Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

France is very good a producing schools of philosophy, many of which have had noticeable effects (however, mostly on other schools of philosophy). Rousseau influenced much political and educational thought, for example. I'm not exactly what the effect of Sartre and his school have been, but I know I was very taken with their writing when I was a teen.

Lately I've been reading about the only true American school of philosophy - Pragmatism. The principal proponents were C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Their focus was also on "results". The school has been so successful that it's not much talked of anymore, it has just be absorbed into the common wisdom. The main points have to do with our knowledge of the world being based upon our own senses, and that "truth" is found by means of the scientific method.

This did away with all the various "idealistic" schools of thought going back to Plato and also did away with supernatural explanations for physical happenings. James, especially, was unwilling to let go of religiosity completely and tried to understand exceptional mental states in terms of a "religious experience". Peirce and Dewey were much more willing to leave the supernatural behind altogether.

Here's a link to Peirce's most famous essay:
The Fixation of Belief

Dewey took his "pragmatic" outlook and applied it to education. His methods of learning by doing rather than by rote have become the norm in many places.

It is a bit ironic that a philosophical school started in the US has found acceptance elsewhere, while it is still struggling in its home country. If the poll numbers of 80% who believe in a supernatural being in the US are accurate then pragmatism hasn't been much of a success in some areas. On the other hand the scientific community has adopted its precepts over the last century and the technological results are amazing.


Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Apr 29th, 2007 at 05:10:47 PM EST
Haven't you heard that God's existence will be proven this week?
I'm going to watch the livestream, it will probably be funny as hell.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Sun Apr 29th, 2007 at 07:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pierce's influence, aside from his private correspondence and talks with Dewey, was nil until his private papers started getting published in the 1930s.
by ATinNM on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 02:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to pick nits, but he was also a close friend of William James, and I think his influence on James may have been even more important.

The article I cited (and a couple of others at the same time) were influential in that they were published so far before the main development of pragmatism.

Imagine a philosopher publishing in "Popular Science" these days...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 08:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well there wasn't really a "school of Sartre" although he was very influential, both inside and outside France, being treated as a celbrated intellectual in the US, USSR, China, etc.

He is popularly known as one of the founders of Existentialism, but even his one-time friend Camus was not happy with the label. Sartre himself recognised its limitations when he was captured by the Germans and his freedom curtailed as a prisoner of war. But it also meant that he met a wider cross-section of people than the privileged intellectual elite he'd been part of and valued the feeling of solidarity. This led to his interest in marxism but also his difficult relations with the the French Communist Party.

From a review of Ian Birchall's "Sartre Against Stalinism", by Rebecca Pitt

"Sartre's earlier works such as Existentialism and Humanism and Being and Nothingness express 'Sartre's basic message--that the world can be changed; that we are free to change it; and if we fail to do so we bear the responsibility'...

... the head of the PCF, Maurice Thorez, for example, had condemned Sartre's ideas as 'the existentialist putrescence'--showing the threat that the PCF perceived from Sartre.17

That Sartre's interest in freedom was not purely philosophical is made clear in the example of Sartre's 1943 occupation play The Flies. The Flies originates from the Greek myth of Electra and Orestes, and discusses the nature of fate and freedom via a comparison of Electra and Orestes' reactions to matricide committed as revenge. Yet the play, Sartre commented in 1947, was an attempt to show that 'remorse was not the attitude Frenchmen should choose after our country's military collapse. Our past no longer existed... But the future--even though an enemy army was occupying France--was new...we were at liberty to make it a future of the defeated or a future of free men'.18 Birchall recognises there was a tactical reason why Sartre chose to initiate performances of The Flies during the occupation. The Flies was intended to make clear to the French people that they were responsible for how they responded to the occupation. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the writer Gilbert Joseph's criticism of Sartre for collaborating with occupying forces by allowing his work to be performed fails to understand the very objective of the play.19

Putting Sartre in perspective

In 1974 Simone de Beauvoir (philosopher, novelist and author of The Second Sex) asked Sartre how he perceived the relation between himself and organised politics. He replied:

Whenever I committed myself in one way or another to politics and carried out an action, I never abandoned the idea of freedom. On the contrary, every time I acted I felt free. I've never belonged to a party... I have...been in touch with various groups but without belonging to them.20

This makes it clear that there was never a formalised relationship between Sartre and the PCF following their 'four-year romance' in the 1950s. He refers in the same interview to French Maoism--which he was interested in during the 1968 period--and to the fact that he could not completely 'commit' himself to one political organisation. In the introduction to his book, Birchall discusses why this may have been the case, pointing to the nature of revolutionary organisations as being 'always the choice of the future against the present' as a possible cause."

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/pitt.htm

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 03:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Occasional Series