K: I thank you for your recommendation of that essay by George Novack….
I haven’t seen it before… it fits perfectly into my way of thinking over this
last year or so and it ties into the latest book I am reading: Order out of chaos,
Man’s new dialogue with nature… by Ilya Priogogine and Isabelle Stengers……
the essay by Novack is about Marxism and existentialism… the
reason that they are diametrically opposed to each other… and why they
cannot be fused into one theory… I have read that essay at least 12 times
in the last day… I have come to think that Marxism and Existentialism can
be fused into one theory… because they describe two different things…
Novack’s essay has this: “For existentialism the universe is irrational;
for Marxism it is lawful”
that in a nutshell describes the two… but it doesn’t mean that they cannot
be fused into one theory…for example, we know that we exists within a
universe that has laws, all kinds of natural laws… we have the laws of thermodynamics
and the laws of gravity and the laws of evolution… we are bound by and created by
various different types of natural laws… but we do have a chaotic universe despite
these many laws that dictate what kind of universe we live in…
we know that evolution for example depends upon chance and probability to
work and we know from such theories as Schrodinger’s cat, for example…
and Quantum Mechanics… the universe despite its “Laws” still has
chance and probability working within it…
we can guess that the “laws” of the Marxist can be applied to humans beings,
largescale and existentialism can be applied to humans small scale…
we can see from the game baseball for example, that there are very defined
rules for the game of Baseball… Baseball exists within these defined rules,
there are 3 outs per side in one half inning and the game lasts for 9 innings
and that only 9 players can play in the field at one time and you only get three
strikes and you are out… and yet, even in a game with such rules as baseball,
there exists chance and probability… hit the ball into the air and there are several
possibilities…hit the ball on the ground and there are several more possibilities…
perhaps the ball might hit a bird or perhaps the ball will be carried by the wind or
perhaps the ball might caught or caught and then dropped… we cannot know in
advance what possibilities will exist during any given play…
and so the same goes for the game of life… we have set rules or laws which
we humans must obey, the law of gravity and the laws of physics… we must obey
those laws/rules or face serious consequences… and yet, within those rules lies
possibilities and chance and probabilities…the human framework
does have rules and laws that must obeyed… and yet we face chance and
possibilities within our lives…there is a set “law” that all human beings must die,
and yet, we in fact, cannot say that rule/law has been absolutely followed in
human history…we don’t know… we can guess or assume but we can’t know…
even within certain “absolute” rules/laws, there lies ambiguity……
I am bound by certain physical, natural laws to be sure, but I am also
bound by certain human laws and rules… but within those laws lies
uncertainty and ambiguity…the law and god says, thou shall not kill and
yet, within that law of god and man, lies a great deal of ambiguity
and uncertainty……….I can kill if I am a police officer in the line of duty
and I face some “risk” and I can kill if I kill in self defense and I can kill
as a solider in the army and there no risk and in fact, depending on
the situation, I can be rewarded by medals or promotions or I can be demoted
or even fired…
we speak of laws and rules as being absolute and certain but the reality is
that the rules of the universe, the laws of gravity for example may be
easily broken if we understood it better…but for now, it is complete and
absolute… for now…….it is the lawful way to think of our natural universe…
just as Marxism is the lawful way to think of human beings… we might be bound
to certain historical laws just as Marxism suggests but that doesn’t mean we
are historically bound to those laws…
for example, the principle of progress that has had so much attention
since the enlightenment… we have clearly progress materially since
the time of pre-history… but it isn’t clear if that rule/law of progress is
really a fixed, certain law or if it is an ad hoc law… just a temporary solution
to a question we have…we may be able to dump the law of
progress given enough time and understanding of our current situation…
as the Marxist suggest, we exists within a certain framework and time period…
we are born into a already settle set of ism’s and ideologies and biases
and superstitions and habits… I was born in 1959 and I was born into a given
set of circumstances in the Midwest part of America…the kids born today
are born into a completely different set of circumstances… and yet, they
are born, as I was, in the United States…the general rules of America still
exists, then and now, we hold that America is the greatest country on earth
and we are still that shining city on the hill… but even the nature of that statement
that “America is the greatest country on earth” has changed… times change
and is that progress? I couldn’t say… what was progress in 1959 is different then
progress today…but the very word of progress hasn’t changed…
our idea of progress has changed and has been adapted into our current situation…
as a rule, progress still exists, it is still a rule and law…but its very nature has
changed…
existentialism and Marxism may just be explanations of the different aspect
of human existence… one discusses the individual aspect and one explains
the rules/laws of existence… both may be right and both may be wrong……
but that doesn’t mean they are completely foreign to each other or they
describe the exact same thing…I think they are compatible and
describe different aspects of human existence……
Kropotkin