Are You sure you want to delete Member from list ?
Marxism — There are two essential aspects to Marx’s thought: one is philosophical, and the other is political. Marx himself never divides his ideas into these two distinctions, but the difference becomes evident to a careful reader. The philosophical aspect of Marx’s thought focuses on the catastrophes of capitalism and the transformation it brings upon “man,” turning his “work” into a means merely to fill his stomach, thereby degrading the very “humanism” of human beings.
The political aspect, on the other hand, surprisingly calls for qualities such as “sacrifice” and “will” — values that are, by their very nature, immaterial. Here lies a contradiction within Marx’s worldview of materialism, which rejects the existence or necessity of abstract ideas like values. Yet, in the practical movement of Marxism, one can clearly see a value structure as bright as the dawn itself. This, in turn, exposes a fundamental denial within Marx’s own framework: the attempt to construct a system devoid of the “immaterial,” while relying on it nonetheless.
Existentialism — Jean-Paul Sartre, though a Marxist, is also a leading figure in Existentialism and a proponent of dialectical materialism. He denied the existence of an “immaterial soul,” locating human consciousness entirely within the bounds of material existence. Given this materialist worldview, one would expect Sartre to reject the idea of anything immaterial — including values. Yet, paradoxically, he does not.
As Sartre states, “If a person is born paralytic and does not become a champion racer, that individual alone is responsible.” But here arises a serious problem, as Shariati asks: “From where does a supra-natural, supra-material will emerge — one capable of triumphing over both social environment and natural human constitution?” The very mention of “will” inevitably brings with it the notion of values — and where there are values, there exists something immaterial. Thus emerges a deep contradiction.
Existentialists also center their philosophy on human action — yet how can there be action without choice, or choice without free will? And if free will exists, from where does it originate? From a divine source, a material one, or something independent altogether? Shariati further critiques this idea, noting that every choice must be based on some criterion — that is, on some value. This leads to a vicious cycle which, despite attempts at resolution, remains fundamentally flawed. As Shariati remarks, their responses to this problem are ultimately “lame.”
In conclusion, as the latter argument shows, these systems are illogical in principle and incoherent even in their attempted solutions. And when they try to make some sense of their contradictions, they ultimately render man, as Shariati describes, “standing upon his free will, meaningless and without purpose, while all human values go tumbling down.”
So, in the end, both Marxism and Existentialism seem to leave man hanging between two worlds — one that only sees matter, and another that still longs for meaning. They both talk about freeing man, yet somehow take away the very thing that gives freedom its purpose. Man is left in confusion, caught between his material needs and his inner pull toward something beyond them. And maybe this is where the real question begins — not about systems or theories anymore, but about what truly gives life its direction, and whether that can ever come from a world that denies anything beyond the material.
