Marxism and Existensialism

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Can the two be reconciled or are the differences in outlook far ro deep?

Or another way of asking it, can Sartre's postion as both be justified?

[Monty Cantsin]

Their both totally against each other, come on Marx was totally against religion. Why would promote something that is or leads to religion.

[Trissy]

Existentialism is a profoundly atheist field if you discount Kierkegaard and Jaspers. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus and Heideggar weren't religious in the slightest. Existentialism is often seen as how man faces up to the lack of objective meaning in the absence of a God, and so it doesn't lead to religion as such. The answer to the lack of meaning very well could be Marxism and that may justify Sartre's stance.

[STI]

Well, doesn't existentialism state that we're all completely in control of our own destinies, while Marxism states that a revolution against capitalism will inevitably happen? Aren't those two ideas opposed to each other?

[STI]

Well, doesn't existentialism state that we're all completely in control of our own destinies, while Marxism states that a revolution against capitalism will inevitably happen? Aren't those two ideas opposed to each other?

EDIT: Sorry about the double post

[Trissy]

They're not necessarily opposed to one another. Even if Communism is established people are still going to be faced with the problem of meaning in their lives and where their values come from in the absence of God. Marx did say that the revolution against capitalism will happen but that doesn't make existentialism any less valid in the aftermouth or before. Economic determinism may be denied by Sartre and put forward by Marx but it doesn't stop Existentialism being of any use. All it states is that the revolution will happen, not give us a timescale for it or an idea about what has to happen to bring it about. Personally I think economics do influence us but I don't think it necessary determines us. I'd like to think we have a certain amount of freedom in our lives.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:10 PM
Their both totally against each other, come on Marx was totally against religion. Why would promote something that is or leads to religion.
I think you may need to consult your dictionary of philosophy.

[Wenty]

Sartre had communist leanings for most of his life didn't he, an idea is that he did so as it helped out sort out society where his theory doesn't.

I don't think they are that different at all, i accept socialist tigers point too though. My interests in philosophy are most great in these two areas actually. Might be an indicator as to how compatable they really are.

[Wenty]

Sartre had communist leanings for most of his life didn't he, an idea is that he did so as it helped out sort out society where his theory doesn't.

I don't think they are that different at all, i accept socialist tigers point too though. My interests in philosophy are most great in these two areas actually. Might be an indicator as to how compatable they really are.

Tristan - existentalism from sartre onwards seems to be atheist but i don't think it is outwardly so. It can lead to it though obviously.

EDIT: I double posted too! Sorry!!

[Trissy]

The only reason that I view Existentialism as a profoundly atheistic field is that it deals with life without apparent meaning, and as such it is easier to see no meaning to life if you lack God. If God is the giver of values then many Christians would say they don't need Existentialism as it is meaningless to them. Kierkegaard was different because he was an existentialist because he held an irrational view of Christianity where faith is opposed to religion with no chance of reconciling them. To have faith for Kierkegaard was different from having faith as Aquinas would define it. It requires a leap of faith due to the irrational nature of Christianity. Also worth noting is that Nietzsche (1844-1900) came before Sartre and so I suppose he can be classed as the beginning of the atheist trend in Existentialism.

[Pete]

Sartre had communist leanings for most of his life didn't he, an idea is that he did so as it helped out sort out society where his theory doesn't.

Satre was both an existentialist and a marxist partisan against the Nazis, or so the bio in my copy of 'Naseau' tells me.

Interestingly enough he paints a negative picture of the socialist in the novel, as a pedophile and a dolt.

Hope that helps!

[Rasta Sapian]

I have not read Satre, however, i don't see why one could not be both a marxist (pertaining to socio-economic terms) and a existentialist (pertaining to indept philosophical terms)

There is nothing wrong with having a RED vision for society and also exercizing ones self in the realities of philosophy! :)

[Wenty]

i wasn't asking for info about sartre but never mind.

[BOZG]

There is nothing wrong with having a RED vision for society and also exercizing ones self in the realities of philosophy!

No there is isn't but Sartre did not try to reconcile economical Marxism with philosophical Existentialism, but existentialism with Dialectical Materialism. Having not read any Sartre I cannot give a definate answer to this question but I did find George Novacks chapter "Marxism and Existentialism" in his Polemics in Marxist Philosophy quite interesting. He lists some of the points of Sartre's existentialism which reject some of the most fundamental aspects of dialectical materialism. The differences with these fundamentals are so great that I would be quite confident in saying that they cannot be reconciled.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Stephy I recommend reading some Sartre, I just read the essay by Novack and its probably the worst thing Ive ever read when it comes to existensialism.

I'll explain later, I'm in UCD and I'm leaving so I'll post tomorrow.

[Palmares]

"Critique of Dialectical Reason, Vol. 1: Theory of Practical Ensembles."

This is the book Sartre attempted to meld the two philosophies together. It is said to be "Sartre's monumental attempt to synthesise his existential anthropology with a Marxist dialectical conception of social history."

I haven't read it myself, I'm still busy reading "the Roads to Freedom".

[cubist]

from personal experience existensialism is not viewed as good by christians, everything doesn't happen for that reason.

the ideal is GOD knows what you will do but you still have to make the choices he may no what you will choose but it isn't beyond your control there is always too outcomes as you have to accept jesus or not according to the bible. god nows what wil happen if you don't follow him and if you do!

[TC]

Jean-Paul Sartre is in a lot of ways, the only truely genuine existentialist philosopher. The Russian existentialists where part of the movement but not philosophers (like dostoevsky could never be considered a real philosopher).

Sartre was a hard-core Communist and he was clearly the leading existentialist and the one who contributed the most to the school, the last to stick with it. He started "Combat" with Camus to fight the Nazis in France (Camus later broke with him over his Communism). He was a dedicated member of the French Communist Party until he broke with the party over its revisionism, becoming a Maoist. He was one of the most public advocates of the Red Army Faction. He believed that Existentialism was just a subset of Marxism.

he wrote this on marxism and existentialism
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...tic/sartre1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htm)

[Trissy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:50 PM
from personal experience existensialism is not viewed as good by christians, everything doesn't happen for that reason.

the ideal is GOD knows what you will do but you still have to make the choices he may no what you will choose but it isn't beyond your control there is always too outcomes as you have to accept jesus or not according to the bible. god nows what wil happen if you don't follow him and if you do!
Well I think Kierkegaard would disagree on that note because even if there is a God who is truly omniscient then the human being in his position of ignorance still runs the risk that he may not exist. Life is full of 'either/or' decisions and people must face them and live lives of commitment to their choices because in the end they are all seemingly absurd. To live an aesthetic life, a moral life or a religious life all require that one makes a leap of faith and for Kierkegaard you can leap from one to another at many times in one's life. There can be no proof of God's existence for him and that is why faith plays such an important part. Even the most devout Christian is faced with doubts at times and fears about 'sickness unto death'. This is why choices are so important and hence why Existentialism is not necessarily opposed to Christianity