Is Sartrean Marxism Dead?

[RedSunsZenith]

Is there anyone on this forum who supports existentialist Marxism as described by Sartre? Why or why not? I ask because, browsing some of the threads, it seems as if almost everyone substitutes free will with some form of economic determinism. Am I misinterpreting, or is Sartrean Marxism really as unpopular as it seems?

[scarletghoul]

Could you link to an introductory text on it ? sounds interesting.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Zenga Zenga!, read Sartre's 'Marxism and Existentialism' (I believe it goes under other titles based on translation).

Anyway, without going to deep into it, I would say that I 'support' Sartrean Marxism as much as I support Marx's Marxism or existentialism in general in the sense that they are merely analytical tools. Existentialism may be a bit more subjective as is the human condition in an existential sense, so I think on a personal and subjective basis, existential questions can be asked in order to understand yourself in your place in your conditions etc. As for Marxism, it is used to analyse the macro: the society and the historical conditions. You'd have to be a very hardline Marxist to use Marxism to explain your own every day actions based on the abstract forces of material reality, in that sense you have no free will, but there has to be some level of free-will behind your own small decisions doesn't there? Maybe we do have a level of free-will but that the tyranny of bourgeois society and its control over our lives through a class-system strangles the potential of whatever free-will we do have? As in the freedom to paint a picture, which is strangled by the need to sell your labour power to a capitalist in order to survive, if such an analogy would make sense.

I'd say the only way that existentialist thought and Marxist analysis counter each other is if you were to hold either theory too dogmatically, as some maybe do. The purest existentialist may be as bold as to say that nothing matters other than the individual and his/her choices whereas the most dogmatic Marxist may say that the individual bears no importance whatever in the scheme of thigs, but none of these ideas are human, so one makes a balance between them if they see the merit to both ideas.

I wouldn't say that everyone substitutes free-will for some form of economic determinism. What I would say, personally, is that there is a conflict between the existential idea of the invidual and the scientific view that Marxism puts forward but that there is no way to objectively determine how far either way is correct. My idea which I guess might be in line with Sartre's is that we are a product of our social and economic conditions first and foremost, or rather the material conditions that surround us, but the fact that we are self-conscious and self-aware poses the notion of responsibility for oneself within their socio-historical conditions. For me, that poses the need to confront oppression and uphold the idea of liberation of the masses which therefore creates a unity between the scientific understanding of material reality and how it creates individuals and then their own existential realization that they have a responsibility for themselves but also their social environment.

To summarize, I am in the midst of my own existential crisis that actually leaves me on the fence in terms of whether we have any free-will or whether we are merely the pawns of the material world, which poses a very bleak and nihilistic notion to me personally. But Sartrean Marxism is important to me, only in as much Sartre's ideas of existence are as well as Marx's view on society, history, class and materialism are. I do think the point is not to hold either line dogmatically, but to find a balance. Is the decision to become a communist an existential one? Sure, there might be social-economic conditions that lead to the choice, but the ultimate choice itself?

I may be very wrong, I'm tired and haven't tried to make a serious post for a while.

[Broletariat]

Well, I reject all of philosophy as non-sensical, so this talk of "free will," or "determinism" is also non-sensical.

I appreciate Nietzsche's critique of "free will" with him asking what an "unfree" will would look like, and what on earth is a "will" anyway.

For determinism one need only ask, who is forcing me to post this?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-friend-asked-t148656/index.html?t=148656&highlight=determinism

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

What is sensical then? How do you make sense of things?

[Broletariat]

What is sensical then?


Would you like me to list everything that falls under the category of sensical?


How do you make sense of things?


The same way as anyone else I suppose.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I just don't understand why some people go onto philosophy threads essentially saying 'philosophy is non-sensical, stop talking about it (which is essentially what I got from Rosa's huge essays)'. I don't think anyone would claim that any philosophy is 'sensical'.

[Desperado]

I don't think anyone would claim that any philosophy is 'sensical'.

That it's not is entirely Rosa's, or rather early Wittgenstein's, point. The problem is that this in itself is a philosophical statement.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Is there anyone on this forum who supports existentialist Marxism as described by Sartre? Why or why not? I ask because, browsing some of the threads, it seems as if almost everyone substitutes free will with some form of economic determinism. Am I misinterpreting, or is Sartrean Marxism really as unpopular as it seems?

I don't think existentialists necessarily believe in free-will vs. determinism. Camus, for instance, saw the human condition as one of relentless subjection to the absurd meaningless of the universe. My understanding of his "absurd hero" is that you must face the absurd with a (irrational perhaps) commitment to humanity, improving life, and eliminating suffering in the here and now. This is not an act of "free-will" but a reaction to the objective circumstances we as a species find ourselves in as social animals.

I'm not as familiar with Sartre though so I could be missing something.

[Broletariat]

I just don't understand why some people go onto philosophy threads essentially saying 'philosophy is non-sensical, stop talking about it (which is essentially what I got from Rosa's huge essays)'.

Because the sentences that philosophy uses (To be is to be perceived) are incapable of expressing any kind of sense (hence the manufactured word non-sense).

If something is NECESSARILY TRUE then we are incapable of perceiving what the world might look like if it were false (what would the world look like if the above philosophical proposition were false?). How do we even test to see if these sentences are true or false? We simply can't they are either true or false based on the words that they contain, not based on any confrontation with material reality, again, how WOULD you begin to test the above proposition?

The way you normally determine whether or not a statement is true or false (the chair is yellow) is first by understanding what conditions would make the statement true versus what conditions would make the statement false. THEN you look at the chair (confront the real world) and test to see if it is in fact yellow.

The opposite is true for philosophical propositions in which truth/falsehood is tied up with understanding the proposition.

All of this is essentially a brief summary of Rosa's

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html?t=148537

[praxis1966]

Because the sentences that philosophy uses (To be is to be perceived) are incapable of expressing any kind of sense (hence the manufactured word non-sense).

The inverse of this is easily enough answered without testing, absence of perception is another way of saying death.


If something is NECESSARILY TRUE then we are incapable of perceiving what the world might look like if it were false (what would the world look like if the above philosophical proposition were false?). How do we even test to see if these sentences are true or false? We simply can't they are either true or false based on the words that they contain, not based on any confrontation with material reality, again, how WOULD you begin to test the above proposition?

That's exactly what Sartre attempted to do in his work, was to bring philosophy into contact with the physical world. As I understand, a ton of his post-WWII work is devoted to the matter. He took great pains arguing that philosophy must be "engaged" in with reality and "confront" it. A large part of this for Sartre meant taking sides in political conflicts, something which philosophers to that point had eschewed. It would be at this point that I recommend you actually read his work What is Literature?, which is where Sartre outlines his ideas on "engagement." I personally think you'd find it appealing.


The way you normally determine whether or not a statement is true or false (the chair is yellow) is first by understanding what conditions would make the statement true versus what conditions would make the statement false. THEN you look at the chair (confront the real world) and test to see if it is in fact yellow.

Yellow, but by whose definition? Whose perception? Words are only as valid as the definition human consciousness gives them, making them inherently abstract and subjective. You seem to be saying that empiricism is a superior paradigm for the interpretation of reality (or at least that's what you're dancing around even if you weren't consciously aware of it), but you haven't given any arguments as to why. At this point, I'd also recommend giving Paolo Freire's work Pedagogy of the Oppressed a look. He deals with a ton of issues in that work, but one which he devotes a fair bit of space to are his ideas on consciousness and how one perceives reality...


The opposite is true for philosophical propositions in which truth/falsehood is tied up with understanding the proposition.

I could say the exact same thing for empiricism, lol. What's ironic about every argument that follows these lines is that as much as empiricists despise the entire philosophical world, the fact of the matter is that in defense of empiricism one must make an inherently philosophical argument.

[Broletariat]

The inverse of this is easily enough answered without testing, absence of perception is another way of saying death.

So I suppose someone, mute, blind, deaf, etc. blah blah is dead? even though their brain works?




That's exactly what Sartre attempted to do in his work, was to bring philosophy into contact with the physical world.


And as Marx told us, this is impossible.



Yellow, but by whose definition?


Goddamn everyone.


Whose perception?


The person answering the question duh.


Words are only as valid as the definition human consciousness gives them, making them inherently abstract and subjective.


Words can change their meaning yes I'm aware, but they do express a specific meaning, otherwise you couldn't understand a damn word I'm saying right now.




the fact of the matter is that in defense of empiricism one must make an inherently philosophical argument.

And that's why I'm not an empiricist.

[Magón]

I had to read for a class a couple of years ago, Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism, and rather thought it was realistic to how Man is. Not like other philosophers, who've been vague and I guess because of the time, no longer relevant to how people interact with each other, and with themselves, etc. Sartre though, I think still has relevance, and even though my knowledge/education on Existentialism is limited to just a couple works of his, he seems rather down to earth with the reality of things.

[praxis1966]

So I suppose someone, mute, blind, deaf, etc. blah blah is dead? even though their brain works?

You'd still have the senses of smell and touch, and even if you didn't you'd have a level of perception. The person is aware that they exist and has thoughts if they have a functional brain.


And as Marx told us, this is impossible.

I love it when Marxists do this sort of thing. It's almost parochial in it's hilarity. You know what else Marx said? "I am a philosopher and a historian," that's what.

The rest of your post I won't bother quoting back to you since it's spent intentionally missing the point, but I expect you knew that already.


I had to read for a class a couple of years ago, Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism, and rather thought it was realistic to how Man is. Not like other philosophers, who've been vague and I guess because of the time, no longer relevant to how people interact with each other, and with themselves, etc. Sartre though, I think still has relevance, and even though my knowledge/education on Existentialism is limited to just a couple works of his, he seems rather down to earth with the reality of things.

^This one. The only kind of person who can make the sorts of assumptions about Sartre that Broletariat is obviously has never read him and is basing their opinion on broad generalizations which don't apply in this case.

[Broletariat]

You'd still have the senses of smell and touch, and even if you didn't you'd have a level of perception. The person is aware that they exist and has thoughts if they have a functional brain.

The etc. was intended to denote that they have lost any way for their nerve impulses to send feeling of any sort to the brain.


How do you know they're aware they exist? How do you know they have thoughts at all? What about a person in a coma?




I love it when Marxists do this sort of thing. It's almost parochial in it's hilarity. You know what else Marx said? "I am a philosopher and a historian," that's what.


I'm actually having difficulty finding this quote, do help me out here.

[praxis1966]

The etc. was intended to denote that they have lost any way for their nerve impulses to send feeling of any sort to the brain.

Ok, fine. But you said they have a fully functional brain. That means that some sort of perceptive powers, even if only introspective in terms of awareness of self, must exist.


How do you know they're aware they exist? How do you know they have thoughts at all? What about a person in a coma?

See, now you're changing the rules. I addressed the issue of a fully functional human brain existing within a body in total absence of sensory stimuli. Now you're all, "What if the brain weren't fully functional?" For the record, I would call a coma a sort of semi-death...


I'm actually having difficulty finding this quote, do help me out here.

Yeah, I believe I picked it up in Freire. Can't seem to source it on the 'net. It actually refers to the uselessness of philosophy without historical perspective, ie grounded in the material world.

[Broletariat]

Ok, fine. But you said they have a fully functional brain. That means that some sort of perceptive powers, even if only introspective in terms of awareness of self, must exist.



See, now you're changing the rules. I addressed the issue of a fully functional human brain existing within a body in total absence of sensory stimuli. Now you're all, "What if the brain weren't fully functional?" For the record, I would call a coma a sort of semi-death...

Of course I'm changing the rules, my example proved itself inept to prove my point so I modified the example.

Though I'm sure you will of course notice that the speaker of "To be is to be perceived" doubtlessly conducted tons and tons of scientific research on these people in a coma to prove his claim :laugh:




Yeah, I believe I picked it up in Freire. Can't seem to source it on the 'net. It actually refers to the uselessness of philosophy without historical perspective, ie grounded in the material world.

Philosophy in that case would only be useful as an indicator, not as useful for actually using the philosophy itself to learn anything, because we can't even understand philosophy much less use it.