BAISTEATIALISM

A few observations on a complex
and confusing school of thought

By JOHN JAY

ERHAPS the simplest way to
discuss the subject of Ex-
istentialism, is to dispense

with ceremony and to begin
with the conclusion, and that is
to ‘put on notice the sundry,
philosophers and. theologians
who compose that school of
thought that it is just too dif-
ficult to believe that they want
(since their aims are so obscure
and their motives so contradic-
tory), or that they know where-
of they speak (since the terms
they employ are incredibly ar-
bitrary and utterly indefinable).

It should be stated at the out-
set that Existentialist doctrines
—which, by the way, vary from
author to author — have little
application to the problems of
the common -man or those of
the working class, however re-
bellious and. socially conscious
- they appear on the surface. For
it is the very core-of their think-
ing to treat. the world of reality
as an absurdity, that deserves
nothing but philosophic scorn.
And it is in this scorn of the
outer world they would find
their liberation, resting on the
inner resources of the indivi-
dual.

One of the outstanding ex-
ponents of contemporary Exist-
entialism is Jean Paul Sartre,
who also lays claim to being a
Marxist on the ground that he
can redeem Marxism from its
fundamental fallacies. Here are
some of his characteritsic ob-
servations. In his Being and No-
thingness he writes: “All human
activities are equivalent. Thus
it is the same thing to get
drunk or to lead people.” (But
surely there must be some dif-
ference, for example, between
raping one’s mother-in-law and
kissing her on the forehead —
differences that range all the
way. from physiological to the
moral plane).

Elsewhere we are told “It~is
absurd that we are born; it is
absurd that we die.” Without
trying to be derisive, one must
object to the above statement
as making little sense: in the
first place, why dwell on the ini-
tial and final points of life —
over which we have little choice
—when what is important for
most of us is the interval be-
tween the two points — that is
life itself, there where the ac-
tion is. Then, again, if it is ab-
surd being born, then it must
be a relief to die; on the other
hand, if it is absurd to die, then
life” must have been good.
Whichever way you look at it,
it just won’t add up. Maybe that
is the reason that suicide is a
favorite topic among these writ-
ers, although in general, they do
not favor it as a solution.

Without delving too deeply
into their work at this point, the
gentlest verdict we can give on
the Existentialist philosophers
is that at bottom they are a
lot of unhappy intellectuals

“words,

seeking a comfortable resting
place in a world they reject, a
world from which they recoil in
disgust. As philosophic misfits,
they have prejudiced their case
from the start.

Adam Schaff, ‘a Communist
theoretican, in his Philosophy
of Man, ascribes the rise of Ex-
istentialism to the political
crises, and social shocks that

-marked the history of the 19th

and 20th centuries. The pro-
found changes and upheavals
experienced in that period pro-
duced a situation where, in his
“the established tradi-
tional criteria no longer can
serve us. Hence the Existential-
ist atmosphere of mental depres-
sion, the sense of helplessness
of the individual grappling with
omnipotent and irrational forces
.... a widespread crisis of value,
a feeling of ... the senseless-
ness of conscious activity, the
usual accompaniments of wars
and revolution . . . all of these
accentuated by revelations of
‘mistakes and distortions’ within
the Communist movement.”

This led to the view of a re-
lentlessly hostile universe be-
yond human control, coupled
with the concept of the indivi-
dual as “isolated, lonely and
tragic in his importance, strug-
gling senselessly with the alien
forces around him.” If life was
a struggle, it was a “hopeless
struggle against malicious fate.”

The name Existentialism was
derived, according to Jasper,
one of its spokesmen, from the
stress that: was put on_indivi-
dual ‘being’ or ‘existence’ to the
point where “the entire respon-
sibility for his existence rests
on his own shoulders .. .” An-
other writer explains it in
terms: “The primary proposition
of Existentialism is the exist-
ence, which is defined as the im-
mediate, living experience of the
individual, takes priority over
essence, that is, rational ab-
stractions reflecting the laws,
properties and relations of ob-
jective reality.”

Sartre’s own diagnosis is brief
but instructive. “Existential-
ism,” he states, “in its contem-
porary form, appears with the
decomposition of the  bour-
geoisie, and its region is bour-
geois.”” Which poses the ques-
tion, is it but another symptom
of decay, or a true antidote
against that decay?

When we are confronted with
a persistently gloomy view of
life,- we cannot call it valid or
invalid since in the end it is an
attitude that resolves itself into
a mood which is, in turn, mainly
a matter of taste, disposition or
circumstances rather than a.
truth or untruth. But it is dif-
ficult to see how any self-res-
pecting citizen of sane mind and
normal disposition can accept
the Existentialist antipathy to
the world we live in: Since is
the only world available to us
for the time being, most of us

would agree that the sensible
thing to do is to make peace
with it — or better still, set out
to make it do our bidding.
Looked at objectively, the
planet we inhabit is neither
malignant nor benign, neither
overwhelming in its ferocity nor
too readily yielding to our de-
sires; it is neither capricious nor
always orderly in its ways; it is
all of these mixed together, and
which will come uppermost de-
pends so much on our degree of
mastery or backwardness. The
historic, the momentous facts
remains, however, that it has
yielded to human effort. It is a
physical fact that our planet
does sustain life, that our en-
vironment has evolved the most
wondrous mechanism, that it
can produce flowers as well as
weeds, saints along .with sin-
ners. In addition, it has given
birth to culture and civilization.
If it is not too irreverent, one
is tempted to ask our Existen-
tialist thinkers what on earth
they’d do when the rains come
down? — do they stand there
cursing their fate, or compose

learned tracts on a universe’

that is all wet, or simply open
an umbrella for protection, that
is, respond with an appropriate
action?

Perhaps their rebellion is not
so much against ‘untamed Na-
ture as such, but against the
human environment — against
organized society and the evils
of our modern civilization. But
these, in fact, follow their own
evolution, are governed by prin-
ciples that apart from those
which determine organic evolu-
tion or inanimate nature, for
here we must- take into account
the human element, the creators
as well as the victims of his-
tory. Should it be the social
evils which fill them with revolt
and despair, then surely this is
the wrong ‘time to lose heart
when such splendid new vistas
are about to open for mankind.

It would be fair to say that
the Existentialists world outlook
hinges largely on their parti-
cular definition of the indivi-
dual, and that view of the in-

dividual is more than abstruse
— it is quite impossible. From
their own premises that start
out with an opinion fate, we
would assume that the role of
the individual would be corres-
pondingly reduced to a big zero.
That would be at least logically
consistent.

Strangely enough Sartre en-
dows man with such inordinate
freedom as to make him a law
unto himself: Sattre would have
us believe that the isolated in-
dividual is completely at liberty
to decide for himself as he
wishes, that he is able to defy
external reality (‘factity’ he
calls it), to indulge in any ar-
bitrary act of free will, so that
no outside power or authority
can determine his existence.
Such unlimited freedom can be
embarrassing, except that we
are warned in the same breath
that in the end “no real or last-
ing freedom is attainable.”

It is almost embarrassing to
have to point out so obvious a
fallacy as the conception of an
isolated individual vested with
absolute freedom, unlimited
and unconditioned. Instead of a

being of flesh and blood that .

makes up our society and is
moulded by society, always
subject to its powers and in-
fluences, we have a purely theo-
retical invention, a ghostly con-
cept, -a metaphysical entity, in
short, and not a social creature
at all. No less obvious is it that
the very beginning of human
wisdom and certainly its essen-
tial ingredient is to recognize
and take into account the re-
strictions and limitations that
beset human efforts and invari-
ably condition and determine
the outcome in human affairs.
Call it reason, call it knowledge,
call it maturity, but do not dare
to dismiss it in the name of any
philosophy of freedom of the
individual.

Our conclusion, therefore, is
quite clear. If we define any
work of philosophy as a system
of logical (or verbal) constructs
which may or may not be based
on actual experience but is in-
ternally consistent enough to
furnish a unified account, then
obviously the various brands of
Existentialism will not stand
even that purely formal test. If,
however, it can be directly re-
lated to our experience, and be
further developed into a trusted
guide to practice, then we have
a theoretical structure that has
genuine value. This will become
more evident as we go on an-
other realm of thought — one_
that much more robust and ex-
hilarating and more darkly real,
yet brilliant with hope and
promise for the immediate fu-
ture. I refer to the teachings of
Marxism.

--Welt der Arbeit (Cologne)

“That’s a fcrmer producer who took a chance on producing a

genuine worthwiiile and meaningful picture.” :

the wrote. Lysistrata

‘of better than avera:

~ funny, usually convi
- amiable guzzler,

Aristophanes’ The’ Fit
presented in 405 B.C.,
formal debut of the
sey Productions at -
Alex Theatre in Toron®

The Greek playwrigh

and his slave descend ©
where they encounter ro
droll and bawdy advent) —
meet the illustrious pla
Euripides and Aeschylt,
engage in a jealous co!
mutual defamation.
But apart from the ‘
comedy of The: Frogs, (17
is of interest for a DUM”
other reasons: aid
It reflects a historic rl
debate. It reminds us ef j
Greeks who wrote for th Hj
were very much sat
about their politics f
culture. And it dem g
that 2,372 years ago,
the older generation ©
ried about its young pe? |
Aristophanes had thé |
tion of being a cons)
aristocratic anti-democt¢
anti-war. pieces. He ye 7
long feud with Eurip!
liberal who brought GM
atre from the lofty heyy)
Aeschylus down closet | of 1
an terms. Euripides @y
strongly anti-war in Hi
The current present@
rected by David Leslié¢

elif”

ods’

The production would:

ever, benefit from a m0? i
defined viewpoint, a5
more stylized treatment
As Dionysus, Sol — ot
is amusing, sometiml |
ncifB
rene,
lecher and general Cz)
ture. Ian Gibson’s Bute
David Rowe's Aeschylt%
thily portray the comm ¥
saries, and Vernon Esti 4
authority and dramatic ha ,
to his Pluto. The ChO! 9
comment briskly on f
action, are not always ih
for best variety and ad é
We don’t often get yy
Greek classics on stag& i)
opportunity, many i ;

’

Ad by a London mov
showing an old film: et j
seen it on TV — now x
a 3,000-inch screen.” |

February 10, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE~ —