Jean-Paul Sartres Existentialist-Marxist - Essay Example

Title The roots of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxist understandings are deeply embedded in the objects of freedom (analytically) and personal struggle (history/personal struggle). It is not only impractical to separate Sartre from his time-period, it is impossible. Dissolution of people’s identities both spiritually and historically were being realized through the tragedies of World War I and World War II. Combining these significant destructions with new perspectives concerning Psychology (through Freud, Jung…), Philosophy found a seemingly different path explaining “who we are” and “what is our purpose” as humans. Sartre was heavily influenced by literature and art and through this media suggested an approach to perceiving the world as it is; ugly, grotesque’, self-absorbed. This movement towards a more realistic or negative view of life differed greatly from the “Hope” offered by Leibnitz, Aquinas and other ‘positivists’. Accordingly, Sartre felt the backlash from “Hopeful-ists” resulting in Sartre’s “Existentialism Is a Humanism” lecture in Paris, France 1944. In “Existentialism Is a Humanism”, Sartre spells out what Existentialism actually is. Sartre says there are two kinds of Existentialist “the Christians...and atheistic existentialists” (Sartre 4) the latter being the group Sartre belongs to. It seems like a curious distinction as the two should, intuitively, be seen in contrast rather than comparable. A “Christian” in the truest sense, would be one supposing a direct spiritual real of essence or distinction of humans separated into a broken world. Man cannot identify directly with “perfectness” or perfection of any ‘essence’ since his imperfect state detours him from an insight into perfectness. Nevertheless, ‘essence’ or perfect knowledge does exist part and parcel to a “Christian’s” understanding of reality. A secondary (primarily: over-ruling), ‘infinite existence’ proceeding and preceding mankind’s reality is a reasonable and definite ‘essence’ suggesting a ‘perfectness’ outside of man’s own creation of truth. Contrary to Sartre, Heaven and Hell are real and the best mankind can do is ‘experience’ partly by living as a Christian the ‘essence’ of what “Is, Was, or ever Has Been” like Aquinas suggests. Perhaps Sartre’ wished to embolden and/or disarm his Christian detractors by enlisting Gabriel Marcel as a co-conspirator since Marcel, a converted Catholic, first “endorsed but later repudiated” (SEP) the Existentialist label. Adding a supremely ironic twist is Sartre first repudiating then endorsing the label of ‘Existentialism’ himself (Sartre.org). Sartre may have been reading Kant and his “Utilitarianism” by including Christianity as a default proponent; by utility. Sartre suggests the commonness of existentialists is the belief that “existence precedes essence.” This idea is novel in the scheme of Philosophy. Greek thought or philosophy from Plato suggested a “Realm of Forms” as the perfection of anything conceivable in perfect form. The ‘thing’ observed had a ‘perfectness’ illustrated in the “Realm of Forms” above and beyond the common illusionary perception of a living human being (Plato 68). Sartre defined reality as production of each individual perceiver’s understanding or capabilities without a definite ‘template’ or guide about what may or may not be true of the ‘thing’ perceived. This is Sartre’s ‘Freedom’ supposition: “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” (Sartre 5). Here, Sartre follows closely in the footsteps of Spinoza by exacting ‘God’ from the realm of reality and describing a ‘natural’ or humanistic understanding of reality. Freedom, to Sartre, is not a political or societal extension; although it can be. Freedom is breaking the chains of bondage from “determinism” of perhaps, Calvinistic Christianity and allowing man the complete dominion of his or her own realities. It is this misstep of “determinism” that Sartre misapplies Christian dogma. It appears Sartre is under the belief Christian ‘followers’ fall into a “fatalistic determinism” promoted by John Calvin. Only in Calvinistic Christianity does fatalistic determinism exist as an example of Christian belief and practice. Calvin believed that there are a few people “in” the spiritual realm of God and many who were outside this “God realm”. Of those that are not “in”, there is no hope for getting in to “heaven”. This is a rogue promotion by Calvin of Christian dogma and not consistent with historical Christian thought. Sartre may also be suggesting the baptism of babies by Catholics is also fatalistic. One can be baptized at any age so there is no “determinism” seen in this regard. Sartre’s misconception or error with understanding Christianity seems to be almost his “jumping off point” with Christianity because he uses determinism so dramatically as the apparent reason for finding Christianity unreasonable. The vast majority of Christian ‘followers’ realize the ‘freedom’ of ‘free-will’ enjoyed or anguished by each human being is also ‘freedom’ without the restraints of ‘forced occupation’ by God in their own lives. Christians are just as ‘free’ to choose or not to choose to follow the ‘God’ of their own. Besides believing in God and creating truths from personal observations relative to one’s parallax, Christianity is quite similar to Existentialism. Sartre’s existentialist realism was borne out of a human-only concept of reality void of God. God/religion was only an “opiate for the masses” and not truly a real entity. Heaven/Hell are with us every day because there exists nothing else than life. Sartre clearly spells out his philosophical observations in his lecture, Existentialism Is a Humanism: “…affirms that every truth imply an environment and a human subjectivity” (Sartre 5). Though Sartre’s Existentialism is lost today under the philosophical blanket of post-Modernism, Sartre is making the point the ‘relative’ support of what is ‘truth’ belongs solely to the human perceiving ‘truth’. Sartre immediately castigates his critics about their disgust for his negative views concerning life by suggesting his critics, on the one hand “easily stomach a Zola novel like ‘The Earth’ are sickened when they open an existentialist novel.” (Sartre 2). The novelist who Sartre is referencing is readily known to his French audience; Emile Zola. Zola was a widely read and beloved French novelist of the late 1800’s. Zola was “the founder of the Naturalist movement in literature. Zola redefined Naturalism as "Nature seen through a temperament"…” (Zola.org) and effected deep changes in French attitudes by depicting the decrepit state of the working class and championing sympathy from his readers for change. So dominantly popular was Zola and his quest to depicting the working class’ horrible living conditions in France, Van Gogh included Zola’s book “Le Joi De Vivre”[Joy of Living; an ironic title-there is no joy in living] in his “Vase With Oleanders” as a sarcastic reaction towards life by both Zola and Van Gogh. The ties of Sartre to literature and art are clear. Sartre is expressing his contempt for his audience’s desire for realism reading about the struggles of life and human exploitation, seeing in Van Gogh’s artworks the realistic absurdity and grotesqueness of everyday life by every day people, and despising Sartre for creating a philosophy (Existentialism) precisely parallel with Zola and Van Gogh. Sartre’s philosophy, according to Sartre, warrants support from the public by extension but the people are controlled by tradition dismissing existentialism simply because it is different: “one should not try and fight against the establishment; one should not be more royalty than the king, or meddle in matters exceeding one’s station in life; any action not keeping with tradition is mere romanticism; any effort not based on proven experience is doomed; since experience shows that men are invariably inclined to do evil, there must be strict rules to restrain them, otherwise anarchy ensues.” (Sartre 3) The connective influences by literature and art on Sartre and existentialism is further cemented by actions by Sartre. Sartre believed the ties of the “Arts” with philosophy (existentialism) were so tightly bound, Sartre wrote and premiered 4 Plays concerning his philosophy; No Exit, Le Jeux Sont Faits [The Chips are Down], Les Mains Sales [Dirty Hands], The Devil and the Good Lord. Of course, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Existentialism seems to sway, like art and literature, somewhere between hope and terror which becomes the lynchpin of existentialism. Hope and terror are emotional responses to things unknown, like god, when in fact, the natural state of all things is precisely found in the middle of the polar opposites ‘fear’ and ‘hope’; as a uniform extension of ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’. Spinoza supports this assertion saying “Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear.” (Spinoza 3) The ‘superstition’ Spinoza alludes to is the concept of ‘God’. It certainly leads to the ultimate conclusion affirming the ‘naturalness’ of reality and speaks simultaneously of Freud’s Religion quotient “Its technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner” (Freud, 36). To an existentialist, the real world is filled with pain and suffering but this suffering can be eliminated by, and only by, humans eventually becoming free, “there is no determinism--man is free, man is freedom” (Sartre 22). In this “freedom” is the true hope of erasing the human nature of error enlightening the world to gloriousness of individual liberty without excuse (human nature is flawed). Also in the pronouncement is the fatal flaw of existentialism and post-modernist thought. Sartre relied upon psychology for understanding reasonable perceptions and feigned spirituality as a defense mechanism. Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy introduced a ‘new’ version of study and reflection; Phenomenology. Phenomenology relates to ‘phenomena’ or ‘things’ we perceive and understand through our experience. Perceptions of ‘things’ relates directly to ‘appearances’ suggesting an inclination borne in humans towards independent discovery using clear perceptions. The effect of this awareness is a central theme to Sartre’s philosophy: Human responsibility is to act in a manner that betters humanity. The uniqueness of Sartre’s awareness of associations with perceptions is the addition of social morays together with psychology. Psychology became a new experience the early part of the 20th century and brought with it a “science” or scientific thought. It was natural to meld as examples, Van Gogh’s Art, Emile Zola’s Literature, Karl Marx’s Socialism, Freud and Jung’s Science World War I and World War II’s destruction with a completely different Philosophy; Existentialism. Traditional protections of peace, honor, dignity etc. were turned on their heads in the first 4 decades of the 1900’s. Dissolution, confusing and change were rampant throughout the world providing an ample breeding grown for a new thought process because the “Old Thought Process” proved to be extremely inadequate. Enter Existentialism. As for the fruits of Existentialism; it seems too early to tell yet. Marxism proved to be a “reshuffling” of wealth from royalty to Socialist “Royalty” like Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin leaving an over-burdened and under-paid Proletariat and a new Bourgeoisie; Socialist Leadership. Existentialism was an extension of Marxist ideology and one may suggest a sapling from the Darwinian Evolutionist seed. The problem inside of Existentialism suggests an interesting prologue for Existentialism; in theory it works much better than in practice. The fatal flaw of Existentialism is its inability to sustain the dignity of its own beliefs. Sartre went to great lengths defending Existentialism completely unaware he was undoing his own Philosophy. There is no need to convince anyone of anything since each individual, according to Existentialism, is subject only to their own perceptions. Convincing another that “The sky is filled with stars” or “Putting the letters C-A-T together makes the English word cat” is truly no one’s business but those who choose to believe that particular “truth”. There is no need of convincing. There is no reason to even write. In fact, there is no reason to even think if one chooses that form of reality. Christianity is a completely understandable reality for those who believe; it is their “truth”. If Existentialism promotes no definitive truths then why defend Existentialism as a definitive proof? Accordingly, all things are also; some things, a few things, everything and nothing all at the same time-and at no time or some time. Each human being in the audience where Sartre spoke has the right and the ability to create their own personal truths. If that is true, Existentialism falls flat on the floor because it would be true. Existentialism persists in supplying every human their own special form of understanding. Sartre says, “For there is no God and no prevenient design, which can adapt the world and all its possibilities to my will” (Sartre 15). This may or may not be true. Proving what he said would have placed Sartre directly above Jesus as the one of two or three most famous figures of all-time. It is apparent that if God does exist, Sartre is pretty angry with Him. Sartre goes on to tell us of his impetus for developing Existentialism, “ 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” (Sartre 16). How can it possibly be for Sartre to rain insults on any so-called Ideology since each Ideology is equal to another in form and fashion because of individual freedom to choose what is good and what is not good? He did fight in World War II and was intimately close to the horrors of Fascist Nazi’s. He was also taken prisoner and fought for the French Resistance. Sartre’s Existentialism is fascinating but not quite able to answer some alarming questions in a logical format. Sartre tried for most of his adult life to eradicate ‘God’ from the world. Sartre’s Existentialism is a witness to his work. Works Cited Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Ed. Stratchey J. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961. Print. Marcel, Gabriel. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Unk. Web. April 25, 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/ Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Ed. Hamilton, Edith. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1961. Print. Sartre, J.P. Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre. Ed. Kaufman, Walter. Paris: World Publishing Co. 1956. Print. Spinoza, Baruch. Theologico-Political Treatise. Gutenberg Project. Web. April 23, 2013. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/989/pg989.html Zola, Emile. Emile Zola History. Unk. Web. April 24, 2013. http://emilezola.org/ Read More