Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A bunch of topics

Expand Messages
  • Brian Hodgman
    Joe wrote: I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist issues. I too have shared this
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
      compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
      issues."

      I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
      that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
      Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
      that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
      been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
      Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
      philosophy of our time").

      But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
      courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
      think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
      and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
      the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
      same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
      an instrument).

      Just some thoughts,

      - Brian



      --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "decker150" <decker150@y...> wrote:
      > You said: "I think I want to focus on 'enframing'".
      >
      > My Reply: I do have a few extra thoughts on this. Ge-Stell
      literally
      > means to-place-together-with. Fleshing this out in an ordinary
      > expression, in the sense that the German word signifies, I imagine
      > that it might sound something like this. One builder says to his
      > apprentice - "place one stud together with another stud by nailing
      > them together. There is a sense of giving some kind of structure
      to
      > constructed form. This comes to be applied to technology,
      technics,
      > and engineering, but overlaps into other things we build. The main
      > idea inherent in the Go-stell is that of order, arrangement and
      > structure. This has no problem working it's way into practical
      > expressions such a 'framing a house', being a framer of the
      > Constitution, or even working to frame ones thoughts, so to speak;
      it
      > is the act of placing one thing together with another that
      Heidegger
      > applied toward technology.
      >
      > Not far from consideration are the issues of world and earth,
      > technology and nature and the split between them that indicates a
      > breech of harmony. That is, technology exploits nature to the
      > precious advantage of human will. I do this to my own backyard. I
      > suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological compatability
      between
      > formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist issues. Science sides
      with
      > the world, not the earth. I suppose too that there is some
      > appreciation deserving here for nature-for-its-own-sake, not merely
      > there as a resource for the human taking. But back to enframing,
      we
      > give structure to our lives by building the world, by drawing from
      > nature to fund our creations. Alas, we create alot of machines,
      > devices, methods, organizations, and various units of structure to
      > dominate our environments. We can only be glad that nature lacks
      an
      > angry cogitos, or could wake up from it's own self-forgetful
      state, to
      > hurl us all off the earth, away from its own harmony and
      > being-here-for-itself.
      >
      > Joe
      > >
      > > On another topic, is there anyone up on Habermas? Just curious.
      > >
      > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months
      FREE*
      > >
      > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-
      ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Ma
      rket_MSNIS_Taglines
    • Henry W. Peters
      ... At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest Search For A Method,
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
        > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
        >philosophy of our time").

        At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
        exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
        "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
        for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
        the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
        Dialectical Reason."

        Henry


        At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
        >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
        >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
        >issues."
        >
        >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
        >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
        >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
        >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
        >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
        >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
        >philosophy of our time").
        >
        >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
        >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
        >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
        >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
        >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
        >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
        >an instrument).
        >
        >Just some thoughts,
        >
        >- Brian
        >
      • decker150
        Hey Brian, Regarding the Marxist perspective, I also thought that by apperception and the apophantic as , that one fault at work in the exploitative mind is
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Brian,

          Regarding the Marxist perspective, I also thought that by apperception and the apophantic 'as', that one fault at work in the exploitative
          mind is that (s)he fails to 'see' a person or the environment as something separate from their view 'as' something to be used,
          manipulated and exploited. Perhaps it is not this simply, but I imagine that when we see a worker 'as' a means to our own end, as
          well as nature-itself, this brings up something that Edmund Husserl referred to as 'epoche'. It seems that the capitalist mindset is just
          one more variation of "the natural attitude" Husserl warned about, by which we easily take everything for granted. We are far too
          concerned for the everyday world, making sense of it, framing it into a workable profile of meaning. But a profile is just one strain of
          alternative mindsets. In other words, profiles vary from epoch to epoch, from culture to culture, indicating that there is a need to
          ontologically transcend. During the phenomenological reduction, we are lead back to the concreteness of our vision, to acquire a
          more reliable focus. So there is the idea that a method exist to pursue counter-exploitation. But in comes out of
          enlightened disclosure. The condition of the natural attitude is that important aspects of a manifold have been covered up. That is,
          one can not see them 'until' we are able to see them. Speech is apophantic, so the hiddeness of a truth is capable of being exposed
          through apophantic speech. I should make a clarification. In the apophantic 'as' that exploits a human being as 'the worker', is the
          manifest appearance of the worker who is seen as a worker through the visible context. The worker, seen, shines forth as such.
          However, back to 'speech', the worker reclaims the concreteness of their humanity when the logos assist to reveal them as such, as
          more than objects of use, as the capitalist mindset comes to be 'alongside' another being as only a 'useful thing' like a hammer, etc. I
          often thought that a worker may see-themself 'as' a worker (self-exploitation), no?

          Joe
        • decker150
          It seems that Sartre also regreted his political moves towards Marxism. Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end? Didn t Sartre eventually become disullusioned
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            It seems that Sartre also regreted his political moves towards Marxism. Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end? Didn't Sartre
            eventually become disullusioned with Marxism applied. I think he was inspired to help change the world, to do more than merely
            philosophize. But after having seen Marxist principles up close and in a real world application, he withdrew his close involvement. Is
            this a correct view?

            Joe

            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
            > At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
            > > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
            > >philosophy of our time").
            >
            > At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
            > exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
            > "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
            > for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
            > the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
            > Dialectical Reason."
            >
            > Henry
            >
            >
            > At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
            > >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
            > >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
            > >issues."
            > >
            > >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
            > >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
            > >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
            > >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
            > >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
            > >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
            > >philosophy of our time").
            > >
            > >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
            > >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
            > >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
            > >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
            > >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
            > >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
            > >an instrument).
            > >
            > >Just some thoughts,
            > >
            > >- Brian
            > >
          • Henry W. Peters
            Joe, I think that it is likely he didn t regret his philosophical moves toward Marx... Indeed, the literature sited by me previously indicated that for him...
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe,

              I think that it is likely he didn't regret his philosophical moves
              toward Marx... Indeed, the literature sited by me previously
              indicated that for him... there were infact few moments of true
              philosophical creativity... & Mr. M. was one...

              It is my distinct impression that one of the main reasons this is so
              is that Marx was the first to see in a systemic way that Humans were
              possible masters of our own destiny, that is, that we are not
              NECESSARILY (pre) determined by our history... & to do this, one
              need act in like ways... including a wider circle of who was/is
              (considered) human. In my book, the implications of this go well
              beyond almost any failed application/s of the Marxist dogma/s...

              I read somewhere or the other, an interview (I think, tho, that some
              of it's authenticity has been disputed, if memory serves here at all
              well) where he is quoted regarding his outlook toward the then more
              obvious failure of the Soviet system, etc... as saying something
              like; we may need to start over again...

              Remember... (?) Sartre was no stranger toward ridged & blind
              dogmatism... He wrote about the Soviet invasion & betrayal of
              Hungary in the 1950's... He wrote about Stalinist mentality... &
              acts... & much more...

              I did find in an interview conducted around 1975... (d. 1980) some
              likely relevant material (The first voice is that of the interviewer;
              Michel Contat):

              "But when you first went to the U.S.S.R., did you know of the
              existence of the camps?

              Yes, I knew about them; I had denounced them four years earlier,
              along with Merleau-Ponty. Actually it was a joke among the writers
              who received me-they would say, "Be sure not to go see the camps
              without us!" But I didn't know they still existed after the death of
              Stalin, and certainly not that the Gulag was involved! No one in the
              West knew it for certain at that time...

              So aren't you afraid of learning some day that there is a Gulag in China?

              But we are already somewhat aware of it; you read Jean Pasqualini's
              book on the Chinese prison camps! When I was in China in 1955, I was
              shown prisons but they had nothing to do with what Pasqualini
              describes, which I have no doubt is true. But I think there are many
              fewer camps in China than in the U.S.S.R., even if they are
              undoubtedly terrible...

              And don't you think we might be in for some nasty surprises?

              Oh, yes, I think so. That's why we shouldn't put our faith in the
              Chinese revolution, any more than in any revolution today. But once
              again, that does not stop me from being optimistic."

              P. 86-87, "Self Portrait At Seventy, "Life/Situations, Essays Written
              and Spoken" ©1977 Pantheon Books

              Henry

              NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
              distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
              receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

              >It seems that Sartre also regreted his political moves towards
              >Marxism. Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end? Didn't Sartre
              >eventually become disullusioned with Marxism applied. I think he
              >was inspired to help change the world, to do more than merely
              >philosophize. But after having seen Marxist principles up close and
              >in a real world application, he withdrew his close involvement. Is
              >this a correct view?
              >
              >Joe
              >
              >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
              >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
              >> > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
              >> >philosophy of our time").
              >>
              >> At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
              >> exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
              >> "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
              >> for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
              >> the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
              >> Dialectical Reason."
              >>
              >> Henry
              >>
              >>
              >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
              >> >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
              > > >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
              > > >issues."
              >> >
              >> >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
              >> >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
              >> >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
              >> >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
              >> >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
              >> >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
              >> >philosophy of our time").
              >> >
              >> >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
              >> >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
              >> >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
              >> >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
              >> >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
              >> >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
              >> >an instrument).
              >> >
              >> >Just some thoughts,
              >> >
              >> >- Brian
              >> >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • ian buick
              Most commentators on this list tend to talk about Marxism as if it were a single body of knowledge (and then go on to dismiss it by equating it to Stalinism).
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Most commentators on this list tend to talk about Marxism as if it were a
                single body of knowledge (and then go on to dismiss it by equating it to
                Stalinism).
                As a first stage in the discussion it might be productive to try to come
                near to a definition of Marxism and then try to see where Sartre stood in
                relation to this.

                A good starting point might be Lenin's essay "The Three sources and Three
                Component Parts of Marxism' Here he asserts that the three sources and
                component parts of Marxism are German philosophy, English Political Economy
                and French socialism. This synthesis of philosophy, economics and a
                political/social theory we could call Original Marxism. Marx himself devoted
                most of his life to developing the economic analysis of capitalism, but left
                very little in the way of philosophical or social theory.

                The most comprehensive and influential marxist political theory was
                developed by Lenin himself, and this was further 'developed' by Stalin -
                this could be called Soviet Marxism (although most Marxists - myself
                included - would draw a sharp distinction between Leninism and Stalinism:
                Lenininism being mainly about achieving political power., Stalinism about
                developing Socialism in an economically backward country with a minute
                proletariat)

                The development of the philosophical and aesthetic side of Marxism became
                the province of what is referred to as Western Marxism, most exponents of
                which were professional philosophers as opposed to activists - eg the
                Frankfurt School, Althusser, Sartre, Croce.

                Later developments in the 1970s would see the rise of Eurocommunism ( a more
                parliamentary form of communism) under the influence of Berlinguer in the
                Italian CP and Carillo in the Spanish party.

                (The actual development of 'Marxism' is much more complex and is well
                treated in Perry Andersons Considerations on Western Marxism)

                As for Leninism, Sartre dismissed Lenin's theory of the party - democratic
                centralism - , due to it's inherent anti-democratic tendencies. (It was
                also jetisoned by most Western European Communist Parties in the 70s.
                However, Lenin's economic analysis of Imperialism still retains some
                validity in its portrayal of the capitalist system as a band of robbers
                carving up the world for profit (dare I mention Iraq!?).

                Stalinism has shown itself to be intellectually and morally bankrupt. This
                was certainly Sartre's view and was a crucial impetus for him writing his
                'Search for a Method' and the 'Critique of Dialectical Reason'. Soviet-style
                Marxism was suffering from sclerosis and he saw his task to rejuvenate it by
                developing a marxist existentialism (although he portrayed it as
                existentialist marxism). Essentially, this involved a return to the original
                ideas of Marx.
                (Sartre did mention in a late interview that he had doubts about Marxism,
                but it is unclear exactly what 'Marxism' he is referring to. Was it Maoism,
                towards which he moved in the 70s or was it the excesses of Stalism in
                Czechoslovakia or truly the original marxism?)

                It is therefore important to bear in mind that Sartre wrote the Critique
                against Stalinism not Marxism. The fact that the Soviet Block disintegrated
                is not necessarily a refutation of Marxism, although it is most certainly
                a refutation of Stalinism. What Sartre advocated was a revivication of the
                original ideas of Marx and particularly the idea that man makes his own
                history but not in circumstances of his own choosing.

                This for me is the key move from Being and Nothingness to the Critique. In
                B&N, Sartre saw freedom as total, with any social element being restricted
                to the pernicious effects of the 'look': "conflict is the original meaning
                of Being for others" (BN 289). In the Critique (and here I include Search
                for A Method) Sartre recognises stronger limitations on freedom - the
                practico-inert - which nevertheless can be surpassed, and goes on to
                develop a more satisfactory social theory in his analysis of collectives.

                Perhaps we can continue the discussion with an attempt to clarify the nature
                of Sartre's Marxist Existentialism or Existential Marxism.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: decker150 [mailto:decker150@...]
                Sent: 15 March 2004 21:32
                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [Sartre] Re: A bunch of topics


                It seems that Sartre also regreted his political moves towards Marxism.
                Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end? Didn't Sartre
                eventually become disullusioned with Marxism applied. I think he was
                inspired to help change the world, to do more than merely
                philosophize. But after having seen Marxist principles up close and in a
                real world application, he withdrew his close involvement. Is
                this a correct view?

                Joe

                --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
                > At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                > > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                > >philosophy of our time").
                >
                > At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
                > exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
                > "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
                > for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
                > the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
                > Dialectical Reason."
                >
                > Henry
                >
                >
                > At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                > >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
                > >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
                > >issues."
                > >
                > >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
                > >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
                > >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
                > >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
                > >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
                > >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                > >philosophy of our time").
                > >
                > >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
                > >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
                > >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
                > >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
                > >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
                > >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
                > >an instrument).
                > >
                > >Just some thoughts,
                > >
                > >- Brian
                > >



                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT





                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                --
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • decker150
                Thanks Henry, that gives me more to think on. Perhaps the Marxist he encou= ntered did not embrace his emphasis upon freedom or perhaps I m thinking he was
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Henry, that gives me more to think on. Perhaps the Marxist he encou=
                  ntered did not embrace his emphasis upon freedom or
                  perhaps I'm thinking he was working toward an greater political role for hi=
                  s Existential work. I really am only guessing.

                  Joe

                  --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
                  > Joe,
                  >
                  > I think that it is likely he didn't regret his philosophical moves
                  > toward Marx... Indeed, the literature sited by me previously
                  > indicated that for him... there were infact few moments of true
                  > philosophical creativity... & Mr. M. was one...
                  >
                  > It is my distinct impression that one of the main reasons this is so
                  > is that Marx was the first to see in a systemic way that Humans were
                  > possible masters of our own destiny, that is, that we are not
                  > NECESSARILY (pre) determined by our history... & to do this, one
                  > need act in like ways... including a wider circle of who was/is
                  > (considered) human. In my book, the implications of this go well
                  > beyond almost any failed application/s of the Marxist dogma/s...
                  >
                  > I read somewhere or the other, an interview (I think, tho, that some
                  > of it's authenticity has been disputed, if memory serves here at all
                  > well) where he is quoted regarding his outlook toward the then more
                  > obvious failure of the Soviet system, etc... as saying something
                  > like; we may need to start over again...
                  >
                  > Remember... (?) Sartre was no stranger toward ridged & blind
                  > dogmatism... He wrote about the Soviet invasion & betrayal of
                  > Hungary in the 1950's... He wrote about Stalinist mentality... &
                  > acts... & much more...
                  >
                  > I did find in an interview conducted around 1975... (d. 1980) some
                  > likely relevant material (The first voice is that of the interviewer;
                  > Michel Contat):
                  >
                  > "But when you first went to the U.S.S.R., did you know of the
                  > existence of the camps?
                  >
                  > Yes, I knew about them; I had denounced them four years earlier,
                  > along with Merleau-Ponty. Actually it was a joke among the writers
                  > who received me-they would say, "Be sure not to go see the camps
                  > without us!" But I didn't know they still existed after the death of
                  > Stalin, and certainly not that the Gulag was involved! No one in the
                  > West knew it for certain at that time...
                  >
                  > So aren't you afraid of learning some day that there is a Gulag in China?=

                  >
                  > But we are already somewhat aware of it; you read Jean Pasqualini's
                  > book on the Chinese prison camps! When I was in China in 1955, I was
                  > shown prisons but they had nothing to do with what Pasqualini
                  > describes, which I have no doubt is true. But I think there are many
                  > fewer camps in China than in the U.S.S.R., even if they are
                  > undoubtedly terrible...
                  >
                  > And don't you think we might be in for some nasty surprises?
                  >
                  > Oh, yes, I think so. That's why we shouldn't put our faith in the
                  > Chinese revolution, any more than in any revolution today. But once
                  > again, that does not stop me from being optimistic."
                  >
                  > P. 86-87, "Self Portrait At Seventy, "Life/Situations, Essays Written
                  > and Spoken" ©1977 Pantheon Books
                  >
                  > Henry
                  >
                  > NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
                  > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest i=
                  n
                  > receiving this information for research and educational purposes.
                  >
                  > >It seems that Sartre also regreted his political moves towards
                  > >Marxism. Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end? Didn't Sartre
                  > >eventually become disullusioned with Marxism applied. I think he
                  > >was inspired to help change the world, to do more than merely
                  > >philosophize. But after having seen Marxist principles up close and
                  > >in a real world application, he withdrew his close involvement. Is
                  > >this a correct view?
                  > >
                  > >Joe
                  > >
                  > >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
                  > >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                  > >> > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                  > >> >philosophy of our time").
                  > >>
                  > >> At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
                  > >> exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
                  > >> "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
                  > >> for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
                  > >> the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
                  > >> Dialectical Reason."
                  > >>
                  > >> Henry
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                  > >> >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
                  > > > >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
                  > > > >issues."
                  > >> >
                  > >> >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
                  > >> >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
                  > >> >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
                  > >> >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
                  > >> >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
                  > >> >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                  > >> >philosophy of our time").
                  > >> >
                  > >> >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
                  > >> >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
                  > >> >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden=

                  > >> >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
                  > >> >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the=

                  > >> >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
                  > >> >an instrument).
                  > >> >
                  > >> >Just some thoughts,
                  > >> >
                  > >> >- Brian
                  > >> >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Monte Morris
                  Camus started out in the Communist political party in France and later left, disillusioned by blinded ideology and a powerful central government. Although
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 16, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Camus started out in the Communist political party in
                    France and later left, disillusioned by blinded
                    ideology and a powerful central government.
                    Although Camus didn't like the capitalist,
                    corporate-driven agenda, he didn't see an
                    ideologically blinded Communist government as a
                    suitable alternative.
                    Camus may be who Joe is thinking of.
                    --Monte
                    --- "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@...> wrote:
                    > Joe,
                    >
                    > I think that it is likely he didn't regret his
                    > philosophical moves
                    > toward Marx... Indeed, the literature sited by me
                    > previously
                    > indicated that for him... there were infact few
                    > moments of true
                    > philosophical creativity... & Mr. M. was one...
                    >
                    > It is my distinct impression that one of the main
                    > reasons this is so
                    > is that Marx was the first to see in a systemic way
                    > that Humans were
                    > possible masters of our own destiny, that is, that
                    > we are not
                    > NECESSARILY (pre) determined by our history... & to
                    > do this, one
                    > need act in like ways... including a wider circle
                    > of who was/is
                    > (considered) human. In my book, the implications
                    > of this go well
                    > beyond almost any failed application/s of the
                    > Marxist dogma/s...
                    >
                    > I read somewhere or the other, an interview (I
                    > think, tho, that some
                    > of it's authenticity has been disputed, if memory
                    > serves here at all
                    > well) where he is quoted regarding his outlook
                    > toward the then more
                    > obvious failure of the Soviet system, etc... as
                    > saying something
                    > like; we may need to start over again...
                    >
                    > Remember... (?) Sartre was no stranger toward
                    > ridged & blind
                    > dogmatism... He wrote about the Soviet invasion &
                    > betrayal of
                    > Hungary in the 1950's... He wrote about Stalinist
                    > mentality... &
                    > acts... & much more...
                    >
                    > I did find in an interview conducted around 1975...
                    > (d. 1980) some
                    > likely relevant material (The first voice is that of
                    > the interviewer;
                    > Michel Contat):
                    >
                    > "But when you first went to the U.S.S.R., did you
                    > know of the
                    > existence of the camps?
                    >
                    > Yes, I knew about them; I had denounced them four
                    > years earlier,
                    > along with Merleau-Ponty. Actually it was a joke
                    > among the writers
                    > who received me-they would say, "Be sure not to go
                    > see the camps
                    > without us!" But I didn't know they still existed
                    > after the death of
                    > Stalin, and certainly not that the Gulag was
                    > involved! No one in the
                    > West knew it for certain at that time...
                    >
                    > So aren't you afraid of learning some day that there
                    > is a Gulag in China?
                    >
                    > But we are already somewhat aware of it; you read
                    > Jean Pasqualini's
                    > book on the Chinese prison camps! When I was in
                    > China in 1955, I was
                    > shown prisons but they had nothing to do with what
                    > Pasqualini
                    > describes, which I have no doubt is true. But I
                    > think there are many
                    > fewer camps in China than in the U.S.S.R., even if
                    > they are
                    > undoubtedly terrible...
                    >
                    > And don't you think we might be in for some nasty
                    > surprises?
                    >
                    > Oh, yes, I think so. That's why we shouldn't put
                    > our faith in the
                    > Chinese revolution, any more than in any revolution
                    > today. But once
                    > again, that does not stop me from being optimistic."
                    >
                    > P. 86-87, "Self Portrait At Seventy,
                    > "Life/Situations, Essays Written
                    > and Spoken" �1977 Pantheon Books
                    >
                    > Henry
                    >
                    > NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
                    > 107, this material is
                    > distributed without profit to those who have
                    > expressed a prior interest in
                    > receiving this information for research and
                    > educational purposes.
                    >
                    > >It seems that Sartre also regreted his political
                    > moves towards
                    > >Marxism. Was Sartre a Marxist to the very end?
                    > Didn't Sartre
                    > >eventually become disullusioned with Marxism
                    > applied. I think he
                    > >was inspired to help change the world, to do more
                    > than merely
                    > >philosophize. But after having seen Marxist
                    > principles up close and
                    > >in a real world application, he withdrew his close
                    > involvement. Is
                    > >this a correct view?
                    > >
                    > >Joe
                    > >
                    > >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters"
                    > <hwpeters@j...> wrote:
                    > >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                    > >> > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that
                    > "Marxism is THE
                    > >> >philosophy of our time").
                    > >>
                    > >> At this point... we might want to explore (in
                    > some fashion) just
                    > >> exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this
                    > ground... I suggest
                    > >> "Search For A Method," Sartre's longish &
                    > illuminating introduction
                    > >> for his two volume (of which I have read only
                    > the first, as this is
                    > >> the only one that I know of published in
                    > english): "Critique of
                    > >> Dialectical Reason."
                    > >>
                    > >> Henry
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                    > >> >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense
                    > an ideological
                    > > > >compatability between formal Heideggerian
                    > concepts and Marxist
                    > > > >issues."
                    > >> >
                    > >> >I too have shared this thought. In particular,
                    > it seems to me
                    > >> >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to
                    > Hegel's "Master/Slave
                    > >> >Dialectic." From what little I have learned
                    > about Marx, I remember
                    > >> >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I
                    > imagine he must have
                    > >> >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic
                    > as well (I know
                    > >> >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim
                    > that "Marxism is THE
                    > >> >philosophy of our time").
                    > >> >
                    > >> >But then again, Marx was completely passed over
                    > in my philosophy
                    > >> >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely
                    > off base. But I also
                    > >> >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of
                    > "handiness" (Vorhanden
                    > >> >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of
                    > alienation, in that
                    > >> >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification)
                    > of the worker is the
                    > >> >same as taking/making the Other as something
                    > "to-hand" (that is, as
                    > >> >an instrument).
                    > >> >
                    > >> >Just some thoughts,
                    > >> >
                    > >> >- Brian
                    > >> >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                    > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > >
                    > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                    > removed]
                    >
                    >


                    =====
                    --Monte Morris
                    Philosopher wannabe
                    Japan
                    "Needs to find a good quote"


                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Niel Kenmuir
                    Critique of Dialectical Reason vol 2 is published by Verso, translated by Quintin Hoare. ISBN 0-86091-311-2 if you re interested. ...
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 16, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "Critique of Dialectical Reason" vol 2 is published by Verso, translated by
                      Quintin Hoare. ISBN 0-86091-311-2 if you're interested.

                      >From: "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@...>
                      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >Subject: [Sartre] Re: A bunch of topics
                      >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:17:21 -0500
                      >
                      >At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                      > > - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                      > >philosophy of our time").
                      >
                      >At this point... we might want to explore (in some fashion) just
                      >exactly WHY & the context which JPS took this ground... I suggest
                      >"Search For A Method," Sartre's longish & illuminating introduction
                      >for his two volume (of which I have read only the first, as this is
                      >the only one that I know of published in english): "Critique of
                      >Dialectical Reason."
                      >
                      >Henry
                      >
                      >
                      >At 5:38 PM +0000 03/15/04, Brian Hodgman wrote:
                      > >Joe wrote: "I suspect it would be easy to sense an ideological
                      > >compatability between formal Heideggerian concepts and Marxist
                      > >issues."
                      > >
                      > >I too have shared this thought. In particular, it seems to me
                      > >that "being-for-Others" is closely related to Hegel's "Master/Slave
                      > >Dialectic." From what little I have learned about Marx, I remember
                      > >that he was a voracious reader of Hegel, so I imagine he must have
                      > >been greatly been influenced by this dialectic as well (I know
                      > >Sartre was - and lest we forget Sartre's claim that "Marxism is THE
                      > >philosophy of our time").
                      > >
                      > >But then again, Marx was completely passed over in my philosophy
                      > >courses at Michigan, so I might be completely off base. But I also
                      > >think you could argue Heidegger's analysis of "handiness" (Vorhanden
                      > >and Zuhanden) is related to Marx's concept of alienation, in that
                      > >the Capitalist's exploitation (objectification) of the worker is the
                      > >same as taking/making the Other as something "to-hand" (that is, as
                      > >an instrument).
                      > >
                      > >Just some thoughts,
                      > >
                      > >- Brian
                      > >
                      >

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
                    • Henry W. Peters
                      ... Niel, Thank you thankyou!!! Henry
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 16, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >"Critique of Dialectical Reason" vol 2 is published by Verso, translated by
                        >Quintin Hoare. ISBN 0-86091-311-2 if you're interested.

                        Niel,
                        Thank you thankyou!!!

                        Henry
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.