One of the ideas I’m engaging with on a regular basis is the idea of Dialectical Pessimism.
Not that long ago someone suggested I read some Sartre, because they thought Sartre’s existentialism was similar to my version of what I think dialectical pessimism is.
So, today I started reading Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre.
Each man must say to himself: am I right to set the standard for all humanity? To deny that is to mask the anguish. When, for example, a military leader sends men to their deaths, he may have his orders, but at the bottom it is he alone who chooses …there is no love other than that which is built, no artistic genius other than in works of art. … This is hard for somebody who has not made a success of life. But it is only reality that counts, not dreams, expectations or hopes. What people reproach us for here is not our pessimism, but the sternness of our optimism.
What I read this I think Sartre is saying if we are dissatisfied with the material conditions we could simply say, “There is nothing I can do.” Chances are you would be correct. One person versus the material conditions? I’d bet the material conditions win.
That’s a pessimistic attitude.
Dialectical pessimism would suggest that even though we will probably fail if/when we take on the material conditions we should take them on anyway. There is something valuable in trying to save the world, even if you fail, your failure will be more beautiful than an ugly life of complicity within the brutal material conditions as they are.
When Sartre says, “_Each man must say to himself: am I right to set the standard for all humanity?_” he is pointing out something important.
This is the choice we have before us. It is not an easy choice.
But, I suspect if we are pessimistic enough we will make the choice of going through the contradiction of failure and possibly realize some success.
Could I be wrong about that? Of course I could. But I don’t think I am.