Existentialism and Marxism - Essay Example

Existentialism and Marxism In the ancient days of the United s and America as a whole, Latin Americans inhabited theregions and developed slowly through the lineage of time. At this point and time, there was the presence of two different types of people in the regions. One of the types was those that supported the Marxism philosophy and these people were Marxists. Marxism by definition was the philosophy that went with the notion of an economic and socially directed community. The concept of Marxism went as far as scrutinizing and deep analysis of capitalism. This notion swept the world through a phase of political change that evolved generation after generation. There was also the concept of Existentialism that also spread through Latin America in a major manner. This concept was unique in that it stressed the significance of experience as compared to notions that come from other people’s views. This means that it identifies an individual to be a free being not to follow various factors from others. Many philosophers had different notions on the two different philosophies and the comparison of their views goes deep. Romero Francisco in Theory of a Man displays his vast and widespread support of the Existentialism notion. In this book, he argues deeply stating that the running of the society through material ideology is nothing but a waste of time due to the manner through which the society has progressed through the ages (Romero 134). The author states very clearly that he very much supports the effort and the changes observed in the behavioral sciences and that they have hopes in the future but rather discredits the pace through which they have had in the past days. Romero states that in Latin America, people were rather confused on the way to which they should follow in society and thus many of them did not have a sound decision but rather followed the mass (Romero 142). He states this to be the reason unto why societal progress has been very slow from those days, thus Existentialism credited, and the entire disregard pointed towards Marxism. He also goes ahead to state that the weakness of the human being is what made him believe in culture rather the scientific revolution of the age. He states that with the stand that he takes on the issue, he has no offence towards reductionism and that it is a concept feared only by those with developmental fear. A writer that is clearly against this notion is Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. In this book, Enrique goes a long way in explaining the manner in which the Latin Americans were represented or rather took up Marxism and states that this was a rather conscious decision for them (Dussel 67). In the book, he majorly focuses on issues relating to Ethics and politics. Enrique states that human beings in the era needed a political scope of the world and notes a sociological view because understanding the society was not just enough. Enrique claims that for one to concentrate on the rather large Latin American society at the time, the basic philosophy to understand is that on politics. Enrique states that no society can run without the basic unit that is a government. It is due to this that he states that the formation of a government was important. It is from this governing body that unity was found to develop and as a single unit, there was the ability to move forward with decisions that are more informed rather than having an individual making a single decision (Dussel 154). This is because it would lead to confusion with one another constantly ending in feuds and thus the importance of the Marxism movement in Latin America. Francisco Milro Quesda in Without Theory goes a long way in explaining the various concepts that show the reason as to why the Existentialism notion was rather important in the Latin American society. He states that many of the human philosophies going around are baseless and are bound to fail because they base the human experience in a manner that the issues that they faced were rather metaphysical. He goes further to explain that human beings are bound to the ties of laws and society and cannot live without the various social theories around. Moreover, Francisco claims that human beings try in an endless manner to ensure that they control the world rather than the forces of nature controlling it. This is one major reason that makes the human beings of ancient America lean more on the Existentialism Philosophy. Leonardo Boff in Science, Technology, Power takes a rather different stand on the issue of Marxism and existentialism in the Latin American culture. This is from the manner in which he portrays his ideas and reveals different facts that prove his point. As opposed to many philosophy writers, Boff talks about the community through a theological nature. He however ensures that more of the information leans towards the contemporary theories of the 21st century. It is due to this that he combines his Bible theories with the notion of Marxism to achieve a rather complex understanding of the Latin America philosophy. Boff explains that the social nature of the Latin Americans was not self-inflicted but rather a revelation of God’s presence as he guided them on what to do. This was the reason as to why the people came up with the idea of observing one superior being. Having one being to be worshipped and respected, they had to follow all that he said and it is for this reason that they got a similar calling all together. The reason that they got this at the same time clearly defines the fact that they had to move along together and thus the concept of Marxism through which they followed all rules and did all things as a movement. The nature of Self by Risieri Frondizi is a book that goes to the extreme in an effort to try to explain the issue of the Latin American philosophy by portraying the actual importance of Existentialism. In his book, the author explains that Existentialism made people independent in the making of decisions and that the people were able to follow their own principles in the achievement of their set goals. This was rather important in that it assisted in the development of personal nature that is a very important characteristic in the American society. Moreover, the concept was rather important in that it assisted in ensuring that the people did not fall back in laziness. Risieri claims that the people involved in the revolution of the Latin American society followed the notion of Existentialism to reach to the point where they are. He goes ahead to state that were it not for the philosophy, many people in the society would have been lazy as they would have waited for the other population as stated in Marxism to move on and they would try to fit in without any form of effort. Jose Comblin Iin Science and Technology goes directly against the facts provided by Risieri. This is from the manner through which he states that human beings in the Latin American society were rather non-developed and needed a particular push for them to achieve all that they needed at the time. He states that without unity, the people could not have made it as far as the contemporary times with the number of developments seen. He states that unity was one thing that assisted in the development of America. He states that human beings being together also assisted in the development of various aspects of society. One of the major changes found in society is in the scientific field of view. Science is one aspect that has evolved over time and this attributed to the number of people who came together to shed light to the rather complex field. He states that without this Marxism notion of having a sociopolitical field of view, the efforts could have gone to drain and the contemporary developments observed in the world could not be present. The main argument from the various arguments stated above is that of Risieri Frondizi. This from the fact through which he states that human beings did not develop as a unit entirely, the argument is clear to state that there was the political view through which the population was ruled though it also states that the political aspect was just an umbrella through which many other developments could be gained. He goes further to explain that underneath the cover of politics there was the individual responsibility of each person in Latin America. The manner through which the contemporary world runs is such the political units are used just to rule the people but the individuals toil on their own in an effort to accomplish their day-to-day needs. This is very important as it ensures that there are no people left behind. If it was to be treated politically as a whole, the Latin America society could not have made it to the present times. This is because laziness could have overcome many while others depended on others or the movement as a whole. The disapproval for the Marxism notion is from the manner in which it judges actions either upright or wrong not depending on why they are being carried out but from whether they go in line with social needs and all other related factors. The actions are judges to be whether successful or not from the end outcome. If the outcome does not assist in the progress of society, it receives no credit. The Existentialism on the other hand does not actually judge through this manner as a person can carry out activities that assist in personal development. This was the same case as in the Latin American society and thus development was rather distinguished. Work Cited Brown, David. “Marxism versus Existentialism” George Novack’s Understanding History. Retrieved on 6th April 2012 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/works/history/ch12.html Dussel, Enrique. Philosophy of Liberation. New York: Cengage Learning. 2003. Print. Romero, Francisco. Theory of a Man. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. 1964. Print. Read More