter is yet unsettled here. What is (radical) evil? Where does it come from? And why does it have to exist in the first place? Is there any sufficient reason that would justify and validate its existence? Or is it simply embedded in the mind or in our consciousness? Or rather, to use Kant’s epistemological question, what could be the condition of the possibility of the existence of radical evil? Kant’s answer is free will. "Radical evil is everywhere and always evident in the fact that man devotes his will to the pursuit of egoistic gain" (Copjec, 1996, xii). Or does evil reside in the "flesh" of desire itself or in the act of desiring something?

 The problem of evil came into being just as goodness came into existence. Metaphysical discussions, philosophical discourses and religious explanations have been made to prove its existence and its permeation in the world. But this traditional metaphysical construction is no longer sympathetic to the modern needs and demands of the matter at hand. Since evil appears to be a positive fact that is firmly rooted in reality, it ceases then to be a religious or metaphysical problem but for the first time, it becomes a political, moral [or ethical] and pedagogical problem (Copjec, 1996).

 In the political sphere, political dialogue is often substituted with polemical attacks and censures from the present government. Political will and rational deliberation is necessary in all political affairs unless extreme measures are already exhausted, then war and violence might be the last recourse. It may not be rational but it may instigate change in the society and political governance.

 In the moral sphere, man’s moral assertion and desire to do anything pleasurable becomes a moral problem. More so, man’s quest for a happy life becomes an ethical question. Why? Have we often overlooked the consequences of our actions or is this part of human growth and progress? What is human growth and human progress if our main concerns in life are too superfluous and oftentimes too naïve and, I should say, complacent to bear our moral roots and cultural embeddedness?

 What does evil mean? For Aquinas, the essence of evil is privation (Richaby, 1950). Privation means "an essence that deprives the things in which it exists of a perfection that ought to be there" (Glenn, 1960, 43). For Scott Peck, "evil is a disease" (Woodruff and Wilmer, 1994, 190), that needs to be cured and healed not only individually but the institution or the corporate of human beings itself. While for Ervin Staub, he contends that evil is the idea of a partly shared human heritage and not a scientific idea with an agreed meaning. Its essence unveils for the destruction of human beings. This includes the creation of conditions that materially or psychologically demolish or decrease people’s dignity, happiness, and the capacity to fulfill basic material needs (Staub, 1989). About the psychological desolation of the people, in the Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt talks about the totalitarian propaganda of the totalitarian movement (O.T., 1973), that focuses on the indoctrination rather than the propagation of the propaganda itself (O.T., 1973). It has a powerful effect on people especially if the condition at hand demands political organization. It is also important to consider that groups or organizations have the propensity to develop characteristics that create a great and persistent potential for evil, since it arises even in ordinary motivations and psychological processes. Thus, as "the more predisposing characteristic a society possesses and the more progresses along the continuum of destruction — the more the motivation for genocide and the associated institutions and practices develop — the less potential there is to influence the society peacefully. " (Staub, 1989, 27-28).

 In order for this propaganda to be realized, the rule of terror is indeed needed to achieve the psychological aim of this movement, since in the first place it is part and parcel a psychological warfare (O.T., 1973). The effectiveness of the psychological warfare was adopted as virtually a state policy. In other words, the propaganda is the tool or instrument of each totalitarian government but the core of this government is the rule of terror. That is why even the Nazi’s applied this political strategy to win the sympathies and sentiments of the people, and they aptly called it "power propaganda" (O.T., 1973).

  Well maybe this is where we draw the line between a blunt political act and a keen political thought. By (blunt) political action I mean actions that are not thought well or done unreflectively. The propensity for radical evil to exist has a high regard of possibility here, since unthinking could lead to its existence, and if we are predisposed to be as such then we are creating a monstrous disaster on the brim of political struggle and political ruling. We dare to consider killing or mass suicide as evil but did we ever ask ourselves the insurmountable malignancy and baneful atmosphere of certain people who become indifferent to think and reflect about the conditions that we are experiencing right now? Or what we can do for our country instead of waiting what our country can do for us. Can we therefore say that the banality of evil springs here? We are living in a technology conscious, technologically oriented society where every new born child becomes immune in a society where thinking itself is left out of the whole view of reality, human relationship, and the proper nurturing and training of the child. Until that person grows old, he is kept there within himself unaware of the pre-conditions of being human. When he becomes an adult, the struggle for life would be so difficult because of the inept leniency and complacency of his forebears. In effect, even certain activities then of men become a mere necessity and the rules of proper engagement in the society become a fictitious model and left without a trace. To show one’s goodness is destructive to the public realm, it is good but not for its sake. Therefore, the proper political rules of engagement must be oriented not merely on the prescribed political norms but must have an essential bearing on the private realm of political engagement if and "only (if) goodness must go into absolute hiding and flee all appearances if it is not to be destroyed" (H.C., 1958, 75). Politically we may say, that to assume public display of goodness is no longer good and if it’s corrupt in its terms, it will indeed carry its corruption and excess baggage wherever it goes (H.C., 1958).

  The paradigm of a good philosophical inquiry is Socrates. His ultimate and endless quest for meaning rather than merely on truth pronounces his willingness to affirm life and be active on it. For Arendt, Socrates is a paradigmatic thinker, since he’s a man inspired with an eros for wisdom. Like the Socratic dialogue, thinking must be "dialectical," a soundless dialogue that liberates man from conventional "truths" and conducts through its internal actuality of reflection. Since unthinking is the absence of internal dialogue, a thoughtless person then, sojourns the possibility of evil. However, it is better to suffer wrong than do wrong and live with the wrongdoer, from the perspective of reflective ego.

 Moreover, it is true that "it is tempting when discussing evil, to veer toward absolutism and even apocalyptic thinking. So serious is our predicament in the late 20^th century that we find it easy to believe that nothing short of a drastic and revolutionary change in our ways of thinking can possibly save us" (Woodruff and Wilmer, 1994, 234).

 The justification of evil in the society is caused by the propensity of men who desire to be above others and stay above them without looking back and helping the latter to alleviate their condition. However it is not quite surprising that not all people would want to look at the Light, instead remain in the shelter of their shadows.

  To understand the conception of the politics of evil, Arendt seem to argue this way:

 This is the common ground of the leniency of goodness and the leading preponderant laxity and vice of man to his fellow citizens and to himself as well, which in due time will lead to political degeneration and individual degradation. The causal creation of a community of spectacle and the attribution of immune fantasy that shivers and blunders our thinking from thinking rationally and more essentially, reflectively has an overwhelming effect on the lives of the people. The seduction of reason by radical evil that permeates in indifference and passivity is actually the result of a thoughtless and heedless frenzy or hopeless quandary or self-satisfied repetition of "truths" that have become frivolous and superficial that constitute the primordial characteristics of the contemporary man (H.C., 1958). A progressive deterioration and lowering of effective power, vitality, intellectual and moral condition prohibits and alienates man himself from ‘becoming’ and realizing his true and authentic self. This preposterous condition is indeed a political question not simply towards proper governance but an inquiry also on the ideation of self-mastery in political leadership and citizenship.

  Evil exists essentially in our free will but how free are we or how authentic our freedom is; if we are only free once we do good? To level down the question of freedom on the existential conditions of man, it is inevitable to consider (radical) evil as a pre-requisite to understand the term "goodness" or to know that one is good. But this should not be exaggerated in a way that evil deeds is justified because it is good in itself, since evil, as we all agreed lacks something good or the antithesis of goodness, has surfaced itself and continues to "seduce" and take advantage of man’s weakness, therefore our propensity to do evil must be diagnosed and cured through proper education. (Education should animate and enhance people to be more creative and progressive, but never mediocrity and leniency that are evident to some religious oriented universities.) If not, the ‘social cancer’ might permeate, overrule and regain its power that no citizen acquires individual freedom and political independence even though he or she craves and crawls for recovery. As a consequence, the glomming nightmare of ‘man’s slavery’ and the gnawing misfortune of ‘self-alienation’ would then be the result of this systemic norm. Why? It is because of man’s indifference and unreflectiveness, where good and evil is no longer distinguishable but a considerable account of idle thinking and frivolous conduct of men.

 However in the end, there must be something mysteriously edifying in evil that justifies the radicality of evil in itself. If we look at the big picture of reality even though the struggle still persists between good and evil is that there must be something "good" in evil, of course to a certain extent only. For example, Imperialism, which we often perceive as ‘evil,’ which fundamentally, relates to the nature of human beings and human groups, such as the state. Such different personalities like Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Francis Bacon, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, held its reasoning on different grounds, nevertheless they arrived at similar conclusions. We all know that such state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas are evil but they are considered necessary in the historical dimension of human development. For them, Imperialism is part of the natural struggle for survival. Those who are endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule all others. I need not to and will not justify their actions and intentions, but we can only see the effect, that in one way or another, it helps us to realize some important things in life and guide us through the bewildering shadows of the past towards a brighter future.

  Each political theory arises because of certain historical and social crisis, which eventually fountains the cathedral of a corrupt political system. A system that embraces the total madness and cruelty of man towards nature and man himself to survive and continue to struggle for power, wealth and fame. The political life is shaped by a wide variety of factors, including social and cultural conditions, economic organization, intellectual and philosophical influences, geography or climate, and historical circumstances. Recurrent attempts have been made to reduce this range of variables to analytically manageable dimensions. This is partly the motive, for example, of Marx, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Arendt and other efforts to relate specific types of political systems to stages of economic development or particular kinds of socio-economic organization. Although interesting interrelations between political and economic development have been discovered, such single-track, monistic, or autocratic approaches are inadequate to the task of explaining social-economic and political change. Because of the human being’s self-interest and, he eventually unleashes a "monster" which he himself cannot tame and control – a monster so small and invisible yet it gnaws a great deed of human destruction and invincibly penetrating his lamentable existence.

 The problem is not only that there are many factors that should be examined and one of it is the radical evil that permeates in a thoughtless society, but also that they are found in different combinations from one society to another. All social and political orders are unique as products of history, historical interpretations and the creations of the peculiar forces and conditions of their environment. Subsequently, the problem that confronts comparative analysis is the difficulty of devising measures and certain gauges of social and political development. The definition of what is modern or what constitutes an advanced or developed social and political system has troubled many recent writers. Clearly, the older notions of development toward the goals of constitutionalism or democracy must now be seriously questioned, and to judge the maturity of a social and political system with the extent to which it adopts any particular set of institutions or techniques of rule is an equally doubtful procedure. Another difficulty is that social and political change is not simply a reaction to "objective" factors such as economic forces but also the product of conscious manipulation. For example, the imperialist's recommendation of growth and progress is indeed very influential and powerful since their ground of ruling is "the expansion of power without the foundation of a body politic" (O.T., 1973, 138). Its "ultimate" goal is good although its means are not justified. In explaining the growth and development of social and political systems it is impossible to ignore that men, having considered the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of government, often decide to adopt one form rather than another.

 A similar problem arises from the fact that the nature of the interaction between social and political systems and their environment is extremely complex. As Marx would say, that there will come a time that "the animal becomes human and the human becomes animal" (Marx, 1964, 125). Can we therefore say that Hitler’s genocidal (Staub, 1989), motive is a monstrous act that only an insane person would do? How about those people who participated in this mass murder? Are they as evil as Hitler? Or is it a matter of obedience, that is, the "desire to follow a leader, to be a good member, (and) to show respect for authority" (Staub, 1989, 29). Anybody who willingly submits him or her to authority is likely to acknowledge and accept his or her views and ideology. But whether it is good or evil is beyond the question already. Since what is important is how the political ideology (Staub, 1989), can be realized in a span of time. Though for many societal perspectives, the killing of the Jews and other people is considered as highly incomprehensible and irrational (Staub, 1989). To treat, for example, the political system as merely the outgrowth of particular patterns of social or economic organization is to ignore the fact that changes in social and economic structures are often the product, sometimes the intended product, of governmental action.

 The solution, I suggest, in this perplexing condition of humanity, would likely be the fusion of ideas realized in mutual consensus building, empowerment, civic friendship; and a disposition to move forward and overcome the hermeneutics of a sceptical life since "life can be understood backward, but must be lived forward," according to Kierkegaard. I suspect that this polemical system of the radicality and perversity of evil has no certain reason of its own, though may be viewed positively or negatively, which in the end, insinuate some philosophical explanation. It will be difficult to comprehend this eclipse of goodness in the political space. The transformation of any political system, where graft and corruption, red tape, anomalous bureaucratic lifestyle and other inane practices are no longer feasibly tolerated, may not be abruptly or violently induced in the course of a revolution but by the gradual, biting and caustic influence of ideas and by the impact of different political philosophies and human empowerment. As Novak would say,

 But there is still hope in this generation. Hope that is grounded on faith, love and human relationships. Let us always bear in our mind and in our heart that, "One ceases to become when one ceases to philosophize." Insofar as there is one particular human being in this world, philosophical thinking is always possible.

 Wonder and reflection is the immortal music (spirit) of philosophy and action is the fulfillment of one’s thought. Thus the dialectic between reflection and action is primordial in all philosophical endeavors in search of truth and meaning in life. Studying philosophy does not make us more human, rather what we choose and what we decide is what we make of ourselves, and how much we cultivate our values is what makes us human. Philosophy here is the inescapable domain and fulcrum of man’s being.