Jean-Paul Sartre

[Fedorov]

So as the title suggests I would like to know any opinions or comments on this philosopher. Myself I've been trying to get through Bieng and Nothingness for the last 2 weeks and will admit it isnt the easiest book to read. Anyway Im game for any disscussions about the frenchman.

[Organic Revolution]

I think that a lot of Sarte is very well written, but a lot of his theories hold views that existence is not linear, therefore it does not matter what we do.

[Trystan]

I like Sartre's philosophy (even though I don't 'believe' in it), but I find what he said about the Munich incident abhorrent. His plays are rather good, though. But I prefer Camus. :)

[Hiero]

I think Being and Nothingness is going to be too hard to read for someone who doesn't have some grounded knowledge in philosophy. In this book, and any defining book by any intellectual in any field the author will expect their reader to have some grounded knowledge in the field they are writing about. So Sarte is going to brush over ideas by René Descartes or Kant or whoever. It is not neccassarily that it may be hard (some writers I guess are and always will be difficult) it is just you haven't started at the right place. Anyone who reckons they can pick up any given book at this level and understand it without any pre-knowledge is a liar.

I haven't really attempted Being and Nothingness. I bought a Sartre reader, Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings, Edited by Stephen Priest. This has helped me, it has the full text "Existentialism and Humanism" which I think is the first place to start. Then it has quotes form different notebooks, interviews and Being and Nothingness. Each part starts with an introduction by Priest, which isn't to bad. There are still some parts I can't get into. I am a bit annoyed too how Priest treats Sartre's politics as a fault, or somewhat divorced from his existentialism.

So I have gathered some ideas from Sarte. I got to say that "existance precedes essence" is pretty much accepted by anyone who studies sociology and anthropology these days, I guess the debate is over structures and personal agency. I too am at conflicted over how much agency one has. In way I agree with Sarte that we are free to choose, and when we choose something we choose for all of mankind (setting an example) and also that in that choice we choose whole systems. Choosing to marry we choose monogamy, choosing to enlist in the army we choose a whole set of moral codes and political ideals. But then I can't get away from structural ideas, and more specifically Marxism on how we will choose. I think maybe my conflict is over humanism and anti-humanism.

I think there is something usefull with Sarte, especially as I agree with his politics. Considering he was French, in many ways he was more Communist in political line then the French Communists of his time. I am still trying to find out how he got to make such correct position in regards to the proleteriat movement in the midst of Soviet revisionism, humanistic Communism and the horrible thing that was to come, post-Structuralism.

[Fedorov]

Well I do have a decent base when it comes to philosophy, I'm an avid reader or Kant, Hegel, ect. and my decision for Being and Nothingness was the product of just a random selection, as I knew nothing of the author I didn't know where to start. Then with references to Descartes and other things that the reader is "supposed" to know sort of left me bewildered. Most philosopher are not writters and the idead are complicated so in any case its not an easy task.

I'm actually intrigued by "La Nausee", seeing as its apparently in a novel/story format. Seems to be a starting point of Sartre's thought of object's indifference to themselves, existentialism.

Reading up a bit on his biography I find it very uplifting that he simply wrote and did what he thought was right, not bowing to to the FCP and as you said, Hiero, critisizing the revisionism happening in the USSR.

[Incendiarism]

Yeah, in order to read most modern philosohy you need to acquaint yourself with past philosophers. Philosophy is like that for some reason...there are hardly any philosophy books you can read as stand alone studies, because most make allusions to other ideas and philosophers.

As for existentialism, I think that their novels speak far better than any scholarly thing they've written on the subject. You should definitely check out nausea.

[Hiero]

Well I do have a decent base when it comes to philosophy, I'm an avid reader or Kant, Hegel, ect. and my decision for Being and Nothingness was the product of just a random selection, as I knew nothing of the author I didn't know where to start. Then with references to Descartes and other things that the reader is "supposed" to know sort of left me bewildered. Most philosopher are not writters and the idead are complicated so in any case its not an easy task.

Well maybe it is a hard text then. I just assumed I didn't understand parts because of my lack knowledge of earlier philosophy, which can be true for parts. I was told by a friend that his philosopher lecturer said Being and Nothingness is the book on nearly every philosophy under graduate student's bookshelf that has never been touched.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that a lot of Sarte is very well written, but a lot of his theories hold views that existence is not linear, therefore it does not matter what we do.

This is not true, but it is a common attack on existentialism.

Sartre responded to this in his lecture Existentialism is a Humanism:


Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or willing is a conscious decision taken – much more often than not – after we have made ourselves what we are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry – but in such a case what is usually called my will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. The word “subjectivism” is to be understood in two senses, and our adversaries play upon only one of them. Subjectivism means, on the one hand, the freedom of the individual subject and, on the other, that man cannot pass beyond human subjectivity. It is the latter which is the deeper meaning of existentialism. When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

Sorry for the long quote, I suggest reading the article in its entirety, I can't really explain it all with that one quote because Sartre mentions a lot of examples and such.


Anyone who reckons they can pick up any given book at this level and understand it without any pre-knowledge is a liar.

Yup, I bought a copy of Being and Nothing and tried reading it, but there's nothing much to gain from it without at least basic knowledge of philosophy, given the amount of philosophical terms and notions that he uses.

The Marxism of Jean-Paul Sartre is a pretty good read by the way, if you're interested you should check that out, and Critique of Dialectical Reason is also pretty interesting.

Also, his plays and novels are obviously worth reading, specifically Nausea, The Wall, The Words, No Exit and The Condemned of Altona.

Oh, yeah, and his introduction to Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is great.

[Hiero]

What in your understanding is Sarte's link with Marxism? Is it real?

I have wonder whether he was a Communist, or simple he viewed the action of Communist, and various other guerrilla groups as being the best around, or the best choose in the human universe in his existentialist reasoning. I know in an interview he said he didn't see existentialism making any political doctrines, such in the case of Marx's scientific analysis and his political stuff like the Communist Manifesto. So I often wonder (obviously futher study I would discover) if he support Communism as a political movement that best liberated oppressed and explioted people, but not neccasirily believing in it's scientific approach and it's philosophical/sociological notions.

[Led Zeppelin]

What in your understanding is Sarte's link with Marxism? Is it real?

There's definitely a link between the two, Sartre spent a lot of time studying the philosophy of Marx, and many of his own existentialist notions were either linked to - or directly taken over from - Marx.

A lot of examples are cited in the book I mentioned The Marxism of Jean-Paul Sartre, one notable example is Sartre's opposition to alienation, something which he took over from Marx and "refined" in his own way philosophically (coming up with his version of existentialism).


I have wonder whether he was a Communist, or simple he viewed the action of Communist, and various other guerrilla groups as being the best around, or the best choose in the human universe in his existentialist reasoning.

He was definitely a communist, he was himself "active in the movement".

For example, from Existentialism is a Humanism:


I do not know where the Russian revolution will lead. I can admire it and take it as an example in so far as it is evident, today, that the proletariat plays a part in Russia which it has attained in no other nation. But I cannot affirm that this will necessarily lead to the triumph of the proletariat: I must confine myself to what I can see.

Nor can I be sure that comrades-in-arms will take up my work after my death and carry it to the maximum perfection, seeing that those men are free agents and will freely decide, tomorrow, what man is then to be. Tomorrow, after my death, some men may decide to establish Fascism, and the others may be so cowardly or so slack as to let them do so.

If so, Fascism will then be the truth of man, and so much the worse for us. In reality, things will be such as men have decided they shall be. Does that mean that I should abandon myself to quietism? No. First I ought to commit myself and then act my commitment, according to the time-honoured formula that “one need not hope in order to undertake one’s work.”

Nor does this mean that I should not belong to a party, but only that I should be without illusion and that I should do what I can.

For instance, if I ask myself “Will the social ideal as such, ever become a reality?” I cannot tell, I only know that whatever may be in my power to make it so, I shall do; beyond that, I can count upon nothing.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

[Hit The North]

I suppose another question is 'does Marxism need existentialism'?

[Led Zeppelin]

I think it does Bob.

There has been a strong tendency within Marxism towards dogmatism, existentialism is a reaction to that.

While Communists were telling Sartre that the USSR would inevitable lead to world revolution, Sartre said; No, it may not.

That is an example of the essence of Marxism brought back by existentialism.

[Hit The North]

I'm skeptical that existentialism is necessary to avoid the deterministic dogma of Stalinism; but what was it about existentialism (particularly Sartre's brand - noting that Heidegger's existentialism led him into the arms of the Nazis) which allowed Sartre to overcome the Stalinist distortion you mention?

[Led Zeppelin]

No it's certainly not necessary, there are many Marxists who are not dogmatic and have never read anything by Sartre, nor is it essential for Marxists to read Sartre to not be dogmatic, but if a Marxist is interested in philosophy and specifically ontology, they should definitely look into existentialism for the most modern form of Marxism applied to the subject, at least in my opinion it is.

And as for your question; Existentialism is based on the idea that human beings are free to choose their path in life (of course they are bound by their environment and material conditions, but aside from that), this means that they should be aware and conscious of that choice to be really free. This means that as a philosophy existentialism is the enemy of dogmatism of all kinds, and also of alienation. I believe that it is the best weapon against those for that very reason.

I think the most important relation of existentialism to Marxism is its critique of alienation, or "bad faith". Existentialist novels, plays, movies etc. are all aimed at fighting alienation, and certainly you'd agree that that is something progressive?

[Chapaev]

Sartre’s idealist philosophy is a form of atheistic existentialism that concentrates on the analysis of human existence as it is experienced and understood by the individual and as it develops through a series of the individuals’ arbitrary choices, which are not predetermined by any established laws of being or any known, given essence.

In his theory of engagement, Sartre argues that the writer is responsible for all of contemporary history, sometimes indulging in vulgarly sectarian exaggerations.

In “Critique of dialectical reason”, all of Sartre’s attempts to overcome the gulf between spiritualized man and the material world yield only his own simple combination of reworked psychoanalysis, empirical group sociology, and cultural anthropology, revealing the flimsiness of Sartre’s claims to have “built onto” Marxism, which he recognized as the most fruitful philosophy of the 20th century, with his doctrine of individuality.

[Leo]

While Communists were telling Sartre that the USSR would inevitable lead to world revolution, Sartre said; No, it may not.


Sartre to overcome the Stalinist distortion you mention?

Sartre remained, in the end of the day a stalinist though. I mean the guys comments on Trotskyism are well known for example which are typical stalinist comments, he was a supporter of the Stalinist regime, collaborated with the official CP, and he was also at times close to french maoists and at times to castroism. Although he might have been an "undogmatic" stalinism, his ideas can not be considered an anthithesis to stalinist dogmatism in any way.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sartre remained, in the end of the day a stalinist though. I mean the guys comments on Trotskyism are well known for example which are typical stalinist comments, he was a supporter of the Stalinist regime, collaborated with the official CP, and he was also at times close to french maoists and at times to castroism. Although he might have been an "undogmatic" stalinism, his ideas can not be considered an anthithesis to stalinist dogmatism in any way.

I've never read any comments by him on Trotskyism? Could you post them?

And yes, I'm not denying that politically he wasn't very advanced, he wasn't a traditional "Stalinist" though, he was a pretty independent thinker ideologically.

[Hiero]

I'm skeptical that existentialism is necessary to avoid the deterministic dogma of Stalinism; but what was it about existentialism (particularly Sartre's brand - noting that Heidegger's existentialism led him into the arms of the Nazis) which allowed Sartre to overcome the Stalinist distortion you mention?
Stalin has nothing to do with this. The idea of Sartre's existentialism being an anti-thesis to the deterministic conlcusion one can get from Marxism (any Marxist can come to this conclusion) is based in Sartre's idea of human agency against vulgar historical materialism where the individual is determined by historitical and materialist forces.

Bob you wouldn't even know what the deterministic "dogma" of Stalin is. Especially as shown that Sartre support various groups that trots and anarchist would call Stalinist. If you want to look at thoose who criticised Stalin's determinism, then you need to read Mao's stuff on the USSR, and possibly Gramsci and Althusser in regards to the superstructure-structure relationship. Sartre's critique of Marxism is primarily focused on Marx and historical materialism as a whole.


And yes, I'm not denying that politically he wasn't very advanced, he wasn't a traditional "Stalinist" though, he was a pretty independent thinker ideologically.

I think political he was very advanced, considering what other Western European Communist Parties position at the time. Now that is so anti-Stalin dogmatic to judge whether someone is political advanced on not on whether they criticised Stalin as the root of all evils in the international Communist movement.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think political he was very advanced, considering what other Western European Communist Parties position at the time. Now that is so anti-Stalin dogmatic to judge whether someone is political advanced on not on whether they criticised Stalin as the root of all evils in the international Communist movement.

Sartre did criticize Stalin and his system specifically, so you're directed your argument at the wrong person...

When Leo was referring to "Stalinism" he meant the post-Stalin system as well, the one of the "Kruschev revisionists", which you also criticize if I recall correctly?

When I said he wasn't politically very advanced I meant in terms of his support for various political movements which didn't have much in common politically, for example he supported both the Maoists and the USSR even though they had broken with each other, he did this because he didn't really look much into the ideological issues on which that break was based on, and if he did and ended up as a Maoist or a supporter of the USSR I wouldn't have criticized him for that, because then at least he studied the matter and came to a conclusion on it.

[Led Zeppelin]

By the way, here's an example of Sartre criticizing all dogmatic communists or self-proclaimed Marxists, ranging from all "Stalinists" to Trotskyists as well:


This fixed image of idealism and of violence did idealistic violence to facts. For years the Marxist intellectual believed that he served his party by violating experience, by overlooking embarrassing details, by grossly simplifying the data, and above all, by conceptualising the event before having studied it. And I do not mean to speak only of Communists, but of all the others – fellow travellers, Trotskyites, and Trotsky sympathisers – for they have been created by their sympathy for the Communist Party or by their opposition to it. On November 4, 1956, at the time of the second Soviet intervention in Hungary, each group already had its mind made up before it possessed any information on the situation. It had decided in advance whether it was witnessing an act of aggression on the part of the Russian bureaucracy against the democracy of Workers' Committees, with a revolt of the masses against the bureaucratic system, or with a counter-revolutionary attempt which Soviet moderation had known how to check. Later there was news, a great deal of news; but I have not heard it said that even one Marxist changed his opinion.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htm)

And for more examples of Sartre criticizing Stalinism are in book written on it; Sartre Against Stalinism, by Ian Birchall. I haven't read it but it contains examples like these:


One example is Sartre's support (for Dominique Desanti of the Socialisme et Liberté group) during the occupation for the Trotskyist position that every German was not necessarily a Nazi, and did not necessarily support the Nazi regime.23 (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/pitt.htm#23) This was in direct opposition to the nationalism of the PCF, which had 'among its slogans..."Chacun son boche" (Let everybody kill a German)'.24 (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/pitt.htm#24)


Sartre's involvement in the Revolutionary Democratic Assembly (RDR): The RDR was formed in early 1948 as a response to the Cold War, the Stalinist PCF and Gaullism, and made clear where its principles lay:

Between the rottenness of capitalist democracy, the weaknesses and defects of a certain social democracy and the limitation of Communism to its Stalinist form, we believe an assembly of free men for revolutionary democracy is capable of giving new life to the principles of freedom and human dignity by binding them to the struggle for social revolution.26 (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/pitt.htm#26)
Formed as a left wing anti-Stalinist assembly, the RDR was able to 'achieve a larger membership than any Trotskyist grouping between 1945 and 1968'.27 (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/pitt.htm#27) However, as Birchall points out, the RDR contributed to its own downfall by failing to provide a clear position on the quickly developing political situation.

[Leo]

I've never read any comments by him on Trotskyism? Could you post them?

From "The Communists and the Peace" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0241015022/mimofficialbooks/)

"Trotskyism, in spite of itself, suffers the fate common to all oppositions:
the party in power is realistic since it asserts and claims to prove that the
actual is the only possible. There is only one policy to follow: mine. The
member of the opposition declares that there is at least one other and
that it just happens to be the better, which forces him, in spite of everything,
to take an attitude more or less tinged with idealism: there are possibles which
don't reach realization; the real course of events ceases to be the
measure of man since that which is not is truer, more effective and more
consonant with general interests than that which is. . . .

Marx is certainly far from denying the existence of the possible
but he means by that the stages of future action, such as they appear
to us in the course of its preparation. Leaders and militants must be able
to say to themselves, looking back on the past: 'We did all that was possible
(that is to say, our action extended as far as the circumstances permitted)--
nothing was possible save what we did (events showed that the solutions which
we set aside were impracticable).' This attitude leads to an identification
of reality and action. . . ."

"The [Trotskyist] theoretician can claim to provide us with an indubitable truth on
the conditionthat he confine himself to what is, and does not concern himself with what
might have been. He bases his opinion on a dead reality; he cannot claim certitude
when he tries to establish thepossible consequences of what did not happen.
As for the goal of his research,not having really existed, it will be the
abstract object of an idea; in a word, it will be because it is thought.
Thus, one abandons the properly Marxist scheme for a probabilistic idealism."

"'For a Marxist' every true idea must be practical since truth is action; the
Trotskyist idea would remain a purely lifeless abstraction, an idealistic,
unforeseen event (since it doesn't produce effects by itself, since it points
to a path which it knows will not be followed) if the masses, through their
action and their demands, did not take on the responsibility for giving
these pure subjective concepts a beginning of realization."

[Led Zeppelin]

"'For a Marxist' every true idea must be practical since truth is action; the
Trotskyist idea would remain a purely lifeless abstraction, an idealistic,
unforeseen event (since it doesn't produce effects by itself, since it points
to a path which it knows will not be followed) if the masses, through their
action and their demands, did not take on the responsibility for giving
these pure subjective concepts a beginning of realization."

That is actually true, but not just of Trotskyism, but of every ideology.

The other stuff he says is pretty abstract, his criticism of official Communism was even harsher than that.

Is that the only quote by him on Trotskyism?

[Leo]

That is actually true, but not just of Trotskyism, but of every ideology.

I think he is referring to stalinism when he says "Marxism" there.


Is that the only quote by him on Trotskyism?

I've read about him that he also calls it "anti-communism" but I'm a bit busy to track to source at the moment.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think he is referring to stalinism when he says "Marxism" there.

I don't think he is.

It seems like he used the term Marxism as in he was referring back directly to Marx, as you saw in the quotes I provided on the previous page.

He actually talks about Marx himself in that quote you just posted: "Marx is certainly far from denying the existence of the possible but he means by that the stages of future action, such as they appear
to us in the course of its preparation."

[John Lenin]

I think it is fair to say that in Sartre's view ... the ideal man is one who follows the example of Che Guevara ...



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Beauvoir_Sartre_-_Che_Guevara_-1960_-_Cuba.jpg
Jean Paul Sartre (middle) and Simone de Beauvoir (left) meeting with Che Guevara (right) in 1960




Sartre went to Cuba in the '60s and spent a great deal of time philosophizing with Ernesto "Che" Guevara. After Guevara's death, Sartre would declare him: "Not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age" and the "era's most perfect man." Sartre would also compliment Che Guevara by professing that: "He lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

[black magick hustla]

{Quote}In this book, and any defining book by any intellectual in any field the author will expect their reader to have some grounded knowledge in the field they are writing about. So Sarte is going to brush over ideas by René Descartes or Kant or whoever. It is not neccassarily that it may be hard (some writers I guess are and always will be difficult) it is just you haven't started at the right place. Anyone who reckons they can pick up any given book at this level and understand it without any pre-knowledge is a liar.{/Quote}

I think this should be the case for science, and even some of the more "scientific" sociology. However, the ideas presented by philosophers like Sartre are not as complex as they make them out to be. The obfuscation of Sartre is deliberate.

Why isn't Marx that hard to understand? He does makes some references to other philosophers in his books, like in the German ideology, and his polemics in Das Kapital, but generally, they were things a quick search in wikipedia would solve.

[NerdVincent]

I read "Existentialism is an Humanism", and I'll read "Being and Nothingness" soon enough (right after I finish "Discourse On Inequality" by Rousseau, Spinoza's "Ethics" and "The Republic" by Plato - which means in a few weeks.).
I'm a huge fan of existentialism, with Nietzsche ans Sartre. I think that it should be part of our morality: drop the fatalism, thinking is freedom, and let's "live our words".