The following essay will be considering the differences between Marx’s and Feuerbach’s conceptions of the relationship between philosophy and religion, as well as the implications this has for their thoughts on religion, which brief discussion on the criticisms one could pose to these thinkers for their theories. What is important to note before we begin is that both of these thinkers are reacting to the Enlightenment era of Philosophy which is the idea of a rational and scientific approach to religion and the self. Kant defined the enlightenment as a move to autonomy away from heteronomy, meaning that human thought moved from considering God to be central to everything to viewing God as an entity who was important but more on the back …show more content…
Ultimately Descartes does return to the idea of god, as they are necessary for thought to be consistent as God holds the rules of the universe in place. And this is what Feuerbach wishes to avoid because he is critical of the enlightenment criticism of religions.
For Marx this isn 't correct at all, instead, Marx sees religion to be a concept created purely by humans, in an effort to right their suffering and bad lives, and furthermore, Marx the relationship between religion and Philosophy is less clear.
Marx first rejects past philosophy, stating that if we are to know the realities of the world then this is to be done through the natural sciences, not through philosophical questioning of the world.
Instead, Marx takes a Hegelian take on philosophy and takes it to be more about the history of social thought and society itself. Though Different to Hegel, Marx wishes to question the claim that history is rationally ordered.
To see how this relates philosophy to religion is to see that Marx has reduced the reach of philosophy to only consider subjects such as religion because metaphysic is not an extension of science. This is important because it leads to Marx attacking Feuerbach 's idea that religion delivers self-knowledge through philosophy, something which I will come to explain in the following essay. In the following essay, we shall see that Marx and Feuerbach differ immensely in their take on religion and its relation to philosophy, but both
Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The
Karl Marx a Marxist sees religion as an illusion and that the phenomenon of religion is part of what Marx refers to as an alienation of people
It is a commonplace that Marx's theory is a continuation of the German classical philosophy-Hegel's in the first place. He, however, wanted to turn the 'upside down' idealist dialectics the right way up, as he said, and put it on a materialist basis. In doing so he followed not so much Feuerbach's example as the materialism of the English and French Enlightenment with which he had already been well acquainted, as is clear from his work Die heilige Familie. Feuerbach instead inspired Marx to preserve the humanistic pathos, which was present in the Prometheus cult in his doctoral dissertation, also on materialistic grounds, instead of the 'sunshine idealism' he praised in the recommendation. Only an 'anthropologic' materialism could naturally serve such purposes-the mature Marx, too, always categorically distanced himself from the metaphysical and natural scientific materialisms. He also distanced himself from Feuerbach's unhistorically anthropological materialism. His materialism can only be termed anthropological if anthropology is understood as a historical anthropology (as Marx himself said in his work Das Elend der
He chose to view religion as a negative thing unlike Durkheim who viewed it in a positive way. Marx believed that “humanity makes religion; religion does not make humanity.” (Kessler. A, 2001). Karl Marx states that opium and religion can be an effect on human suffering by removing the incentive to do whatever is necessary to overcome it. Hamilton points out that “religion offers compensation for the hardship of this life in some future life, but it makes such compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this life.” Religion, to Marx, does not have the power to lead to social change. (Kessler. A, 2001). Max Webber attempted to demonstrate that religious beliefs were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, it shapes individuals behavior and actions in everyday life. Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology writers differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding religion.
For this essay i chose to answer questions numbers one and three. I chose these because they caught my eye as opposed to the others. i would personally like to know what Marx meant when he said “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” I also would like to gain more knowledge of exactly what a fetishism of commodity is.
Karl Marx said what about religion? Why might this be significant? Karl said religion is important, people need something to believe
Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, and political revolutionary. When Karl Marx moved to Paris in 1843, he met Engels and together they both worked on several essays. However, Marx and Engels are best known for their revolutionary writings around the concept of Communism. Marx attained his primary intellectual influences from the work of G.W.F Hegel. Hegel’s main theory describes history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx furthered this theory and argues that man becomes conscious of himself as a spirit; the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. The
Influenced by the German philosopher and anthropologist Feuerbach, Karl Marx believes that God does not exist, and humans create God from their own fantasy, as he indicated in his writings, "the gods are originally not the cause but the effect of the aberration of the human mind" (Kivisto, 2003, P. 83). Marx sees religious feelings and thoughts as a "social product" (Bottommore and Rubel, 1964). According to Marx, people envision a supernatural being with ideal qualities is just a projection of their desires because they regard themselves as limited and weak beings. On the other hand, the Catholic theorist, Tocqueville believes that humans exist because they are God's creation. Tocqueville also believes that no society can flourish without
his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into God the less he retains in
While both Locke and Marx believed that religion should be held separate from politics, diversion in ideology can be seen through the fact that Locke felt that religious life should be privatized, while Marx believed that religion becomes superfluous, and therefore unnecessary in a society in which power is appropriated to all of its masses. Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration” and Marx’s “Manifesto of the Communist Party” showcase the dynamic, oft-conflicting nature of power and control that the institution of formalized religion and politics have imparted on human consciousness, with Locke and Marx proving similar in their convictions that politics should be distinctly maintained, though differing on their stance on the privatization of
Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).
The two theorists i’ve decided to compare and contrast are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Firstly i’ll compare them to one another. From all the readings I did and past education on these individuals I found they have a lot of the same views in regards to religion. Both Emlie Durkheim and Karl Marx believe that religion is a projection of mans hopes and desires. They both also agree that religion plays a powerful role in influencing the members of a society. While coming up with these theories they were both more concerned with the human rather than the religion. Both of them did not believe in a god or gods. It’s been said that Marx saw god as idealization of human nature while Durkheim believed the idea of a god was society itself. They were not religious people so it’s interesting that they did have some of the same views and theories regarding religion in the society.
Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated to produce The German Ideology, which was one of the classic texts generated by the two. Even though The German Ideology stands our as one of the major texts produced by the two, it was never published during Marx’s lifetime. This was a clear expression of the theory of history by Marx and its associated materialist metaphysics. One of the main reasons this text is a classic text by these philosophers is the fact that it introduces students to the basic tenets of the philosopher’s approach. Notably, Karl Marx produced The German Ideology in 1846 as a critique of George Friedrich Hegel and his followers in Germany. The philosophers sought to differentiate their concept of socialism from existing ones and exhibit how socialism emerges ordinarily from the social conflicts embedded in capitalism.
A religion can be seen as a unified system of beliefs and practices which are relative to sacred things and beliefs (Giddens 1972, p.224). It can shape ones thoughts and feelings and gives people a sense of hope and something to believe in. All three main sociologist writers Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim offer different perspectives on religion and how important it is to society. Some of the theorists chose to have a positive view whilst others argue the unimportance of religion. This essay attempts to discover which theorist has the most accurate perspective of religion in modern times. This is done by firstly explaining the basic ideas regarding to religion put forward by Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Then both Marx's and