Existentialism: Capitalist Mind Trap

[hazard]

In order to subjegate those who pose a threat to their ridiculous sham of a social order, the only alternate to a productive school of philosophical thought serves this purpose and no other. Existentialism is nothing more than an attempt to mentally constrain dangerous and influential thinkers, such as philosophers, who would otherwise influence the reign of capitalism. Lets look at the basics of existentialism.

First and foremost it is the complete description of capitalist thinking. The right, or the experience, of the individual holds more weight than those of the group. On the surface this is not such a bad idea. It stems from the cartesian model of modern thinking. Existentialism, however, takes this so far to the extreme that its warped personal perspective borders on complete lunacy. Kierkgaard hit this right when he first developed, and discarded, this philosophical mode. To define your existence in isolation from others is either delusional or a waste. One can, in isolation, suppose him or herself to be the ruler of the universe and not allow any to challenge his or her opinion. So much for philosophy as the benchmark of reason. This nonsense, as taught through existentialism, leads those philsophically inclined to believe untruths so vast that their existence is laid to waste. This is simply to protect the capitalist regime from a communist revolution inspired by intelligent, philosophical, thinkers.

Following this is the vain and horrible conclusion of existentialism. We are free in that there is always one decision no other person can ever influence. Our own existence, which is simply a poor cover for suicide. In other words, we are free as long as we are free to kill ourselves. Now thats philosophy! You can blame Sartre for that gem. Is this what inteligent people spend years in higher educational institutions to discover? Or is this kind of bullshit mindtrap the capitalist regime REQUIRES in order to trap intelligent and influential thinkers from sparking the fires of revolution? I think the answer is obvious. When you connect the harsh, brutal conditions of a capitalist regime and all of its wars and control measures any intelligent person who subscribes to existentialism MUST consider this option, suicide, to be a live one. Having considered it myself, indirectly in relation to existentialism, I have concluded that this modern form of this philosophy is nothing more than a capitalist mind trap.

Beyond this, existentialism serves no purpose for even the most remote contemplation. It is frozen in the very first instant of Descartes conclusion. That conclusion being "I think, therefore I am". After that existentialism fails to do or acheive anything. Naturally being the disgusting exploitationists that capitalists are, the regime has grasped this concept and twisted it into this mind trap. Beware fellow communists. Existentialism is a no good philosophy that is only slightly disguised as a testament to individual decision and individual rights. As communists we should see this immediately as being anti-communist. If we are to combat capitalism we must also combat its most popular philosophical foramt - Existentialism. The best way to do this is by utilizing all of the scientific philosophical subtypes beginning with Logical Atomism and ranging towards all of the Informal Logic types. All of these are constructed not only to combat existentialism but also capitalism as a whole.

[Moose]

you have an incredibly well layed-out arguement. i almost hate to respond its so good. feel like your going to crush me lol

but i do have to disagree with you. i see existentialism to be more like anarchy than capitalism. i see capitalism to be much more group based than youd think. the idea is every man for himself when you are in the industry, but the customer is supposed to conform to their own stereotype. for instance im a middle class white american male. according to capitalism, or at least how they target their customers, im supposed to be a religious football player that shops at Abercrombie and Fitch (why must i know how to spell even the worst of words?)

im sorry im really tired so i cant come up with much more support

[peaccenicked]

It seems to me that Hazard has got it right on the whole but I think Satre is not only an existentialist. He was influenced by Marx. Unfortunatly that in Sartres day was bastardised by the infleunce of Stalinism. For me that produced a form of pesssimism and defeatism in Sartre which he expressed through existentialism. The biggest trouble for most individuals who have been through nightmares. The influence of the Second World War being perhaps foremost is that empiricism is safer than visionary dialectics. ''Being and Nothingness'' is to me a negative resolution of the conflict. Bad faith gains the upper hand.
Yet there is much political bravery in both Sartres and Camus lives which ran contrary to their fundamental moods.
Lukacs on Sartre is more expert than me as is his whole treatment of irrationalism.
His book "The Destruction of Reason" contains a magnificent section on Sartre.

A taste of his maturer writing is at this website.
http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/onirrationalism.htm

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard

Your hypothesis is constructed to imply that existentialism is a form of doctrine which people follow as they would marxism. This is not the case. You have created an air of suriousness around it which should not be. Existentialism is merely a philosophical thought. The basis of which is that we exist.

Existentialism does not affirm that "the right, or the experience, of the individual holds more weight than those of the group" it simply poses the fact that we are indeviduals which exist. What you refer to as lunacy is simply philosophical questions which have been added on to the assertion, "we exist."

For example, one idea that stems from this is that all our thoughts are subjective, ie language, theories, art all derive from our mind, as indeviduals, and that the only real thing that we can know for sure is, that we exist and that we die. Existentialism is simply layers of thought that spring out from these two word sentances.

On the question of suicide, Camus posed the question "is the meaning of life death", the reason for this is that other than the fact we exist, is the fact we die. Putting the two together he concluded that the meaning of life was death. What followed that was the idea of suicide. If the meaning of life is death, then by killing yourself you are fulfilling that meaning. It is simply philosophical thought. Camus never killed himself and never advocated that people should do such.

Sartre was a marxist and maintained his beliefs up until his death. He wrote a book called "Existentialism and Humanism" where he asserts that the meaning of life is to bond with your fellow man. To live happily, do good and exist.

If you look around at society you will see that people are not aware of their existance. Capitalism has crushed humanity into this box of survival and the glimour of existance inside people has long been forgotten. In fact any concept we migh have of existance has been destroyed.

Existentialism should not be taken so literally and should simply be looked at as a form of philosophical thought. That the fact we exist means that we have the ability to experience the wonderousness of existance. Far from being an enemy to communism we should imbrace it and use it to validate our course. When we go to the working class is it not our fundamental purpose to show them that in fact they do exist?

[hazard]

some interesting points raised. finally.

the counter I was hoping for was the use of this school of thought as devaluing life so as to allow for its use within some form of revolutionary practice. like, if my only real choice is in regards to my own existence, then what is stopping me from strappin TNT to my body and rushing an army base? the answer to this is in reference to an ability of understanding, where those able to understand see this as a trap and are all but immobilized by it.

I didn't think that modern existentialism was constructed intentionally as sucha mind trap. I do see it as being applied as such. schools heavy in science tend to favour this form of philosophy as a way to limit their arts students and favour their science students. the same is reversed in arts schools, where "scientific" philosophy is favoured as a method for arts students to inflict heavy damage upon scientists.

since the vast majority of schools these days are science oriented, exitentialism is the most popular form. this is besides the fact that all future science depends upon high level philosophers and artists for its ideas and applications. the drawback is that from effective philosophy, dangerous and influential thinkers also arise who can and will effect the population in a way negative to the capitalist regime. at the cost of science, existentialism is favoured in order to protect the economic regime of capitalism. so the idiots in science are allowed to moonwalk all over the art students, unwittingly moonwalking all over their own respective disciplines all in favour of a system designed only to fail and eventually become communism anyway.

nice job, capitalism. anything so that the top one percent of your population can own yachts and sprawling mansions.

[SonofRage]

Are you really suggesting that existentialism is some kind of conspiracy to keep people from thinking? I don't see the connection at all. As a matter of fact, the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist.

[hazard]

not in its actual application

however, since it is sort of simplistic and little more than a focal freeze on ONE aspect of descartes conclusion, I don't think it has any REAL value

this had myself do a little examination in that the average college in the continent favours this as the preferred philosophy. from here I discovered its differences from the opposing school of philosophical thought, atomism and its devleopments, and concluded its use as a capitalist mind trap

whether or not this has sartre rolling over in his grave is not my point. my point is the way this has been popularized over a much more effective and progressive philosophical sub-type.

[SonofRage]

That's interesting, although I have never experienced that in the philosophy courses I have taken in the past.

[Valkyrie]

there is much more to Sartre' existentialism than nihilism. He strays from Kierkegaardian existentialism and toward Heidegger's ontology and Husserl's idealism and does try to resolve the absurdity/alienation conflict with that of communism and social conciousness.

He says we are free as long as we are free to kill ourselves(and we desire to have that option!!!!) But, more importantly he says that we have a myriad of choices with which to act and because of that human beings are doomed to be free in the burden of their responsiblity to humanity and by choosing to carry out an action, (Kant) Free to CHOOSE to ACT, but in choosing to act humanly and collectively, therefore having an escape hatch from nihilism. basically he says a human being is nothing more than his actions --- for good or bad.

a good read is Sartre's "Essays in Existentialism" ---the whole crux of Sartre's philosophy.

[hazard]

I sort of got all of that. But why is such a non-productive philosophical type considered even remotely popular? It is a dead end type. I mean, just look at the conclusion? Unless there is a way for existentialim to somehow develop into a life after death philosophy, there is no nex step. No next level, no next anything. There is no progression. How this, as a philosophy, can even be taught as anything more than a novelty is beyond any other possible conclusion except for my "mind trap" theory.

[Trissy]

Look everybody :) I found another topic by Hazard on Existentialism! Yay!!!
I wasn't a member when it started which is a shame because it appears nearly everyone agreed with him and there was little argument over some points...


To define your existence in isolation from others is either delusional or a waste. One can, in isolation, suppose him or herself to be the ruler of the universe and not allow any to challenge his or her opinion. So much for philosophy as the benchmark of reason. This nonsense, as taught through existentialism, leads those philsophically inclined to believe untruths so vast that their existence is laid to waste. This is simply to protect the capitalist regime from a communist revolution inspired by intelligent, philosophical, thinkers
Existentialism states that man does not define himself through what he wills but the way he acts. Of course a person cannot call themself the ruler of the Universe because they would be required to carry out acts which would give them such a reason to claim this. Of course people aren't defined in isolation, because our actions have to affect the world. First I choose how to act and then carry out those actions, and then my essence is defined by my choices and actions. The things you claim to be Existential thoughts here are not Existential.


Following this is the vain and horrible conclusion of existentialism. We are free in that there is always one decision no other person can ever influence. Our own existence, which is simply a poor cover for suicide. In other words, we are free as long as we are free to kill ourselves. Now thats philosophy! You can blame Sartre for that gem.
You still haven't said how you come to this wonderful conclusion. We are free in so many more ways then just whether I should kill myself or not. We are free and so we are free to kill ourselves, not 'we are free as long as we are free to kill ourselves'. Suicide is merely another choice, and not the key part to our existence.


Is this what inteligent people spend years in higher educational institutions to discover? Or is this kind of bullshit mindtrap the capitalist regime REQUIRES in order to trap intelligent and influential thinkers from sparking the fires of revolution? I think the answer is obvious. When you connect the harsh, brutal conditions of a capitalist regime and all of its wars and control measures any intelligent person who subscribes to existentialism MUST consider this option, suicide, to be a live one. Having considered it myself, indirectly in relation to existentialism, I have concluded that this modern form of this philosophy is nothing more than a capitalist mind trap
This makes little sense. Existentialist do not question suicide because it is THE ONLY option but merely because it is an option. Also the Existentialist idea that man is free to decide what his essence is goes agaisnt the capitalist way of thinking because it makes me conscious that I can change my world. Bad faith is linked in with class unconsciousness, and so Existentialism is a way of fighting Capitalism and not a way of securing it.


Beyond this, existentialism serves no purpose for even the most remote contemplation. It is frozen in the very first instant of Descartes conclusion. That conclusion being "I think, therefore I am". After that existentialism fails to do or acheive anything.
On the contrary, I'd be tempted to argue that Existentialism can achieve everything! It is a mehtod of making the working classes aware of their exploitation, our their ability to choose, our their ability to shape their own lives, and so a way of bringing the revolution closer.


Naturally being the disgusting exploitationists that capitalists are, the regime has grasped this concept and twisted it into this mind trap. Beware fellow communists. Existentialism is a no good philosophy that is only slightly disguised as a testament to individual decision and individual rights. As communists we should see this immediately as being anti-communist.
Beware fellow communists because anybody who seeks to destroy Existentialist is in fact anti-communist!


If we are to combat capitalism we must also combat its most popular philosophical foramt - Existentialism. The best way to do this is by utilizing all of the scientific philosophical subtypes beginning with Logical Atomism and ranging towards all of the Informal Logic types. All of these are constructed not only to combat existentialism but also capitalism as a whole
But how does Logical Atomism help me live? How can reducing the world and the langauge we use to the smallest possible logical pieces help me decide whether or not I should help an old man cross the street? How can Logical Atomism comment on the human part of living? It deals with logic. Even Russell himself commented on the world without having to use his own system. True, he did think that ultimately philosophy would be a logical subject (the Logical Positivists attempted to continue this line of thought but to little avail), but that didn't stop him talking and writing about religion, politics, the cold war and the human condition. Logical Atomism is simply a more abstract branch of philosophy dealing with phenomena. Existentialism deals with how we should live our lives.


Unfortunatly that in Sartres day was bastardised by the infleunce of Stalinism. For me that produced a form of pesssimism and defeatism in Sartre which he expressed through existentialism
What? Sartre was a Marxist and then a Maoist! He fell out with the Communist party because of Stalin! He disagreed with the crushing of Hungary!

Plus Existentialism is an optimistic philosophy. I suggest you read 'Existentialism and Humanism' as Sartre wrote it to deny such accusations.


schools heavy in science tend to favour this form of philosophy as a way to limit their arts students and favour their science students
How so? Many Existentialists were great writers. That would surely suggest that it favoured more artisitic ways of expressing thought. Logic on the other hand is a school of thought that favours mathmaticians and scientists.


since it is sort of simplistic and little more than a focal freeze on ONE aspect of descartes conclusion, I don't think it has any REAL value

It is taking Descartes Cogito to its logical conclusion and then applying it to life, not merely freezing on one aspect.