What do you think?
Rate this book
Critique de la Raison dialectique #1
Critique of Dialectical Reason, Vol 1: Theory of Practical Ensembles
At the height of the Algerian war, Jean-Paul Sartre embarked on a fundamental reappraisal of his philosophical and political thought. The result was the Critique of Dialectical Reason, an intellectual masterpiece of the twentieth century, now republished with a major original introduction by Fredric Jameson. In it, Sartre set out the basic categories for the renovated theory of history that he believed was necessary for post-war Marxism.
Sartre’s formal aim was to establish the dialectical intelligibility of history itself, as what he called ‘a totalisation without a totaliser’. But, at the same time, his substantive concern was the structure of class struggle and the fate of mass movements of popular revolt, from the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century to the Russian and Chinese revolutions in the twentieth: their ascent, stabilisation, petrification and decline, in a world still overwhelmingly dominated by scarcity.
Sartre’s formal aim was to establish the dialectical intelligibility of history itself, as what he called ‘a totalisation without a totaliser’. But, at the same time, his substantive concern was the structure of class struggle and the fate of mass movements of popular revolt, from the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century to the Russian and Chinese revolutions in the twentieth: their ascent, stabilisation, petrification and decline, in a world still overwhelmingly dominated by scarcity.
864 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
45 people are currently reading
1554 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
1,097 books13k followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 17, 2012
This is an advanced work on Dialectical Theory, Existentialism, Epistemology and Ontology. Anyone unfamiliar with these concepts, or traditions should seek more introductory works first and then move on to this fascinating but difficult study.
The Critique of Dialectical Reason grew out of Sartre's increasing disagreement with Marxist theory, as well as his disenchantment with the realities of life in Soviet Russia. In immediate terms this book grew out of the intellectual sparing between himself and Communist intellectuals that began with his book 'Search for a Method". More comprehensively this book is the culmination of Sartre's philosophical and political engagement with the world.
Sartre's early existentialist philosophy stressed above all individual freedom and responsibility. Later, his political commitments, and the plight of oppressed groups, (presented to him in Simone de Beauvoir's increasing Feminism, as well as his friendship with Franz Fanon, and his rejection of capitalism) tempered many of his individualistic axioms. But, as Sartre became increasingly impacted by the Marxist arguments regarding class and material circumstances, he also became disenchanted with their rejection of individual rights and needs in favor of collective spirit. To Sartre neither the idealistic philosophy of capitalist society, nor the deterministic materialist dialectics of Marx (arguing that man's consciousness was determined by his material conditions) were adequate: He sought a middle route.
In doing so Sartre combines Hegel's idealistic dialectics: dialectics of spirit, history, and logic, and Marxist materialist dialectics and examines their efficacy in understanding historical events.
The result is one of the most difficult and frustrating books ever written. In order to transcend the ironically binary categories of both idealistic and materialistic dialects, and to avoid universalism, (a big concern in France at the time with the emergence of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, etc) while also avoiding relativism, (which he argued Foucault among others will guilty of) Sartre is forced to create an army of specialized terms to equip him to proceed with his inquiry.
Critique volume 1. is well over 800 pages and bears the mark of having been written by a man propelled by uppers (up to 20 tablets of codrain per day). It is sprawling and loosely organized monster of a book. Luckily, the editing work has included a decent glossary of terms, (a much better one is included in Vol. 2.) The Glossary is crucial, and it makes sense for a committed reader (which is the only type of reader who has any hope of finishing this book) to buy Vol. 2 at the same time in order to utilize the glossary.
Length and difficulty aside this is an astounding and important work that cannot be overestimated.
Unfortunately, since the nature of the work regards both epistemology and ontology, it is impossible to reproduce the main conclusions of the book. Much in the way that Kafka wrote, Sartre's greatest insight, his liberation of Dialectical Reason from specifically idealist or materialist chains requires diligent attention. It is a method of thought that he is convincing one of, the only way to learn is such aspects of mental grammar are through mimicry. We have to read Sartre's convoluted book in order to experience the methodology of his thinking.
The Critique of Dialectical Reason grew out of Sartre's increasing disagreement with Marxist theory, as well as his disenchantment with the realities of life in Soviet Russia. In immediate terms this book grew out of the intellectual sparing between himself and Communist intellectuals that began with his book 'Search for a Method". More comprehensively this book is the culmination of Sartre's philosophical and political engagement with the world.
Sartre's early existentialist philosophy stressed above all individual freedom and responsibility. Later, his political commitments, and the plight of oppressed groups, (presented to him in Simone de Beauvoir's increasing Feminism, as well as his friendship with Franz Fanon, and his rejection of capitalism) tempered many of his individualistic axioms. But, as Sartre became increasingly impacted by the Marxist arguments regarding class and material circumstances, he also became disenchanted with their rejection of individual rights and needs in favor of collective spirit. To Sartre neither the idealistic philosophy of capitalist society, nor the deterministic materialist dialectics of Marx (arguing that man's consciousness was determined by his material conditions) were adequate: He sought a middle route.
In doing so Sartre combines Hegel's idealistic dialectics: dialectics of spirit, history, and logic, and Marxist materialist dialectics and examines their efficacy in understanding historical events.
The result is one of the most difficult and frustrating books ever written. In order to transcend the ironically binary categories of both idealistic and materialistic dialects, and to avoid universalism, (a big concern in France at the time with the emergence of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, etc) while also avoiding relativism, (which he argued Foucault among others will guilty of) Sartre is forced to create an army of specialized terms to equip him to proceed with his inquiry.
Critique volume 1. is well over 800 pages and bears the mark of having been written by a man propelled by uppers (up to 20 tablets of codrain per day). It is sprawling and loosely organized monster of a book. Luckily, the editing work has included a decent glossary of terms, (a much better one is included in Vol. 2.) The Glossary is crucial, and it makes sense for a committed reader (which is the only type of reader who has any hope of finishing this book) to buy Vol. 2 at the same time in order to utilize the glossary.
Length and difficulty aside this is an astounding and important work that cannot be overestimated.
Unfortunately, since the nature of the work regards both epistemology and ontology, it is impossible to reproduce the main conclusions of the book. Much in the way that Kafka wrote, Sartre's greatest insight, his liberation of Dialectical Reason from specifically idealist or materialist chains requires diligent attention. It is a method of thought that he is convincing one of, the only way to learn is such aspects of mental grammar are through mimicry. We have to read Sartre's convoluted book in order to experience the methodology of his thinking.
Read
September 27, 2010Sartre was taking amphetamines while writing this book. Probably too much.
April 27, 2008
Along with Search for a Method, this book was a fascinating examination of dialectical reason as applied to groups-in-fusion and the then reigning Marxist paradigm of the French left. Sartre critiques the claim that such reason provides the truth of history and adds his existentialist ideas of intentionality and individual choice. Expands on phenomenological analysis and historical reasoning with the idea that individuals choose their own destiny within the context of historical givens and limitations that act as constraints and oppositions. The word he used was alterity. I used to read this book late into the night, while I drank glasses of cold vodka, and then congratulate myself that drunk as I was, I could still understand Sartre. Maybe there was a connection here to Sartre's own drug use....
September 26, 2024
A very difficult work, but one with a scope and rigour that is deserving of a 5-star rating. It will likely be incomprehensible without thorough background knowledge of the milieu Sartre is writing in—knowledge of Hegel’s Phenomenology is essential for understanding the advancements in thought that Sartre is putting forward. Thus contextualized, it is one of the most impressive theoretical works I have ever encountered. Indeed, this book surpasses Being and Nothingness.
January 30, 2014
Not really a book about Marxism but more generally a theory of human association. Read and re-read and re-reading. You have to go back to this book several times before it makes sense. Go to the parts on the bus queue first (seriality) then try 'the indirect gathering'. Sartre makes more sense in the middle and at the end of the book when he talks of seriality, the en fusion, the group, the organisation and the institution. (I am a published writer on Sartre and can be contacted through this site for comments and queries - John Wilson)
October 5, 2023
In this ambitious work, Sartre grapples with the intricate relationship between individual freedom and societal structures, drawing from Marxist dialectical materialism and existentialism to form a complex synthesis. He explores the nature of human relationships, class struggle, and the role of history in shaping individual and collective consciousness.One of the strengths of Sartre's critique lies in his ability to dissect the complexities of human existence within a highly interconnected and interdependent world. His analysis of the "practico-inert," a concept central to his argument, sheds light on the ways in which individuals are shaped by the material and social conditions of their existence.
This book doesn’t have the existential erotic vibe like Sartre's masterpiece Being and nothingness. It is more like a dry narrative of how mateiral world is shaping up arouns us. And its very repetitive in its nature. Sometimes even Sartre wasn't aware what the hell was he writing. Of course this is important if you want to understand Sartre and his thought on Marxism. Apart from that it didn’t add anything substantial in philosophy.
This book doesn’t have the existential erotic vibe like Sartre's masterpiece Being and nothingness. It is more like a dry narrative of how mateiral world is shaping up arouns us. And its very repetitive in its nature. Sometimes even Sartre wasn't aware what the hell was he writing. Of course this is important if you want to understand Sartre and his thought on Marxism. Apart from that it didn’t add anything substantial in philosophy.
March 18, 2025
In terms of how much this book stimulated me and influenced me as a whole: 4.5 or 5 stars
In terms of the writing/prose/editing: 2 or 3 stars lol
This book is arguably one of Sartre’s most underrated and under appreciated works. It had a huge influence on me, and it was very stimulating.
The Critique serves as a piece of politics, history, and criticism on economic theories/ideas, among other things.
Sartre makes a great case for Marxism, and has shown/predicted some of the problems with modern day politics, despite this being written like 65-70 years ago.
This book had aged quite well, and is more relevant than ever. This work inspired me to become a libertarian socialist, and it made me realize that capitalism only works when regulated.
This project demonstrates the importance and interconnectedness amongst groups and collectives, and the duty/responsibly of ensembles within a system of oppression, and revolution.
The instrumentality of needs, wants, and freedom, all relating to the meaning lost in an isolated group of reciprocal uniformity towards the industrialization and exploitation of labour within disproportionate favourability paints the flaws of corporate greed, and the alienation amongst the others, but which can be changed or at least recognized as being a possibility to not be the case as such, by grasping a project that surpasses one’s individuality chained to a machine or tool, but surpassed towards a commonality that benefits everyone fairly, in a fulfilling equality of struggle towards equity in accomplishment, in whole regards the specific connected parts in unison towards liberty and meaning.
There are many passages and parts that struck me deeply, and it is unfortunate that I cannot explain all the gems in this book. I read like 90% of the book within 5 weeks or so, but then it took me like 7 weeks to finish the rest, so I forgot everything that I wanted to talk about during the break that I took, and I took no notes.
The main problem with this book is that it is far too long for what it needed to be, and it got very repetitive after a while. It is also filled with lots of specialized language, jargon, and complicated terminology that gets lost in such an impenetrable prose — which feels like a maze that never ends as you reread the same convoluted words regularly. However, with that being said, there are many great parts in this behemoth, although to say that it was executed efficiently or was original enough would be harder to argue. Regardless, this is well worth the read, and being patient will certainly reward you.
It took me a good 100-200 pages of reading before anything started to make sense. There are lots of gold that shines bright in here, but there is also lots of frustration and wasted abstract effort too, unfortunately.
It may be good to look at other notes, summaries, and videos on YouTube to understand this work better. I had to look up some terms, which you can also grasp much easier by using the glossary found in each volume of the Critique. I also recommend that you read the smaller book written as a common manuscript, titled as either the Search for a Method or Problem of Method.
In terms of the writing/prose/editing: 2 or 3 stars lol
This book is arguably one of Sartre’s most underrated and under appreciated works. It had a huge influence on me, and it was very stimulating.
The Critique serves as a piece of politics, history, and criticism on economic theories/ideas, among other things.
Sartre makes a great case for Marxism, and has shown/predicted some of the problems with modern day politics, despite this being written like 65-70 years ago.
This book had aged quite well, and is more relevant than ever. This work inspired me to become a libertarian socialist, and it made me realize that capitalism only works when regulated.
This project demonstrates the importance and interconnectedness amongst groups and collectives, and the duty/responsibly of ensembles within a system of oppression, and revolution.
The instrumentality of needs, wants, and freedom, all relating to the meaning lost in an isolated group of reciprocal uniformity towards the industrialization and exploitation of labour within disproportionate favourability paints the flaws of corporate greed, and the alienation amongst the others, but which can be changed or at least recognized as being a possibility to not be the case as such, by grasping a project that surpasses one’s individuality chained to a machine or tool, but surpassed towards a commonality that benefits everyone fairly, in a fulfilling equality of struggle towards equity in accomplishment, in whole regards the specific connected parts in unison towards liberty and meaning.
There are many passages and parts that struck me deeply, and it is unfortunate that I cannot explain all the gems in this book. I read like 90% of the book within 5 weeks or so, but then it took me like 7 weeks to finish the rest, so I forgot everything that I wanted to talk about during the break that I took, and I took no notes.
The main problem with this book is that it is far too long for what it needed to be, and it got very repetitive after a while. It is also filled with lots of specialized language, jargon, and complicated terminology that gets lost in such an impenetrable prose — which feels like a maze that never ends as you reread the same convoluted words regularly. However, with that being said, there are many great parts in this behemoth, although to say that it was executed efficiently or was original enough would be harder to argue. Regardless, this is well worth the read, and being patient will certainly reward you.
It took me a good 100-200 pages of reading before anything started to make sense. There are lots of gold that shines bright in here, but there is also lots of frustration and wasted abstract effort too, unfortunately.
It may be good to look at other notes, summaries, and videos on YouTube to understand this work better. I had to look up some terms, which you can also grasp much easier by using the glossary found in each volume of the Critique. I also recommend that you read the smaller book written as a common manuscript, titled as either the Search for a Method or Problem of Method.
to-keep-reference
December 30, 2015Esta dialéctica del obstáculo y el límite, respecto del poder de la mente por un lado y el poder político por otro, fue bien comprendida por la fenomenología de la subjetividad que (en contraste con la corriente Heideggeriana) reconoció al nazismo, y por ende al Estado capitalista, como el verdadero límite del progreso histórico. Desde Husserl a Sartre hallamos los esfuerzos principales para transformar los límites en inicios, y en muchos modos Foucault siguió esta misma línea. Ver Edmund Husserl, Crisis of Europeans Sciences and Trascendental Phenomenology, trad. David Carr (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1970); Jean-Paul Sartre, Crituque of Dialectical Reason, trad. Quentin Hoare (London: Verso, 1990);
Imperio Pág.269
Imperio Pág.269
July 10, 2019
Sartre is like a Forest Master who has ten trees. It's a pitiful small forest. By the time he's through there are several thousand trees, but in reality just ten trees are really there. In his mind, the ten thousand trees all have their own physical description and attributes, but which one is what, and now he's lost in the forest of his own making, unable to come to grips with the fact that there are still only ten trees, and when somebody points this out to him, he gets angry. An obsession with far too much meaningless detail for the sake of detail is what Sartre is about. You can never really finish reading this book, because of the endless tangents of thought and whatever purpose they are really supposed to serve cannot be figured out, even by the writer himself.
Read
June 23, 2022Idec I did not finish this book but I spent too many damn hours over this bich for hss600 that I'm counting it as so. Maybe I'll get back at it sometime but I just need to validate myself for all the pain I suffered over this boi.
No one ask me what I got out of this book because I was deliriously out of my mind the entire time I worked on my paper. All I know is that my elementary existentialism background, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Dr. Legaspi's interpretations (he hasn't read it either lol but bless this mans I was saved by all his philosophical knowledge anyway) were the only things keeping me going. My mans Sartre was on another dimension on this and once I sort of understood what he was saying it was pretty interesting but don't trust my judgment on this because I don't read any in-depth theory. Sartre is bringing together existentialism and Marxism (which are already so complex on their own and which I have, again, no background in) and attempting to merge them into a whole new convoluted thing. I wouldn't advise anyone to seriously tackle this unless they feel they have a good read on Marxism and Sartre's brand of existentialism.
No one ask me what I got out of this book because I was deliriously out of my mind the entire time I worked on my paper. All I know is that my elementary existentialism background, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Dr. Legaspi's interpretations (he hasn't read it either lol but bless this mans I was saved by all his philosophical knowledge anyway) were the only things keeping me going. My mans Sartre was on another dimension on this and once I sort of understood what he was saying it was pretty interesting but don't trust my judgment on this because I don't read any in-depth theory. Sartre is bringing together existentialism and Marxism (which are already so complex on their own and which I have, again, no background in) and attempting to merge them into a whole new convoluted thing. I wouldn't advise anyone to seriously tackle this unless they feel they have a good read on Marxism and Sartre's brand of existentialism.
December 6, 2025
THE FIRST VOLUME OF ONE OF SARTRE'S LAST "MAJOR" WORKS
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, and political activist.
He said in the Introduction to this 1960 book, "we must... explore the limits, the validity and the extent of dialectical Reason. We cannot deny that a Critique (in the Kantian sense of the term) of dialectical Reason can be made only by dialectical Reason itself; and indeed it must be allowed to ground itself and to develop itself as a free critique of itself, at the same time as being the movement of history and of knowledge. This is precisely what has not been done until now; dialectical Reason has been walled up in dogmatism." (Introduction, Sec. 2, pg. 21)
He adds, "I have said---and I repeat---that the only valid interpretation of human history is historical materialism... in the field of dialectical rationality historical materialism is its own proof, but that it does not provide a foundation for this rationality even, and above all, if it provides the History of its development as constituted Reason. Marxism is History itself becoming conscious of itself, and if it is valid it is by its material content... Thus our task cannot in any way be to reconstruct real History in its development... Our problem is critical." (Intro. Sec. 9, pg. 39-40)
He outlines, "Volume I of the Critique of Dialectical Reason stops as soon as we reach the `locus of history'; it is solely concerned with finding the intelligible foundations for a structural anthropology... Volume II, which will follow shortly [actually, it was never written] will retrace the stages of the critical progression: it will attempt to establish that there is ONE human history, with ONE truth and ONE intelligibility---not by considering the material content of this history, but by demonstrating that a practical multiplicity... must unceasingly totalize itself through interiorizing its multiplicity at all levels." (Intro, Sec. 10, pg. 69)
Later, he adds, "our original problem: what is Truth as the praxis of synthetic unification, and what is History?... And what is the practical meaning of historical totalisation in so far as it can reveal itself today to a (totalizing and totalized) agent situated within History in development?" (Sec. 11, pg. 75)
He wrote, "From my window, I can see a road-mender on the road and a gardener working in a garden... They have no knowledge at all of each other's presence... Meanwhile, I can see them without being seen, and my position and this passive view of them at work situates me in my relation to them: ... in my inertia as witness I realize myself as a petty-bourgeois intellectual... Hence my initial relation to the two workers is negative: I do not belong to their class, I do now know their trades, I would not know how to do what they are doing, and I do not share their worries. But these negations ... can be perceived only against an undifferentiated background consisting of the synthetic relations which support me together with then in an ACTUAL immanence. I could not contrast their ends with mine without recognizing them as ends." (Bk I, Sec. 2, pg. 100-101)
He observes, "This is the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of tyranny: in order to treat a man like a dog, one must first recognize him as a man. The concealed discomfort of the master is that he always has to consider the human reality of his slaves ... while at the same time refusing them the economic and political status which, in this period, defines human beings." (Bk I, Sec. 3, pg. 110-111)
He summarizes, "the first relation between men is the indefinite adherence of each to each; and these formal conditions for all History are immediately seen to be conditioned by inorganic materiality... if totalisation is a historical process, it comes to men through MATTER. In other words, praxis as the free development of the organism has now totalised the material environment in the form of a practical field; and in a moment we shall see the material milieu as the first totalisation of human relations." (Bk 1, Sec, 3, pg. 120-121)
He argues, "The truth is that when the woman worker thinks she is ESCAPING from herself, she is really finding an indirect way of making herself what she is... no doubt she tries to people the desert of boredom produced by the specialized machine. But at the same time, she tries to fix her mind within the limits allowed by the operation, by the objective task: she is the unwilling accomplice of employers who have determined norms and minimum output in advance. Thus the deepest interiority becomes a means of realising oneself as total exteriority." (Bk. I, Sec. 4, pg. 234)
He observes, "Thus the specific scarcity---the number of people in relation to the number of places---in the absence of any particular practice, would designate every individual as dispensable.... But, except in cases of panic... the relation of reciprocity ...establishes interchangability as the impossibility of deciding ...which individuals are dispensable...The travelers waiting for the bus take tickets indicating the order of their arrival. This means that they accept the impossibility of deciding which individuals are dispensable in terms of the intrinsic qualities of the individual." (Bk. I, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, pg. 260-261)
Not even remotely as "pathbreaking" as Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness,' this book is still one of his major "late" works, and will interest anyone studying Sartre's philosophical development.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, and political activist.
He said in the Introduction to this 1960 book, "we must... explore the limits, the validity and the extent of dialectical Reason. We cannot deny that a Critique (in the Kantian sense of the term) of dialectical Reason can be made only by dialectical Reason itself; and indeed it must be allowed to ground itself and to develop itself as a free critique of itself, at the same time as being the movement of history and of knowledge. This is precisely what has not been done until now; dialectical Reason has been walled up in dogmatism." (Introduction, Sec. 2, pg. 21)
He adds, "I have said---and I repeat---that the only valid interpretation of human history is historical materialism... in the field of dialectical rationality historical materialism is its own proof, but that it does not provide a foundation for this rationality even, and above all, if it provides the History of its development as constituted Reason. Marxism is History itself becoming conscious of itself, and if it is valid it is by its material content... Thus our task cannot in any way be to reconstruct real History in its development... Our problem is critical." (Intro. Sec. 9, pg. 39-40)
He outlines, "Volume I of the Critique of Dialectical Reason stops as soon as we reach the `locus of history'; it is solely concerned with finding the intelligible foundations for a structural anthropology... Volume II, which will follow shortly [actually, it was never written] will retrace the stages of the critical progression: it will attempt to establish that there is ONE human history, with ONE truth and ONE intelligibility---not by considering the material content of this history, but by demonstrating that a practical multiplicity... must unceasingly totalize itself through interiorizing its multiplicity at all levels." (Intro, Sec. 10, pg. 69)
Later, he adds, "our original problem: what is Truth as the praxis of synthetic unification, and what is History?... And what is the practical meaning of historical totalisation in so far as it can reveal itself today to a (totalizing and totalized) agent situated within History in development?" (Sec. 11, pg. 75)
He wrote, "From my window, I can see a road-mender on the road and a gardener working in a garden... They have no knowledge at all of each other's presence... Meanwhile, I can see them without being seen, and my position and this passive view of them at work situates me in my relation to them: ... in my inertia as witness I realize myself as a petty-bourgeois intellectual... Hence my initial relation to the two workers is negative: I do not belong to their class, I do now know their trades, I would not know how to do what they are doing, and I do not share their worries. But these negations ... can be perceived only against an undifferentiated background consisting of the synthetic relations which support me together with then in an ACTUAL immanence. I could not contrast their ends with mine without recognizing them as ends." (Bk I, Sec. 2, pg. 100-101)
He observes, "This is the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of tyranny: in order to treat a man like a dog, one must first recognize him as a man. The concealed discomfort of the master is that he always has to consider the human reality of his slaves ... while at the same time refusing them the economic and political status which, in this period, defines human beings." (Bk I, Sec. 3, pg. 110-111)
He summarizes, "the first relation between men is the indefinite adherence of each to each; and these formal conditions for all History are immediately seen to be conditioned by inorganic materiality... if totalisation is a historical process, it comes to men through MATTER. In other words, praxis as the free development of the organism has now totalised the material environment in the form of a practical field; and in a moment we shall see the material milieu as the first totalisation of human relations." (Bk 1, Sec, 3, pg. 120-121)
He argues, "The truth is that when the woman worker thinks she is ESCAPING from herself, she is really finding an indirect way of making herself what she is... no doubt she tries to people the desert of boredom produced by the specialized machine. But at the same time, she tries to fix her mind within the limits allowed by the operation, by the objective task: she is the unwilling accomplice of employers who have determined norms and minimum output in advance. Thus the deepest interiority becomes a means of realising oneself as total exteriority." (Bk. I, Sec. 4, pg. 234)
He observes, "Thus the specific scarcity---the number of people in relation to the number of places---in the absence of any particular practice, would designate every individual as dispensable.... But, except in cases of panic... the relation of reciprocity ...establishes interchangability as the impossibility of deciding ...which individuals are dispensable...The travelers waiting for the bus take tickets indicating the order of their arrival. This means that they accept the impossibility of deciding which individuals are dispensable in terms of the intrinsic qualities of the individual." (Bk. I, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, pg. 260-261)
Not even remotely as "pathbreaking" as Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness,' this book is still one of his major "late" works, and will interest anyone studying Sartre's philosophical development.
May 5, 2022
A very dense but ultimately successful attempt to dialectically combine existentialism with a general understanding of society and history.
June 10, 2007
why sartre why?!?
thousands of pages, almost completely unreadable.
absurdly complex language to make absurdly basic points about revolution and struggle
i struggled with this monster for months before getting through about 500 pages and learning very little besides an important lesson about self-important marxists and their attempts to outwit one another even if it takes their whole lives spent writing utter nonsense.
(i may be the only one to get that far in the book, EVER)
January 13, 2026
Sartre takes as his point of departure the dialectic, which allows him to make a number of critical interventions: first, totality is to be taken merely as a sort of hyper-immanence, the ability to think phenomena qua totality its own proof, imbricated as subject and object are; second, rejecting Engels' attempt to dialectize nature in Anti-Dühring, Sartre sets out to emplot a generalized philosophy of history, as the proper domain of dialectical thinking. As such, he draws not only on Hegel and Marx but also Braudel and the Annales School on the longue durée, even seemingly anticipating Virilio's dromology at times: "But these hostile distances also express materialised praxis: distance as materiality is a function of the state of the roads, of the means of communication, and of conflicts between towns: Florence was now close to the sea." It's an ambitious project to be sure, and in translating Marxist concepts into more explicitly phenomenological or existential terms, we arrive at a couple important concepts: ontological scarcity and the practico-inert. The former is a way of theorizing the conditions of possibility of conflict arising between humans, a thematization of surplus populations in Marx. The latter, meanwhile, draws heavily on Marx's idea of becoming alienated from one's own labour-product, but the reach is extended, now thematizing the dialectic between freedom and its obverse within human history in general, the "negation of the negation," as one would have it. Ciphering negativity through the dialectic brings much to bear on Sartre's earlier work, especially Being and Nothingness, and the early Sartre is much-revivified via the introjection of Hegel and Marx into the system. But the weakest points of this project by far is when Sartre returns to his early preoccupations, attempting to extend his theory of individual freedom by thinking through group formations in relation to freedom and the practico-inert. On oppression, Sartre is far from illuminating, seemingly unable to theorize it except as a "reduction to the animal," though this leaves to the side the important question of why we treat animals as we do. In fact, the question of the non-human animal, largely set aside, would seem to pose interesting questions, if not challenges, to this simple subject/object dichotomy, the transcendence-in-immanence that Sartre is attempting to theorize. His asides on sexual difference, meanwhile, lead to similar issues, especially on activity/passivity in relation to transcendence and immanence, and the project could well do without them. Overall though, it's a strong work of attempting to proffer to us a proper Marxist philosophy of history, one which largely succeeds, and Sartre demonstrates brilliantly his understanding of the (Hegelian) dialectic.
May 19, 2020
საკმაოდ მოსაწყენი ტექსტია , განსაკუთრებით ბოლო 400 გვერდი. მაგრამ მთლიანობაში ბევრად წინ მიდის "ყოფნა და არარას" შედარებით.
September 26, 2021
This is why I love Bertrand Russell.Please! Just get off the drugs and go kick an banker or lawyer in the arse if you want a leftwing revolution.This is the epitome of french gibberish philosophy.
April 11, 2022
Interesting book. really unintelligible until the very end
November 18, 2013
read just the problem of method within it. complex. too complex for a review here. I found Sartre's attempt at reconciling individual autonomy with broader social pressures very plausible and intellectually stimulating, it represents a depart from his early undilluted existentialism to a more considerate position formulated in the aftermath of his Marxist swerve.
December 8, 2008
Sartre demonstrates that the economic system that best accommodates individual freedom is Socialism.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews