| “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.” ― Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Bit of a long one, I know, but what is your own take of Karl Marx's interpretation of irreligious claims about religion under Hegel's own dialectic system? |
 |
| Both religion and Marxism are grand theories about how the world works that, in the end, say nothing about how the world works because they can't be falsified (although perhaps Marxism is falsifiable and has been falsified; the Soviet Union made a transition from an imperialist state to socialism, skipping a step in Marx's progression, while capitalism has proven to be much more resilient than Marx seemed to predict). The notion of a dialectic is so broad that I cannot imagine a situation in which one could not find two opposing parties or ideologies in competition. I'm not convinced that either of these can actually give insight into how the world actually works. The idea of religion as a "noble lie" is nothing new. It makes sense that Marx would be opposed to religion. His comments about disillusionment in the final paragraph seem to capture a similar sentiment to that of New Atheism or secular humanism today. |
| It should be noted that this statement by Marx shouldn't necessarily be contextual to being just anti religious, as Howard Zinn first interpreted it: "He [Marx] saw religion, not just negatively as 'the opium of the people,' but positively as the 'sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.' This helps us understand the mass appeal of the religious charlatans of the television screen, as well as the work of Liberation Theology in joining the soulfulness of religion to the energy of revolutionary movements in miserably poor countries." |
|
| Karl Marx was first and foremost an economist. He was just like Adam Smith, his 'anti-thesis' and founder of Capitalism, a philosopher of economics to be precise. This alone speaks volumes of where he is coming from. One of his ideas is called 'economic determinism' which basically states that all other structures of society is determined by its economics or the mode of production. This was his way of thinking, so if you put in religion, religion is just the effect of the mode of production. The mode of production determines who the rulers are, which then determines what religion is in place. Religion is just an institution of power. I think pretty much every social philosopher agree with this. But I think social philosophers are too focused on society as a whole or the people in power, and not focused on individuals and individual meaning. |
More topics from this board
» Philosophical Quote Debate #2: Max StirnerGonzyChan - Dec 15, 2013 |
1 |
by Neostorm-X
»»
Jun 27, 2022 11:01 AM |
|
Sticky: » New Member Introduction Thread ( 1 2 )Lithic - Jan 26, 2014 |
70 |
by morimemen
»»
Jun 27, 2020 5:30 PM |
|
» Club Relations ( 1 2 )Danish - Apr 12, 2009 |
69 |
by missbellerophon
»»
Aug 2, 2016 3:02 PM |
|
» THE COVER PHOTOPsychoX - May 3, 2016 |
0 |
by PsychoX
»»
May 3, 2016 4:34 AM |
|
» To the Bookshelf: Post Your Latest TextsPleiadesRising - Sep 25, 2012 |
10 |
by removed-user
»»
Jul 6, 2015 4:16 PM |