there is no existentialist marxists, and there is jean paul sartre (liar to your face)
Dear me. Frankly, you're increasingly striking me as kind of a tragic figure, seeing how your methodology and analytical skills aren't by far as well developed as you seem to think. So let's take you through it again, one tiny step after another.
First off, what you need to realize is that, when somebody has been two contradictory things in his life, it doesn't mean that he's been both at the same time. I could be healthy today and a cripple tomorrow. So in hindsight I would have been both in my life, healthy and a cripple, but never both at the same time. In particular, Sartre having been both, Existentialist and Marxist, at different points in his life doesn't mean that he's been both simultaneously. And especially doesn't it mean that the theoretical foundations of both could be unified. Which they, incidentally, can't.
Next, taking a closer look at Sartre's actual development, we see how he started out as an Existentialist under the influence of Heidegger and Husserl, and particularly so as a nonmaterialist and, as such, in direct opposition to Marxism. Then, pretty much all of a sudden, he started to embrace Marxism, at which point he denounced his earlier philosophy. Understand? He stopped being the Existentialist that he was.
Next, he still tried to introduce an existentialistic twist into Marxism - like with his book "Critique de la raison dialectique" - by trying to unify those two contradictory world views. Contradictory because, in the simplest terms, one is based on collectives and the other on the individuum. Unfortunately he failed to convince anybody with his theoretical efforts, and especially failed to convince marxist thinkers like Lukács to name an example. One reason being that Sarte based his work on Husserlian phenomenology and in consequence couldn't integrate key axioms of Marxism, like that the dynamics of history cannot be deduced from individual existence, into his theory. So to repeat: he failed at the unification of those two contradictory philosophies.
And it doesn't actually require reading and understanding his work to verify this. Just google for the both words "marxism existentialism" and you'll see that there's just one single name coming up: Sartre. None of his contemporaries or following philosophers picked up his "ideas". His work didn't evolve into a school or community promoting his latest works. It's been a dead end. And that's why the statement "Sartre was both, a Existentalist and Marxist" in the sense of "one could meaningfully be both at the same time" is plain wrong. Was that now, eventually, easy enough for you to understand?
no political things in 8 & 1/2, and later you admit that the nuclear bomb
Thermonuclear war, to be precise. And, by means of the dialog spoken in the film, this thermonuclear war is to be understood as metaphor for a Noachian flood, thus putting it into a religious rather than political context. Again, I'm amazed you can't figure that out all by yourself.
You know, not every allusion to a nuclear bomb needs to be politically motivated. Or would you see a nuclear-bomb-shaped dildo as a political symbol? But then, you probably would, wouldn't you.
reply
share