In dialogue with Hannah Arendt
The evil of not-thinking
​
​
“I don’t think” – the sentence that says everything
Some sentences linger in your memory not because of what they say literally, but because of what they reveal.
“I don’t think,” she said, casually and with a smile. She would repeat it many times throughout the three and a half years we were together.
The first time she said it, the words seemed to pass me by, almost unnoticed in the moment. But later they kept echoing — as if they had touched something deeper than I could understand at the time. How can someone not think? What remains of one’s humanity then, of responsibility of awareness of inner life?
Only much later did I realize that these three words held the key to everything that had happened between us. In their simplicity, they captured something unsettling: the absence of innerness. What I had sensed again and again in our relationship, but couldn’t name suddenly gained language. It felt as if I wasn’t facing another consciousness, but an empty mirror: a form without depth, a presence without an inner dialogue.
In her world, there was no interior conversation. No voice that answered back, questioned, or gently whispered, “Is this right?”
She lived as if whatever arose in her was automatically true, automatically justified. Lies, betrayal, indifference — they didn’t seem like decisions, but like natural gestures, a kind of second nature. As if conscience had no language in her inner world, simply because there was no inner world.
When I later reread Hannah Arendt, suddenly everything fell into place.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt writes about the “banality of evil”: the kind of evil that does not arise from dark intentions but from thoughtlessness. Not-thinking, Arendt says, is not the same as stupidity. It's the refusal to speak inwardly, to question oneself. For Arendt, thinking is not rational problem-solving, but an inner dialogue: the ongoing conversation between me and myself. It’s in that dialogue that a person encounters her conscience. It’s there she asks herself: Can I live with myself if I do this?
Those who do not think lack that conversation.
There is no inner boundary between good and evil; between truth and falsehood. Arendt did not see Eichmann as a demonic figure, but as a bureaucratic mind without depth: someone who did not think, who followed orders without ever asking what they meant.
“He did not think,” she writes. “And that was his crime.”
That sentence struck me. Not because I want to compare my ex to Eichmann, but because I finally found words for the moral vacuum I had felt. Thoughtlessness as a form of evil: not the dramatic evil of intent, but the quiet evil of absence. The emptiness in which empathy cannot take root, truth finds no ground and love loses its direction.
When someone says “I don’t think,” it’s not innocence that speaks, but a disquieting honesty. It’s an admission of moral disengagement. And only now do I understand that my shock back then was not rational, but existential. I was confronted with someone who knew no inner dialogue — not with herself, not with me; with nothing and no one. And where thinking falls silent, love eventually falls silent too.
​
The absence of the inner conversation
What Hannah Arendt did so radically was strip evil of its demonisation. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, she describes the man responsible for millions of deaths not as a sadist or an ideologue, but as someone who simply did not think. He used clichés instead of thoughts, rules instead of reflection. He spoke without truly speaking. His language was empty: not because of silence, but because of repetition.
And that, Arendt says, is what evil is: not the dark or dramatic, but the thoughtless. Thinking, in her view, is not the same as intelligence. It is a moral activity, not an intellectual one. To think is to engage in an inner dialogue, to be, as Arendt puts it, “two-in-one”: the one who acts and the one who witnesses that action. Once that inner conversation disappears, the ability to question oneself disappears with it. What remains is a person who can do anything, because nothing inside them applies any restraint.
That is the unsettling simplicity of her insight. Evil needs no weapons, no hatred, no grand intention; it thrives in emptiness, in routine, in the absence of thinking. It's banal because it’s thoughtless; because it does not ask, does not feel and does not doubt.
When I read this, I thought back to her: my ex, her flat gaze and empty smile, her ability to lie without flinching, her calmness as she presented deceit as truth while looking me straight in the eyes. There was no inner conflict, no moment of shame. What I mistook for conscience was merely decoration. She did whatever she wanted and where others might lie awake at night, she slept without issue.
Arendt would not call that evil in the classical sense, but thoughtless. And that’s precisely where the danger lies: a person who doesn’t think also stops feeling. Without an inner dialogue, empathy cannot exist, because empathy is nothing more than allowing the other to enter into oneself. Someone who does not think lives within a single perspective: the flat, unshaken self.
​
I began to understand that thoughtlessness is a form of moral blindness. It’s the inability to see what the other feels, because there is no inner space in which it can be received. Arendt calls this the absence of moral judgement, because there is no inner measure left. The person without an inner conversation is not “evil” in the classical sense, but empty and from that emptiness, anything can emerge.
What Arendt teaches us is that evil is not exceptional. It’s mundane, bureaucratic, polite, efficient and often wrapped in charm and a smile. It’s the evil of the person who does not think, who asks no questions, who moves through life in the superficiality of habit. That is what I had sensed in the relationship, long before I could name it: that I was not only confronted with lies, but with the complete absence of an inner voice in her that said, “this is not okay.”
​
The destruction of the inner compass
There is something unsettlingly human about thoughtlessness. It’s not loud, violent or spectacular; it’s quiet, unchanged, almost friendly. And that is precisely what makes it dangerous. Where there is no inner conversation, where thinking falls silent, the conscience falls silent with it.
For Arendt, this was the core of moral action: the ability to question yourself, to pause for a moment and listen to that soft voice asking whether you can live with yourself after what you do. Not because that voice punishes you, but because it witnesses you. That inner witness is what makes us human. It forms the foundation of empathy: the ability to feel the pain of another because you know what it means to feel yourself.
Those who do not think do not truly feel. And those who cannot feel cannot truly love. That realization hit me hard. Throughout my relationship with her, I often wondered why she never showed genuine remorse, why she never seemed to experience real shame. Even at moments when everything was falling apart — when I cried, when the truth was painfully exposed — she remained cold and unmoved, as if my sadness and pain did not reach her at all. She seemed to look, but not see. Present, yet absent.
It took a long time before I understood that this was not necessarily malice, but a profound absence of innerness. She lives without a mirror. No inner reflection, no voice that contradicts. Where I think endlessly, weigh options, doubt and feel, she’s empty on the inside — not broken or numb, but simply empty. And in that emptiness, any sense of (moral) boundary disappears.
Arendt wrote that thoughtlessness is dangerous because it doesn’t scream, it normalizes. It makes harm seem ordinary. You don’t need to be a monster to hurt someone; not thinking is enough. And that, perhaps, was the most painful insight: that harm can present itself as carelessness, convenience or indifference; as the simple absence of questions.
I recognize this in the way she acted. She lied without tension, manipulated as if it were second nature and betrayal became routine. I don’t believe she took pleasure in hurting me, but I do believe she no longer felt any inner connection between what she did and how it affected me, or anyone else involved.
The moral bridge between act and consequence did not exist. The conscience — that slow, feeling organ of the soul — had gone silent. What remained was a smooth exterior, a carefully constructed image and behind it a large and hollow nothing. The same nothing Arendt recognized in Eichmann: not as an abyss of wickedness, but as the emptiness of someone who had never learned to think, never practiced self-examination and never paused to ask what it means to be human in relation to other humans.
In that emptiness, empathy naturally disappears. Empathy requires that we make space in ourselves for something that is not ours. It demands an inner landscape in which the other can resonate. When that landscape is missing, only the flat self remains, a mirror that reflects nothing back. That is the essence of the thoughtless person: she lives without an inside. She repeats words without meaning and gestures without feeling. She is present, but not reachable.
And for the one living next to her, the inner compass slowly breaks. In the absence of reciprocity, reality begins to tilt. I experienced this: how you start doubting what's true, doubting your own perception, doubting your own feelings. The other doesn’t think, so you start thinking too much, as if you are trying to fill in the gaps of what cannot be understood. You search for meaning in emptiness. And that was the painful realization: that thoughtlessness not only dehumanizes the one who doesn’t think, but also exhausts and erodes the one who tries to stay human next to her.
What Arendt taught me is that thinking is a form of love. Not romantic love that clings to another, but the moral love that creates space within ourselves. Thinking is an invitation to innerness; an exercise in humanity. It’s the voice that says: I want to understand what I do and who I am in relation to the other. Without that voice, only emptiness remains: an emptiness from which harm can grow without anyone ever intending it. In that way, the thoughtless person becomes dangerous not only to others, but also to herself; for anyone who does not think slowly disappears from her own being.
​
The banality of postmodern evil
Not long ago, I reached a moment of realization: thoughtlessness does not only live in an individual, it can inhabit a zeitgeist. What Arendt once described in Eichmann, I now recognize in a world that has accelerated to such a degree that almost no one truly pauses anymore. We live in a culture of instant answers and automatic reactions. Thinking, that slow, hesitant, interior process, no longer fits the rhythm we are expected to keep up with.
The thoughtlessness Arendt identified as a moral danger has taken on a new form today: it’s no longer bureaucratic, but digital. It settles into algorithms, into repetition, into the superficiality of endless opinions that no longer rest on anything real. We don’t have to think anymore, because thinking is already done for us. Screens whisper what we should feel, what we should believe and who we should be.
That is why Arendt’s words feel more urgent now than ever. The banality of evil has not disappeared; it has quietly transformed into the normality of emptiness. An emptiness in which empathy slowly evaporates, because everything is reduced to visibility and effect. When there is no inner conversation, people end up hearing only the echo of their own needs.
I recognize something of this collective emptiness in what happened in my relationship. The way words lost their meaning, how truth became a matter of interpretation and how reality could be rewritten whenever it suited her. It’s the same distortion now unfolding on a larger scale: the shift from truth to narrative and from responsibility to strategy. Society as a whole has lost its innerness.
Arendt wrote that evil is not spectacular, but administrative; today she might say: automated. The human being no longer has to choose; she only has to click. Moral judgment, once rooted in inner life, has been outsourced to systems, rules, protocols and guidelines. And so the world drifts into a collective thoughtlessness: a state in which empathy is too slow, silence too suspicious and conscience too complex.
What strikes me is how familiar all this feels when I think back to the intimate dynamic I experienced. The thoughtlessness of one person mirrored the culture around us: a world that constantly produces, but rarely reflects. A world that forgets that every action gains meaning only through the question that precedes it: Why am I doing this?
Perhaps that is why Arendt’s work affects me so deeply. Because she was not merely a political thinker, but a thinker of conscience. She reminds us that thinking itself is a moral act, a resistance against the crowd, against convenience, against emptiness. Not-thinking is not innocence: it’s complicity in a world that forgets its soul.
Final reflection – thinking as an act of love
What Arendt calls thinking is, at its core, a form of presence. Not the distant, analytical activity we often confuse with thinking, but a quiet willingness to not act immediately. Thinking is staying with what presents itself, allowing doubt, listening to the slow inner voice that asks what something means and what it asks of you. In that staying, in the refusal to be swept along by the haste of the world, a small space opens in which responsibility can grow.
Arendt called this the place of conscience: the “two-in-one,” the person who meets herself in thought and becomes a witness to her own actions. That inner conversation is not a luxury but a moral necessity. Because anyone who no longer hears herself, who no longer pauses to consider what she does, gradually loses contact with what is good. Without that inner witness, the possibility of empathy also disappears. We can only truly see the other when we are willing to face ourselves.
This is what I have come to understand as love: not the emotion or the desire to hold on, but the presence that arises from attention. Love requires thinking. It demands awareness, the courage to not be thoughtless. Anyone who loves listens: to the other and also to herself. Because only in that kind of listening can true encounter take place.
​
When I think back to the words “I don’t think,” I hear them differently now. At the time I felt mostly shock and disbelief; now I hear absence: the lack of connection, the lack of innerness. It was not a lack of intellect, but of humanity. Someone who doesn’t think has no inner space where the other can land, no place where conscience and feeling can meet. Without that inner space, reality becomes flat, love becomes a façade and truth becomes an instrument.
That’s why I believe that thinking is an act of love. It’s the opposite of indifference; the refusal to disappear from yourself. In a world driven by speed and impressions, thinking is an act of slowing down: a practice of loyalty to reality, of loyalty to what is true, even when it hurts.
But thoughtlessness is not limited to the individual. It has quietly embedded itself in our era, in everyday habits. We live in a world that constantly produces, but seldom reflects, where speed has replaced depth and visibility has replaced meaning. We are surrounded by words, yet rarely touched by their weight.
The thoughtlessness Arendt warned against has not vanished; it has settled into our routines, into the unquestioned gaze outward. It lives in algorithms that replace thinking, in opinions that drown out feeling and in a culture that distrusts silence. That’s the true banality of today’s evil: not conscious cruelty, but the everyday indifference with which we fail to truly see one another.
I recognize this pattern in the small, intimate scale of a relationship where truth dissolved into interpretation. The thoughtlessness of one person reflected the spirit of a time that no longer listens. Where the inner conversation goes silent, empathy disappears; where empathy disappears, the world grows cold. In that way, personal emptiness becomes an echo of something larger: a culture that has muted its conscience.
And yet, precisely there lies the possibility of reversal. Thinking, in Arendt’s sense, is not something that vanishes, but something we can reclaim. Thinking is not an intellectual performance, but a return inward. It’s the willingness to be quiet, to listen, to feel what is true. In that listening, the connection between human and world, between self and other, begins to repair itself. Thinking is an act of loyalty to the essence of being human.
Love and thinking come from the same source. Both require attention, space and presence. Thinking is love that reflects; love is thinking that feels. In the silence of that inner conversation — that slow, honest, sometimes painful exchange with yourself — conscience is born. And it’s there, in that space, that humanity begins.
If I heard the words “I don’t think” now, I would no longer take them as an explanation, but as a warning. They remind me of what’s at stake when we lose that inner voice. Without thinking, we lose the capacity for empathy; without empathy, we lose the capacity for love. And without love, we lose our soul.
Arendt showed that evil is not always loud; it’s often quiet, just as love often is. But where thoughtlessness leaves emptiness, love leaves meaning. Where one closes, the other opens. Perhaps that’s the true ethic of innerness: the choice not to disappear from yourself, but to keep listening and to keep questioning the world and yourself with an open heart.
Thinking as an act of love
A refusal to live thoughtlessly, a quiet, human kind of resistance. A small revolution that begins with one simple, decisive gesture:
to keep thinking,
in order to keep feeling,
in order to remain human.
