Like Hegel, Feuerbach also played in the mind of the young Marx, a prominent role. In Manuscripts of 1844 states that Feuerbach, "is the only one who is in a serious relationship, in a critical report, the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field," so as to appear to Marx as "the superatone true of the old philosophy. "
In the Theses on Feuerbach (1845) and subsequent German Ideology (1846), however, the relationship of Marx to ¬ with the master of the past is finally consumed. Let us briefly examine the various stages of the conceptual process. The main
Feuerbach's theoretical revolution is in the eyes of Marx, in Riven ¬ indication of the naturalness and concreteness of the "living human individuals" and rejecting teologizzante idealism of Hegel, which had reduced the man to autocoscien ¬ za and expression of a infinite spiritual subject. In particular, Feuerbach is credited with having theorized that "materialist inversion" of subject-predicate, with ¬ crete-abstract that allowed the "demystification" of the Hegelian dialectic.
Although he stressed the naturalness of man (and this is a step forward compared to Hegel), Feuerbach (and this is the step back), however, lost sight of its historicity, they do not even due account of how the man rather than nature, and society, and Quin ¬ history, as 'the human being' is an abstraction inherent in each individual golds, "but" the sum total of social relations "(VI thesis). Breaking with Feuerbach and the traditional philosophical anthropology, who spoke of man as an essence atempo ¬ eral provided certain immutable properties, Marx argues that the individual is made that the historical society in which they live: there 's man in the abstract, but the man child and product of a given society and a specific historical world.
In this way, Marx corrects Hegel and Feuerbach Feuerbach to Hegel, as against the one, defending the human and natural living, against the other, its social constituent ¬ tA and historicity. At the same time, he can argue that all human discourse is inevitably resolve ¬ ve a discourse on society and history, thus preparing the transition from the anthropological to historical issues and socio-economic status, a process that Althusser has described as "transition from philosophy to science"
A second point that unites and divides Marx from Feuerbach is the interpretation of reli ¬ gion. Although "discovered" the general mechanism of alienation of religion - it is not God created man but man to "project" on God according to their needs -, Feuerbach, mainly because of its concept "nature" of man, has not been able, according to Marx, to understand the real causes of the religious phenomenon, or to offer us-effective tools for overcoming . The author of the Essence of Christianity is in fact to have escaped the fact that religion is not an abstract subject, divorced from history and leads invariably equal to itself, but a concrete individual, a "social product" (VII claim). And if the man is none other than the human world, the state, society ", it is obvious, for Marx, that the roots of religion can not be found in man ¬ mo as such, but in a particular type of historical society. From the "Annals-French-German" Marx has been developing his theory of religion known as Opium des Volks (opium of the people), according to which religion, in essence, is the "sigh of the oppressed creature", that product of alienated humanity and suffering a_ ¬ ferent because of the social injustices of a society that seeks illusory afterlife what, in fact, she denied nell'aldiquà . But if religion as opiate of the masses is a symptom of an alienated human and social condition, the only way to eliminate it is not the philosophical critique (as Feuerbach thought, in its abstractness of intellectual), but ¬ cials revolutionary transformation of society. In other words, if religion is the result of a sick sick society, the only way to eradicate it is to destroy the social structures that produce it. The religious disalienation therefore as a prerequisite for the economic disalienation, namely the overthrow of class society. That is why, according to Marx, another basic limitation of the thought of Feuerbach, which unites him to the tradition, lies in the contemplative and teoreticismo trend that has led him to ignore the practical and active aspect of human nature and to seek solutions ¬ tion of the real problems in the theory, ignoring completely the appearance of revolutionary praxis. Consequently, the old speculative and contemplative materialism of Feuerbach which is the latest incarnation, Marx opposed a new material, which con ¬ dera man primarily as a practice, believing that the solution of problems not to be found in speculation, but in the action: "philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways-but this is to change it" (Thesis XI).
0 comments:
Post a Comment