Ontologia de um fantasma? Lukács e Sartre diante da revolução húngara de 1956

Abstract

Lukács and Sartre, authors of great importance for the contemporary debate on Marxism, have sought, in their late works (specially The Ontology of Social Being and Critique of Dialectical Reason, respectively) to systematically reexamine it's theoretical and philosophical grounds, within the context of USSR's "de-stalinization". As both philosophers were deeply committed with the cause of human freedom - despite the differences between their conceptions of the revolutionary praxis - their works can only be understood as theoretical responses to a convulsive period, marked by the emergence of a series of proccesses of social struggle that shooked certainties and expectations in both sides of the "iron curtain". One event is particularly significative in both authors' intelectual experience: the brief hungarian revolution of 1956, massacred by the soviet troops. The objective of this research is to understand the historical relevance of this event, how the philosophers in question took part and position in it's regard and how the "whirlwind" of 1956 determined their ulterior theoretical efforts, which aimed towards a broad and radical transcendence of the political and theoric deformities that subdued marxist orthodoxy to that point and then revealed it's most brutal and inhuman aspects. To do so, we'll seek to analyse the political and intelectual trajectories of Lukacs and Sartre, including the philosophical controversy developed between them from 1947 onwards; the historical significance of the hungarian revolution and their individual roles in the proccess; and finally, to draw some critical remarcks on how the work of both authors answer and reflect the events, considering the authors' particular conditions, trying to understand them by their own theoretical foundations but also showing some of their contradictions and limitations, resorting, beside their own works, to interviews, political documents and to the confrontation with historiographical debate concerning this period