Abstract

My project is to identify the objective and nature of Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, reconstruct its basic argument into a coherent whole and criticize it. ;I will argue that Sartre's objective in the Critique is to criticize Marxism as a theory through which history is both made and thought. Marxism, in Sartre's view suffers from an anthropological and epistemological as well as a practical deficiency. Anthropologically, it reduces man to a mere result of an external conditioning. Epistemologically, it lacks a philosophical justification. Practically, it inhibits the revolutionary involvement with its determinism. Sartre's goal is to remedy these weaknesses. ;The key to Sartre's enterprise is the return to the nation of "existential project" or "praxis." Sartre assumes that "praxis" is the only reality that is intelligible. Consequently, unless historical events can be shown to be the result of "praxis", they are incomprehensible and incontrollable. The bulk of the Critique is devoted to showing that history can indeed be reconstructed from "praxis." ;I will argue, in the critical part of the dissertation, that in the passages where Sartre's work makes sense, its notions are confused and its descriptions false and often contrary to fact. I will also argue that Sartre's contention that Marxists overlook the individual and deny human freedom is unfounded and that his theory of social ensembles can neither ground Marxism nor serve as a philosophy of human emancipation. ;However, I will focus on the central ideal of the Critique, namely that the understanding and ultimate justification of the Marxist interpretation of history is an individual experience. I will demonstrate that this idea is mistaken, refute some of the arguments that have been advanced in favor of nominalism and show that no social theory can be built on the notion of existential project