Nineteenth-Century Philosophy: Marx versus Feuerbach - Essay Example

Question # 1: Marx versus Feuerbach Karl Marx’s critique of Ludwig Feuerbach is embodied in the "Theses on Feuerbach.” In this literary piece, Marx argues that the main problem with all existing materialism as Feuerbach envisages, is that the object, realism, opulent lifestyle is understood only in the context of the object or of thought, but not as an action, practice or in a subjective manner. Therefore, the opposite of materialism, was derived from idealism, which generally is clearly distinct from the real, opulent activities per se. As Gardiner (3), Marx argues that Feuerbach conceives of material objects being really distinct from the theoretical objects. However, the latter fails to consider human activity as objectively geared towards the realization of the object. Therefore, Feuerbach considers the conceptual approach as the only legitimate human thought, while practice revolves around its dirty-judaical appearance. According to Marx, Feuerbach fails to grasp or show the importance of radical aspects of practical-critical human actions. As such, the issue of whether rational truth can be associated with human thought is not theoretical but practical. Marx argues that human beings must show the truth; that is, the realism and influence of one’s thoughts in practice otherwise the gap between the theory and practice will persist. The resulting conflict over the realism or lack of it in respect of one’s thinking which eternally exists in theory is clearly scholastic according to Marx. About religion, Feuerbach argues that self-alienation led to the development of the society into two distinct categories: a secular one and a religious one. He supports resolving religious issues facing the world through secular approaches. But, Marx notes that the secular premises tend to detach to create itself a distinct kingdom that is rife with contradictions and too radicalized in practice to work. Therefore, for instance, establishing that the worldly relations are related in some way with the religiously pure should evoke the utter destruction of the secular networks in both theory and practice (Gardiner 261). Feuerbach was not content with nonconcrete thinking, thus he wanted contemplation; but Marx argued that he did not consider opulence as the result of practical, sensuous human acts. As such, he attempts to underscore the importance of religion in human beings. But human essence is clearly distinct from one person to another hence impracticality of universal approaches to defining its scope and impacts in social life (Gardiner 251). In its real sense it is the collection of the social associations. Eventually, Feuerbach fails to conceive the fact that the spiritual sentiment is itself the outcome of social forces, and that the generalized person whom he provides an assessment on belongs to a certain kind of society. In most cases, all aspects of the social life project themselves as inherently practical. As such, all anonymities which contribute towards the advancement of theory to religion find their objective solutions in the activities of human beings and in the understanding of this exercise (Gardiner 6). As such, Marx argues that the peak of contemplative materialism, which considers sensuousness as existent only in theory, is the thinking of persons in their individual capacity and of civil society organizations only. Generally, the position of the ancient materialism is represented by the civil society; the position of the new order is social humanity. As such, Marx and Feuerbach have just conceived the world in different ways. But they have deviated from the primary point in the whole debate – the need to transform it into one where material wealth is acquired morally and used to advance only the religious or moral causes. Question # 5 Fichte versus Hegel Fichte and Hegel provide passionate discussions of self, nature and freedom. On the one hand, Fichte argues that the self, which he specifically calls "the I," is dynamic by virtue of the changing properties and thus, it is a process. As such, the self-producing process should be free, because its freedom is naturally guaranteed by the autonomy in which it finds itself in the first place (Gardiner 17). This admittedly unclear basis has been subject to tremendous assessment and qualifications. In more current contexts, and as an initial estimation of its conception, humans can understand the concept as suggestive of a rational factor. The factor then interprets itself always based on the normative morals which it drags along with it, both conceptually and practically and in line with nature. Fichte's approach to nature is occasionally construed as phenomenological, thus limiting itself to what humans can learn through reflection. Yet Fichte supports the human construction of the components forming nature in order to find practical answers to human nature, rather than examining humans as complete beings (Gardiner 18). Fichte’s support for freedom of thought in retracing the nature of humans may therefore be construed as the most vocal concerns for freedom. It is this liberal thinking that revolutionized the philosopher into an advocate of critical philosophy and its trade-off of liberty and determinism. His former deterministic perspectives were arguably against human liberty, which was gaining popularity as the world evolved into modernity. On the other hand, Hegelianism is a conceptual theory of political and social development that relates to the natural development of important human influences (Gardiner 8). Historically, the self is closely related to nature and a co-existence of the two factors in a social context comes as a non-self-conscious association to natural world and to other factors. Owing to the need to satisfy diverse human self-desires which multiply naturally depending on the situation, Hegel suggests that freedom is the only way to have competing self-interests to coexist. This process results in self-realization that contradicts the initial naïve relation with nature and to the creation of openly cooperative endeavors (Gardiner 41). In the wider social setting, Hegel argues that government rationalizes freedom of the people by assuring every individual of equal opportunity. Hegel is keen in his suggestion that the idea of the government as the custodian of reasonable freedom is dissimilar to the social contract relationship, in which individual liberty is limited by government in order to guarantee utilitarian freedom (Gardiner 9). The freedoms restricted by the state, according to Hegel, are insignificant whims of the self-will. The government therefore permits only true ethical life, because real ethics only originate from reasonable freedom, rather than absolute freedom. In general, both Hegel and Fichte provide adequate answers to explain the self, nature and freedom of humans. However, unlike the latter philosophy, the former provides better answers to self, nature and freedom. With an all-encompassing state authority, all individuals will be guaranteed of reasonable self-interests, natural benefits and fundamental freedoms. As such, Hegel’s philosophy is better because it provides the social controls, the yardstick and parameters within which self-interests should be gauged and guaranteed across board. Question # 6: Fitche versus Auguste Comte Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857) are legendary philosophers who both represent the age of progress if their respective ideologies are not anything to go by. On the one hand, Fitche arguably represents the transition between Immanuel Kant and Hegel. He cuts his own niche as an indispensable philosopher of progressivism of political thought. Throughout the history, Fichte's clarification of Kantianism in a progressive way earned him accolades for his role in giving his predecessor's philosophies the able dynamism (Gardiner 42). This way, Fitche invented his original concepts based upon his theory of “the Science of all Knowledge.” Through his philosophy, Fitche thought he would create practical philosophy that could transform lives to the better. Fichte transformed philosophy into a tool with which he could confront the impacts of determinism. The philosopher’s personal appeal for human liberty is the strongest evidence that he was keen on transforming the German society from dictatorships into a new era governed by freer laws and autonomy of the citizens or other social structures (Gardiner 40). Fitche’s ideological relationship with progressivism political movements in the ancient France projects him as one philosopher who was committed to freedom of the citizenry from political bondage. His philosophy is well in line with the cause which agents of the French Revolution (1789) championed in the late 18th century. When Germany learned of the threat posed by imperial French troops shortly after the political struggles, Fichte dedicated himself to forge a common cause among the Germans, rallying the people against the possible external risks (Gardiner 14). As the result, he earned lots of tribute as the founder of German nationalism in a whole new way where the power rested at the hands of the people. On the other hand, Auguste Comte was a popular French thinker and founder of sociology and of the concept of positivism. Comte is sometimes considered one of the pioneers of modern science, and thus he was an agent of progress during his lifespan. Comte came up with three progressivism phases of modern science: a) the theological phase; b) the metaphysical phase, and c) the positive stage. Specifically, the first phase was depictive of the 1700s France, prior to the Enlightenment era (Gardiner 13-14). During this period, human place in society and the existing social controls upon the people were believed to be the work of God. Man blindly accepted whatever the ancestors passed over to the younger generations. During the second stage (of metaphysics), Comte rooted his philosophy upon the challenges facing France after The Revolution (40). The philosopher then helped to instigate serious investigation of the world to establish whether political influence and religion had any legitimacy. In the last scientific stage, Comte walks readers through the dismal performance of the revolutionary forces and of Napoleon and acts as an agent of change in his suggestions that through science, a society could find relevant solutions to the challenges facing it irrespective of natural human rights and religious beliefs in favor of the status quo. Despite the progressive ideology presented by Comte and Fitche, both lived under dictatorships, and thus the progressivism thoughts they arguably proposed were premised upon a weak ground. Whereas Fitche arguably advocated for the status quo in his nationalist appeal against France in the late 1700s, Comte also supported a pure scientific cause instead of a progressivism tradeoff between science and respect for human dignity as well as that of the environment. Works Cited Gardiner, Patrick. Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968. Read More