Review: At the Existentialist Café

At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails by Sarah Bakewell
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I had been going through a streak of existentialist books for the past year, and I chose this book to cap it - it looked like it would be a good overview of the philosophy and history of existentialism, and serve as a fine conclusion. Although the book was good, it was a little disappointing.

I think the book fell short on two regards: First, I think I expected a more dramatized take on the lives of the existentialists - that is, still real, but with more life. Something like "The Agony and The Ecstasy" or "The Origin" by Irving Stone - biographical, but still mesmerizing. Instead, it's a dry accounting of the philosopher's lives and histories.

Second, I didn't like much the choice of which "characters" to focus on, Heidegger and Sartre. I was expecting the book to focus on Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus - I mean, they (and only they) are right there on the cover! So the focus on Heidegger was a little puzzling. I understand that he preceded the others, and was incredibly influential at the time, but he is not exactly an existentialist like the others, he is primarily a phenomenologist. I must also admit that I dislike his philosophy, specially the later stuff with a focus on rustic living and luddism. As the book progresses, it does start giving some focus to the other characters, although it feels more superficial, never delving too deeply into what made them tick. De Beauvoir got some attention, but Camus was definitely a secondary character in this book. Towards the end, the sequence of events and the cast of characters become a sprawling mess, as the author rushes to include every other existential philosopher into the book.

The explanations of the philosophy themselves also felt underwhelming. The part in which the books talks about the early existentialists and phenomenologists makes it sound like they were just trying to philosophize about things that feel more like behavioral psychology, sociology, or even psychiatry - like anxiety and depression. It also makes it sound like most of the time, philosophy is just an exercise in ignoring science. Philosophy questions "being", but not minds, brains, consciousness. The book spent a lot of time talking about "being"; it spent a lot less time dealing with the ethics and humanism of existentialism.

I was a bit annoyed with the Anglo-American, the right-leaning attitude of the author. It comes across when she talks about communism, and the struggles of existentialists in embracing and disavowing communism; she readily dismisses communism as an *obviously* wrong ideology, without ever explaining why. At a late point in the book, she mentions how the belligerent and bellic attitude of a communist country impugns communism, but never explains why when a capitalist country does the same, it doesn't impugn capitalism… But then again, it seemed that even the existentialist philosophers had a problem grasping the concept that authoritarian governments are bad no matter what form of economic system they pretends to spouse.

One more aside about existentialism, not really about this book: When reading the existentialists ideas about being, I kept thinking, "What about animals?". Not how existentialism applies to animals, but what do is it learn from animal - from modes of being that are not human, but are not also as simple as that of a tree. Some do think and have feelings, and have societies. But no existentialist seem to pay much attention to that - they don’t seem to learn anything from other minds, they just take the human adult brain fully formed and call that a mind, everything else is irrelevant. They ignore that humans are just an instance of animals. If their theories don’t generalize, then how meaningful can they be? How are they more than navel gazing and self aggrandizement?

Despite these disappointments with the book, it was still interesting, and covered a lot of ground, ideas, and lives. It starts with a nice review of existentialism and a brief overview of the lives of Sartre and de Beauvoir (before diving into phenomenology, existentialism's precursor). It was actually interesting, despite the long list of misgivings listed above.

One clear takeaway from the book for me is that Existentialism is perfectly suited to the 2020s - with the pandemic, war breaking out in eastern Europe, rise of white-nationalism and fascism, it feels like we are right back to the 1920s-1930s, and the philosophy of freedom, responsibility and social engagement advocated by existentialism is increasingly urgent.

It also cemented my opinion that the best philosophers of the century (and top 5 ever) were definitely de Beauvoir and Camus, because they were the ones whose philosophy really focused on ethics, on *how* to lead a meaningful life.

View all my reviews

Review: The Trial

The Trial by Franz Kafka
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Trial is the quintessential "Kafkaesque" story, in which a man called Josef K is accused of a crime, but is never told what crime he committed; and is then tried in secret, in absentia, and without recourse; all the while he tries to either ignore or take action against the trial; until (view spoiler)[ he is ultimately condemned (hide spoiler)]. (I will note that although I marked this as a spoiler, the preface/introduction itself already spoils the ending - it was pretty annoying actually!). It is a caricature of an inefficient, corrupt justice system, and a metaphor for inhumane government bureaucracies all over the world.

The book was put together by Kafka's friend after his death. It was assembled from several passages, ordered and edited to try to make a cohesive story. I am not sure it did. In fact, after the conclusion of the story, there are a number of "fragments", additional chapters or scenes that didn't make the cut; and they point to a lot more story and character development for the protagonist. Some of the parts that are in the main narrative also seem to point to a larger story, that just didn't get written. For example, there is a passage about a visit to the cathedral that brings a whole new dimension to the story, linking the court with the church; but that just ends abruptly.

On the whole, it is a very strange piece of literature, mainly because the way the characters behave is weird. Examples: the way they talk about the court, always in a non-committal way; how the issue of what K is accused of is dropped right after chapter 1, and never brought up again; how he has forced himself on a woman (his neighbor), out of nowhere; how most of the women in the story (with the exception of the neighbor) are constantly throwing themselves at him. This last one is particularly mystifying; how is that happening? Is that normal for the author? Is this protagonist supposed to be irresistibly attractive? At least K (the protagonist) and his lawyer remark on that, so I guess it is meant to be weird. It's also surprisingly sexist, I think. Sometimes I think it might be because it's calling attention to sexism, as a criticism of sexism; other times it's hard not to take it at face value, so it feels very sexist.

At first, due to a remark made by one of the characters, I thought the point of the book was going to be that even normal, good people, can make an inhumane machine in the name of some ideology (similar to the concept of "the banality of evil"). But then I realized that it was not that - or at least not just that. I started seeing that the way that the characters behaved was not only weird, but absurd. The judges are absurd, the process is absurd, the lawyer is absurd. Everyone behaves in a childish way, don't know really know what is going on, and more importantly, don't care - this is how it is and that's it. This made difficult for the book to convey any message about the real world. I then started to realize that this is not purely absurd, but *modern*, in the *modern art* sense of the word - in which the reader's interpretation is crucial to what the piece of work conveys. Hence the absurdism of the story and characters - it's exactly so that this cannot have a singular interpretation, a single meaning. It's like one of these modern paintings, that looks like just a bunch of random strokes of paint on canvas, until you look at it long enough that you start seeing the patterns and the meaning - even if it's your own mind projecting this meaning on the piece. It's also a discussion piece - exactly because it defies singular interpretation, it invites the readers to not only figure out what it means, but to discuss what it all means. I realized this exactly when, while reading, it conjured up in my mind a period in my life that had very strong parallels to this, and I thought this work was a pretty good metaphor for it. I then realized that I was projecting, and no way that this was a universal interpretation.

(for reference: I saw the similarity of the trial to when people are gossiping behind your back. You get accused of something, but you don't know what it is, because no one will tell you what it was said. They say it's not their place. There is just the rumor that you have done something, but you have no idea what people are talking about. Once the "court" makes the accusation, you're done for, there is no acquittal. Any effort to clear up your name will just backfire - "he does protest too much" kind of thing. But if you try to ignore it, it doesn't go away either, it just keeps popping up again. See? It kind of fits the narrative. But I also know it's not the point of the book.)

I also thought it was noteworthy that the main character was a fairly well-off guy - he was the CFO for a bank, a man of some importance, going up in the world. He is arrogant, elitist, and sexist (i.e. forces himself on women). It's not easy to sympathize with such a character like that, if you want to cast him as the hero fighting against an inhumane bureaucracy.

View all my reviews

Review: The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings

The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings by Karl Marx
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book consists of the "The Communist Manifesto" itself, plus a few other essays. The manifesto is short, making a quick read of historical significance, and its first section is immensely interesting! It is written in a very grandiose style, it makes it sound epic - which I guess it really is!

The first section is impressive in how it describes capitalism, and how disruption and globalization are essential features of capitalism. It's remarkable that these are buzzwords of 21st century capitalism, but they were already old news for Marx! In fact, he sounds very anti-globalization in the manifesto. He predicts the cycle of progress and crises (bubbles and bursts), and predicts the gradual “sinking” of the "lower middle class" into the proletariat - both essential features of capitalism. I was surprised to see that, contrary to criticism I hear, the manifesto explicitly states that middle-class professionals are paid-laborers, not bourgeoisie; it lists them by name: doctors, lawyers, even scientists; we are all eventually proletariat! The bourgeoisie are really the rich - and by that he means the very, very rich (he even explicitly calls them "millionaires").

The second part, however, was kinda weird. The part in which he explains about the abolition of private property was very puzzling, because the authors didn’t explain at all what they meant - that is, they tried to explain, with examples and arguments, but in the end I was left completely confused. Do they want to abolish all private property? Including small personal property? Or just “bourgeoisie” property (like industries, stores, etc…)? It seemed that they were trying to draw a distinction between some property that was to be abolished and some that wouldn’t, but it was not clear at all where the line was drawn.

He then launches into answering criticisms of communism, and quick superficial rebuttals of competing ideologies. Here, he seems more focused on mentioning that this and that movement simply petered out, and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes he tried to explain why other movements got it wrong. One particular criticism stood out to me, about the "bourgeoisie socialism", which is the socialism of improving workers lives so that revolution was not needed. Although I get his point that this still leaves room to abuse, or that the bourgeoisie might do just enough to prevent revolution and no more, his criticism felt very superficial - it never rally explains what is wrong with it in principle. That is, sure, it could be badly implemented, but if it is well implemented, what is the problem?

Overall, I think that this work started really well, but then it does have two big flaws in it. First, when it calls for the change in the status quo, it's very explicit that it should be by any means necessary; and that if it creates an intermediate state of strife and suffering, it's fine, because it will all work out in the end. Unfortunately, that's exactly what gave cover for many dictators to steal the movement from the workers and institute horrible regimes, based on personality-worship and oppression of its citizens, completely anathema to Marx's ideal of communism - for how can a society call itself communist when its workers are living in miserable conditions? There never was in history any real communist country, only dictatorships that looked more like feudalism, with leaders pretending to be communist while enriching themselves, brutalizing their people, taking advantage of the believers, and never actually giving power to the people.

Second, the manifesto doesn't explain what the new society (that would replace the current one) would look like - in their eyes, it would be paradise; but how? Well, this is a manifesto, so it can't be too long, so maybe this kind of explanation doesn't have a place here. But we do know that Marx never did manage to describe his worker's paradise in any other work either, only that it would be the final outcome of his revolution. It's a pity, because it is a promising idea.

The other writings in the book were less interesting. They felt more historical in nature, harder to generalize to our time and society. They consisted of a lot of analysis of specific ideas and conditions of the time, with criticism of the contemporary society, politics, and philosophers. Some good points were made, like the harsh treatment of the poor and how simply changing who is in charge does not fundamentally change society. I think the only weakness was that these are overshadowed by a lot of play on words, on superficial arguments, trying to convince you that all roads lead inevitably to communism, but without any really compelling logic to it. However, they still offer a great historical perspective an excellent political and economic analysis of the 18th and 19th century.


View all my reviews

Review: Existentialism is a Humanism

Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Having just finished Nausea, which I didn't like, I started on this essay (a lecture, actually), and I was impressed at how different it was. This is well-written, well-explained, really clear and to the point, with good arguments, straightforward explanations - and some good quotes to boot ;) ! How did Sartre write both Nausea and "Existentialism is a Humanism"? Clearly he is better at philosophy than novels…

This book defines succinctly what is existentialism, and explains how to apply it to ethics, and how it can help us think about decisions. Now I appreciate how important his maxim is, "existence precedes essence". It was striking how the author emphasizes not freedom, but responsibility. That the ultimate consequence of existentialism, and of the proposition that there is no God (at least not the personal God envisioned by most religions), is not that we are free to do anything, but that we are ultimately responsible for everything we do. Also, I was particularly surprised that the essay reads like a call for action - that all idealism, well-wishing, hoping, potential, it's all useless unless it's backed up by action!

I had read elsewhere criticism that Sartre's existentialism is useless as an ethics framework because it does not give advice on what to do in certain situations - like the example given in the essay, in which a student asks Sartre what to do in a specific situation (no spoilers!), and Sartre only tells him he is free to choose. The criticism is the kind of "of course he is free, that is useless advice!". But I don't think that's fair criticism. First, Sartre explicitly explains how existentialism is not meant to provide answers for specific problems, only a framework on how to think about the problems; second, the answer is actually useful: it dispels the notion that there is a correct answer, like it would be given by a priest or by a Marxist revolutionary (two examples he uses throughout the text), which are easy to guess what they would be in the situation. Sartre is very pointedly saying that neither is correct - which is a definite and informative answer. Although ultimately this doesn't resolve the student dilemma, it clarifies that other systems of ethics don't solve it either!

One thing that was unclear is how establishing the existence of the self also establishes the existence of others. That that part seems to call out to previous work - he seems to allude to something that was said before but I couldn't tell what, so maybe in a previous book? It was not ever clear what he was referring to.

Although I do like his position that existentialism is not meant to provide a framework for making decisions, it is still a weak point of his concept of existentialism. In contrast, I think that de Beauvoir exploration of existentialism is way better because it does address this point; that is, it still does not make easy decisions, but it gives a framework, that can help an individual to think about how to make the best decisions, how to select between one choice and another - in de Beauvoir's case, roughly speaking, the ethical choice is about increasing the freedom of *others*.

Towards the end, Sartre also states the point that to will freedom for yourself, authentically, requires you to will freedom for others - the same as the thesis of De Beauvoir's Ethics. However, while I do find this point very appealing, he doesn't make it clear how to go from one to the other - there is a leap in logic, same as when he states that recognizing the existence of the self implies that of others, and now the will to freedom for the self implies that of others. It's possible that he explores this is explored in more detail in his longer works, but here, it feels like a tenuous link.

At the very end, Sartre makes the case that existentialism is a type of humanism. First, he addresses the fact that in his most famous work, Nausea, he attacks (makes fun? humiliates?) humanism. But here he says that in Nausea, he was attacking the usual formulation of humanism, but not humanism as he sees it. And then he tries to explain his view of humanism, and completely loses me, because he tries to define as the "relation of transcendence […] with subjectivity […]", while trying to explain what these mean, but it's just very opaque what he means. But then he brings it back to something more approachable, that existentialism is the notion that man is the only one who can decide for himself what to do (and is thus *responsible* for man), that it is a call to action, and it is ultimately optimistic, because it drives man to find and realize himself.

View all my reviews