Three Tenets of Thought in Latin America - Positivism, Marxism and Existentialism - Term Paper Example

ABC XYZ Philosophy 25 April Positivism, Marxism and Existentialism Latin philosophy is a strikingly interesting topic with many trails, influences and cultural transitions. In the ancient days of the United States and America as a whole, Latin Americans inhabited the regions and developed through the ancestry of time. During this time a lot of scholars and thinkers emerged. Prominent among these are those who guided us along the lines of Karl Marx and gave way to a new form of thought – Marxism. Other than this, positivism and existentialism also gained prominence as a way of thought and expression. In this essay, we will discuss the three main tenets of thought – positivism, Marxism and existentialism. Positivism Latin American adoption of European philosophy conquered barriers between European and Latin identities rationalizing a type of acceptable colonization through the use of Positivism. While Latin America leaders pushed this philosophy throughout Latin America with the best of intentions achieving great triumphs and social reform, I believe there was also some intentional means for control and a desire for Latin American leaders to become elitist, bringing about desired influence and respect from world powers of the time. I will discuss how I came to this belief first by breaking down positivism and its creator and second by examining key components of Positivism in Latin America. To keep things clear I will be taking an anti-positivist approach to this evaluation. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is the father of Positivity, this French philosopher who also established his elitist desire through the implementation of his failed church named “Religion of Humanity” stated quote, “Society as a whole, and each particular science develops through three mentally conceived stages” (Law of three stages). The first stage is the Theological stage and consist of three sub categories fetishism, polytheism, and monotheism all of which involve some type of understanding of the world through the worship and belief of multiple or single gods, the heavens, and through inanimate objects. The second stage metaphysical has to do with the belief of an impersonal theoretical explanation of the world; this stage can be better understood by believing in a reality that goes beyond human understanding when evaluated by the five available senses. The final stage and most desirable is the positivity stage, this is a strictly scientific stage and refers to scientific explanation for any type of analysis. This insinuates a purely intellectual way of looking at the world drawing conclusions based on data and facts. Comte states, “That all stages must be completed in order neither second or third can be reached without the preceding being reached and understood completely” (Auguste Comte). This final stage also proposes a developmental order for the sciences. MathAstronomyPhysicsChemistryBiologyPsychologySociologySocial Science “Our mathematics possesses irresistible analytical procedures, such that infinitesimal calculus becomes a boring instrument. Our physics and chemistry are absolute; our biology without defect; even our psychology is perfect . . . Nevertheless, we would still be dumbfounded by the question: What is the value of the universe?” (Part Caso 15) Let’s investigate the final stage positivity. First let’s take a look at the developmental order of sciences, as each one progresses to the next the unknown variable seems to become increasingly larger, this unknown should be seen as a spiritual variable since its origin as well as cause and effect are unknown to complete comprehension. Positivity cannot scientifically predict the unpredictable, yet Comte chooses to ignore this. Sciences job, its function is to discover new things so with that being said you never could live in the positivist phase of Comte philosophy. The last phase would require a complete and comprehensive understanding of the universe and the planet we live in. How could one even know when the positivist stage is reached, if ever? Lastly in evaluating positivism from a humanistic view one can conclude that positivism is a horrible way of degrading people to a barbaric level insinuating that people’s thoughts and actions are completely controlled by biological and physical reactions as if people have a desire to live like animals. If this were true how you could explain the sacrifices made in relationship and dispute resolutions? How could you explain people’s sense of enlightenment to a higher perception of living through the giving up of some amount of personal desire? Humans choose to sacrifice in order to obtain a higher sense of well being. This type of sacrifice cannot be measured scientifically and is not chemically induced. “The totality of human experience, arguably, is not reducible to the domain of scientific rationality. Sympathy, desire, will, love, sacrifice, beauty, and value do not yield up their mystical and spiritual meaning to science” (Part Caso 13). As mentioned before positivism played a vital role in the industrialization of Latin America. Yet one cannot help to ponder why the positivist movement was accepted and endured when the foundation of positivist philosophy initiated so much contradiction. Positivity was the conservative solution to a nation let down by liberalism. Citizens grew fond of positivism because it was a slow gradual change with steps and order. It’s easy to see why the Catholic followers and others searching for truth found comfort in positivity as reform. Positivism acknowledged an unknown; some could possibly see it as a spiritual variable, which made it an easy transition. After all of the political turmoil in Latin America and a desire to economically catch up to the rest of the world positivism was a clear solution at face value. Through the adoption of positivity in Latin America great tragedy was inflicted and endured as well as a retarding of social development still visible today. “The uncultured masses are lazy and timid in the realm of intelligence, and they want to be governed well. But if the government hurts them, they shake it off and govern themselves” (Jose Marti our America). Marxism and Existentialism Let’s take a look at what went on in multiple countries in Latin America. Brazil under the leadership of Luis Barreto started training scientific elite in order to industrialize their country. Chilean positivism and its scientific agenda swayed with multiple political issues deemed necessary for the overall welfare of the country. Argentina through the governing of Domingo Sarmiento’s and other political leaders accepted and implemented the whitening of the Argentina population executed at all cost, and lastly Barredas Mexican positivism was used to justify the dominance of the white Hispanic elite. The desire to separate people and create elite is a desire to control. How does this happen in a scientific world? By ignoring the spirit and accepting science without reason, positivism science is based on conjectures, it is a conservative belief system never challenged thus biased. This biased approach is the only way to reach the positivist stage of Comte philosophy. Positivism ignores the understanding of the past and ignores real time social conditions negatively hindering citizen’s perceptions of the world they live in. “We have been educated under the humiliating influence of a philosophy conceived by our enemies, perhaps innocently if you will but with the purpose of exalting their own goals and annulling ours” (Vasconcelos The Cosmic Race 8). Science when constructed by positivism artificially constructs the culture desired by the people in charge, “Science in this manner can be said to be Utilitarianism” (Candelaria), narrowing perception and destroying creativity. Science as defined in positivism is used to control and extort the masses who are blinded by their own economical development, hence the importance of Comte followers promoting the separation of knower and the known. The metaphysical stage is one, which promotes rationalism and universal rights. Do the actions of these above-mentioned leaders reflect the completion of that stage in anyway? With that being said it’s clear that Comte and his Latin philosophical followers themselves never reached the positivist stage of development, personal or social. Science proves that man is composed of the same internal organs, yet positivism promoted racism instead of eliminating it. Science cannot interpret art, religion, account for emotions, or disprove creativity. Yet through the acceptance of this positivist philosophy as doctrine by leaders and followers, all of these counter arguments to the functionality of positivity are thrown in the trash dismissed as irrelevant to the cohesion of a nation. Science should always be debatable deeming the philosophical belief of positivism unobtainable; at most the highest stage of Comte philosophy that could ever be reached is the metaphysical. Positivity is scientifically impossible to obtain leaving its followers in a type of mental hamster wheel seeking understanding through an altered reality. While the ones in charge basked in accelerated growth, perpetuated their elitist positivist governing, and established themselves amongst world leaders. “To govern well, one must see things as they are, he must know the elements that make up his own country, and how to bring them together using methods and institutions originating within the country, to reach that desirable state where each man can attain self-realization and all may enjoy the abundance that Nature has bestowed” (Jose Marti Our America). Existentialism and Marxism as processes of thoughts emerged during the ancient days of the union of North and South America. At this point in time there was the presence of two different types of people in the regions. One of the types consisted of those that supported the Marxism philosophy and these people were referred to as Marxists. Marxism by definition was the philosophy that went with the belief of an economic and socially directed community. The concept of Marxism scrutinized capitalism and constantly analyzed its core. This notion swept the world through a phase of political change that evolved generation after generation. There was also the concept of Existentialism that spread through Latin America in my opinion more naturally. This concept was unique because it stressed the importance of experience as compared to concepts that come from other people’s views. This means that it identifies an individual as being a free being not following various influences from others. Many philosophers had different beliefs on the two distinctive philosophies, there significance, and the comparison of their concepts which all seem to contain some form of validity. After research and digestion I have come to the conclusion that neither philosophy was better than the other but rather the mixture of both is what has led to the long enduring evolution of Latin America. Romero Francisco in Theory of a Man voices his vast and well-known support of the Existentialism notion. In this book, he argues deeply stating that the running of the society through material ideology is nothing but a waste of time due to the manner through which the society has progressed through the ages (Romero 134). The author states very clearly that he very much supports the effort and the changes observed in the behavioural sciences and that they have hopes in the future but discredits the pace of development in past times. Romero states that in Latin America, people were rather confused on the way to which they should follow in society and thus many of them did not have a sound decision but rather followed the mass (Romero 142). He states this to be the reason why societal progress has been very slow from those days as well as the problem with Existentialism, this disregard pointed towards Marxism. He also makes the claim that the weakness of the human being is what made him believe in culture rather the scientific revolution of the age. He states that with this claim he takes on the issue of existentialism, and that he sees nothing wrong towards reductionism and that it is a concept feared only by those with developmental fear. A writer that is clearly against Romero’s claim is Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. In this book, Enrique goes a long way in explaining the manner in which the Latin Americans were represented or absorbed Marxism and states that this was a rather conscious decision for them (Dussel 67). In the book, he majorly focuses on issues relating to Ethics and politics. Enrique states that human beings in this era needed a political view or understanding of the world and believes in a sociological view because understanding the society was not just enough. Enrique claims that for one to concentrate on the large diverse Latin American society at the time, the basic philosophy to understand was politics. Enrique states that no society can run without the basic unit of government. It is due to this that he states that the formation of a government was important. It is from this governing body that unity was found to develop and as a single unit, there was the ability to move forward with decisions that are more informed rather than having an individual making a single decision (Dussel 154). This is because lack of government would lead to confusion with one another constantly ending in feuds this conclusion leads to the importance of the Marxism movement in Latin America. Francisco Milro Quesda in Without Theory goes a long way in explaining the different concepts and ideas that show the reason as to why the Existentialism notion was rather important in the Latin American society. He states that many of the human philosophies going around are baseless and are bound to fail because they base the human experience in a way that all the issues that they (society) faced were rather metaphysical. He goes further in his discussion to explain that human beings seek order and that the constrictions of laws are needed, and society cannot live without these various social theories around. Moreover, Francisco claims that human beings try in an endless effort to ensure that they control the world rather than the forces of nature controlling it. This is one major reason that makes the human beings of ancient America inclined and opened to the Existentialism Philosophy. Leonardo Boff in Science, Technology, Power takes a different stand on the issue of Marxism and existentialism in the Latin American culture. This opinion of the issue is where he portrays his ideas and reveals different facts that prove his point. As opposed to many philosophy writers, Boff talks about the Latin American community through a theological perspective. He however claims that research of the information leads towards the contemporary beliefs/theories of the 21st century. It is due to this view that he combines his Bible theories with the notion of Marxism to accomplish a rather complex understanding of the Latin America philosophy. Boff explains that the social nature of the Latin Americans was not self-inflicted but rather a revelation of God’s presence as he guided them on what to do. This was the reason as to why the people came up with the idea of observing one superior being. Having one being to be worshipped and respected, they had to follow all that he said and it is for this reason that they got a similar calling or understanding all together. The reason that they got this at the same time is clearly related to the fact that they had to move along together and thus the concept of Marxism through which they followed all rules and did all things as a movement. The nature of Self by Risieri Frondizi is a book that in my opinion goes to the extreme in an effort to try to explain the issue of the Latin American philosophy by portraying the actual importance of Existentialism. In his book, the author explains that Existentialism made people independent in the making of decisions and that the people were able to follow their own principles in the achievement of their set goals. This factor was important in that it assisted in the development of the individual, which is a very important characteristic in all American societies then and now. Also the concept was rather important in that it assisted in ensuring that the people did not become too dependent or lazy. Risieri claims that the people involved in the revolution of the Latin American society followed the beliefs of Existentialism to reach to the point where they are. He goes ahead to state that were it not for this philosophy, many people in the society would have been lazy because they would have waited for the other population as stated in Marxism to move on and they would then try to fit in without any type effort. Jose Comblin in Science and Technology goes directly against the facts stated by Risieri. Comblin through his understanding states that human beings in the Latin American society were non-developed and needed a particular push for them to achieve all that they needed at the time. He states that without unity, the people could not have made it as far as was reached in the contemporary times along with the number of developments seen. He states that unity was one thing that assisted in the development of America. He states that human beings being together also assisted in the development of various aspects of society. One of the major changes found in society is in the scientific field of view. Science is one aspect that has evolved over time and has attributed to the number of people who came together to shed light to the complex field. He states that without this Marxism notion of having a sociopolitical field of view, the efforts of the people could have gone to waist and the contemporary developments observed in the world would more than likely not be present. The main dispute from the various arguments stated above is that of Risieri Frondizi. This from the fact through which he states that human beings did not develop as a unit entirely, the argument is valid in the sense that it state there was the political view through which the population was ruled though it also states that the political aspect was just a mechanism through which many other developments could be gained. He goes further to explain that underneath the cover of politics there was the individual responsibility of each person in Latin America. The disapproval of the Marxism movement comes from the manner in which it judges actions as either right or wrong never incorporating the why. The only concern is how the action being carried out conforms to social needs and all other related factors. The actions are simply judged on the basis of whether it’s successful or not from the end outcome. If the outcome does not assist in the progress of society, it receives no validity. The Existentialism on the other hand does not actually judge through this manner as a person can carry out activities that assist in personal development, but how is this developments progress maximized? It seems that the structure and development through which the contemporary world runs is such that political units (government establishments) are used to rule and control the people, but the individuals struggle on their own in an effort to accomplish their day-to-day needs. This incorporates a type of Existentialism and Marxism, if it was to be treated strictly politically as a whole, the Latin American society could not have made it to the present times. While complete Existentialism gambles the possibility of laziness, some strive and overcome while many others fall dependent on others or the movement as a whole. But because of the blending of both philosophies in the Americas the Latin American society its development has become and continues to be cultured and distinguished. To conclude, we can say that there is a relationship among positivism, Marxism and existentialism. All the three schools of thought brought about a series of social reforms in the then America. However, the end goals of the Latin American thinkers seem to be the same – to be known and recognized as an elitist and influence people and gain respect and power from the rest of the world during that time. These thinkers had an inner desire to control the political system prevalent in the then America and they did this by influencing their thought to the general public. However, not many researchers have delved into this aspect. This is despite the fact that radical criminologists have given fair attention to all the three schools of thought. A typical example which highlights this problem is the conclusion given by a Marxist criminologist. He delved into all the assumptions which attributes to the theory of positivism and stated that almost all the aspects of positive criminology have been assaulted by radical thinkers. At another point of time, the same author notes that the concerns and the empirical research conducted in the field of positivism are not intrinsically incompatible with the Marxist and existentialist schools of thought. Moreover many radical thinkers and supporters of Karl Marx have used causal models to explain their theories despite being hostile towards positivist thinkers. The interesting fact is that positivism as a school of thought has explained its theories by means of causal models. In fact causal structures are essential aspects of positivism and help an individual to have a balanced knowledge of this school of thought (Groves, 1989). Thus, we can say that a lot of scholarly research is still needed to establish a clear relationship between these three schools of thought. Works cited: Groves, W.B. 1989. Socialism, capitalism and the reproduction of crime. Crime and Social Justice, 23, pp. 129 – 150. "Law of Three Stages." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 June 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Auguste Comte." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 June 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Our America." Jose Martis. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . Vasconcelos, Jose and Tisdel Didier. The Cosmic Race: a billingual edition. Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins University Press, 1997. Candelaria, Michael, Th. D. "Parts Caso 1 & 2." University New Mexico. (Investigative Material) "Academic Rebels in Chile:." Google Books. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Racism and Discourse in Spain and Latin America." Google Books. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "The Soul of Latin America:." Google Books. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Assimilating the Primitive:." Google Books. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "What Is Positivism?" Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . Brown, David. “Marxism versus Existentialism” George Novack’s Understanding History. Retrieved on 6th April 2012 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/works/history/ch12.html Dussel, Enrique. Philosophy of Liberation. New York: Cengage Learning. 2003. Print. Romero, Francisco. Theory of a Man. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. 1964. Print. Read More