Sartre

[praxis1966]

Forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but I've come to realize that if I'm going to have any understanding of the philosophical arguments for communism, I'm probably going to need to read at least a little Sarte. The problem is, as I'm sure most of you are aware, is where to begin. Needless to say, the vast catalogue that is Sartre's writing is intimidating, to say the least. I've heard Being and Nothingness is pretty good, but that it can be a headache evened for seasoned philosophy students. So, the question is, where to start? (If anyone could give me perhaps three or four titles, preferrably in the sequence I should attack them, I would be eternally greatful.)

[Bannockburn]

What are you trying to do to begin with? Do you want to know just his own marxism? or his entire philosophy? If its the former, begin with this:

1)exisentialism and humanism: this will give you a brief outlook of Sartre's existentialism, and how its radically too Cartesian to have anything to do with Marxism, provided however small hints of a social responsibility.

2) What is litrature? This will show Sartre's shift and the beginning of a social response

3)Between existentialism and Marxism
4)Communism and peace
5) Roads to freedom.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why do you think you need to understand Sartre in order to better understand Communism.

Sartre was a Maoist for the most part, or at least supported Maoist China. His philosophy also has very little to do with Communism except for his reconciliation of the two [Existentialism is a Humanism] which is of intellectual value only. It's not a must read if you want to grasp Communism.

If you want to understand Existentialism I would suggest you start with fictional works by Albert Camus, or even Sartre, although I don't rate them comparitively with Camus.

'The Outisder' - Albert Camus
'Nausea' - Jean Paul Sartre

Both books are a good place to start to understand the basis of Existentialism, although both come from different points of view. I found starting with fiction works better than starting with the heavy theoretical stuff because the metaphors are easier to get your head around.

[praxis1966]

Thanks to both of you.

To TAT: Right, I'd heard that about the novels versus the theory. In fact, I did have a copy of Resistance, Rebellion, and Death around here somewhere. I started to read it once upon a time, and was going to pick it up again but I can't find it now.

In any case, I had read that about Sartre, that he was something of a totalitarian. At least, that's what he demonstrated in his letters to Camus (where he showed that given a choice between executioner and victim, he chose executioner i.e. his moral defense of Stalin).

Lastly, I was kind of hoping to understand more of existentialism in the process, if for no other reason than intellectual curiosity. I've already read a bit of Nietschze, and found it a little to predatory for my taste. I was looking for something a bit more humanistic than that. So, I guess my point is that I'm not ruling out doing some reading on the school of existantialism in a wider sense either.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well then I would suggest 'Rebel' and 'Myth of Sisyphus'. They are less intellectually challanging that say 'Being and Nothingness' written by Sartre.

Sartre was far more intellectual than Camus, but in my opinion Camus translated the existential absurdity of existence than Sartre,

Having said that, the language of "existenial absurdity" implies that existence is absurd, which Sartre would argue was incorrect.

At the end of the day, it's up to you to develop your own understanding of existentialism, and in order to do that I would suggest reading Kierkgaard, Hiedegar (sic), Camus and Sartre.

They are the main proponents of Existentialism. I'm obviously biased because I only refer you to humanistic existentialism rather than religious existentialism, which I would adivse you to ignore completely.

Existentialism is a natural progression. It's the realisation of existence and regardless of all these philosophers and intellectual writings, you can just read a book like 'The Outsider' or 'The Fall' and realise the angst that being alive creates.

Existentialism negates intellectualism by the very nature of what it realises, and even if you want to understand the dense intellectualism of it, you don't have to.

Such is the beauty and neutrality of understanding the true nature of your existence.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you just want to get a basic grasp, save your self a few months and read "Introducing Sarte" by P Thody and H Read.

[praxis1966]

At the end of the day, it's up to you to develop your own understanding of existentialism, and in order to do that I would suggest reading Kierkgaard, Hiedegar (sic), Camus and Sartre.

Yeah, I was aware that Sartre relied heavily on Hieddegar, but I must admit my ignorance of Kierkegaard. I'll probably read all of them eventually, what I was looking for at the moment was just something of a point in the right direction.


Well then I would suggest 'Rebel' and 'Myth of Sisyphus'. They are less intellectually challanging that say 'Being and Nothingness' written by Sartre.

It's not the intellectual challenge that I'm concerned with, actually I rather enjoy that sort of thing. What I needed was something introductory, something that would provide a framework to understand Sartre's later thinking. It sounds like CDL just came up with exactly that. At any rate, I have an idea of where to go. Thanks again to all three of you.

[Monty Cantsin]

This subject comes up from time to time, you should read the past thread where we talk it over.

Like the last thread here- THE LAST THREAD (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41161&st=0)

TAT still has not yet replied to my Criticisms of Camus (Camus’s Absurdism is hopelessly flawed, i.e. it’s absurd).


Sartre was far more intellectual than Camus, but in my opinion Camus translated the existential absurdity of existence than Sartre,

Having said that, the language of "existenial absurdity" implies that existence is absurd, which Sartre would argue was incorrect.

and he wold have said so correctly though his philosophy was also flawed but more workable then Camus.


They are the main proponents of Existentialism. I'm obviously biased because I only refer you to humanistic existentialism rather than religious existentialism, which I would adivse you to ignore completely.


that's weird Kierkegaard was a religious thinker but you've mentioned him.


anyways if you're looking for an easy way into Sartre read what Bannockburn put forward. if you want to understand Camus read the 'Myth of Sisyphus' but not the rebel.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 16 2005, 05:43 AM
that's weird Kierkegaard was a religious thinker but you've mentioned him.
Not really weird. I just made a mistake...Humans make mistakes :o