Loading...

1/20/12

Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud

I am wanting to learn about what these four thinkers have offered us through their lifetime and their writing.

They lived recently in respect to antiquity on through the Middle Ages and after America was Founded as a nation.

They have been called the Masters of Suspicion. All four spoke very directly on the subject of religion in ways that most certainly impact our ideas of reality.

Each one has had an impact on our life. Feuerbach is not so well known as the other three. It is interesting that Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud—all three—are seen in a negative way by so many of us. But, each and every one of them belong to the most respected thinkers of Modern times—especially is that true of Karl Marx even though his utopian ideas of society have fallen into so much discredit.

We should not fool ourselves about the value each of these men have provided us.

29 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Feuerbach projection of God...

Marx religion is the opiate of the masses...

Nietzsche the church has killed God and situational ethics....

Phil, Off the top of my head, Feuerbach and Nietzsche had a subjectivist view of "God", while Marx objectified "God" as a means for political ends.


Why are you putting these three thinkers together?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I left out Freud...God is one's suppressed ego/id under the superego...sexual identity and development being a big definer for Freud of what/how the child and later adult functions...

Phil Johnson said...

These three, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, are known as Masters of Suspiction.

Feuerbach is seen as the thinker who makes the transition thinker who makes lays the groundwork for the Masters of Suspicion. Some include Feuerbach in as a Master of Suspicion.
.
I'm trying to learn about each of them and how their thinking has affected our thinking in American society today.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Why people want to believe in "God" is their own business. Yes, and I do believe "God" is a projection of one's parental imaging....but the neuroscientists would be interested in experimenting with moderating behavior via religious imagery...which is what liberal christianity does...but I wouldn't suggest a "biblical christianity" either.

Nietzsche rages at the cultural god of Christianity, while Marx paints a liberation theology and Freud helps explain how the human internalizes their parental role models in sexual identification.
Such are useful for affirming the equalization of Africa, as has been the colonizing of Africa by missonaries for years!!!!! Isn't this the agenda for the U.N.?

Globalization or globalized government, I believe is unrealistic. Why, Europe with their common Western identity hasn't made the Euro successful! The issues are to numerous and complex for global governance...

Phil Johnson said...

Feuerbach, if I'm not mistaken, teaches that man is conditioned to project his values of the good and positive outside of his being and considers himself as being a negative and lowly creature incapable of the good. So he divorces himself from his own goodness and places it in a force he calls God. So man splits his being in two parts.

Feuerbach teaches that man needs to change his conscious perceptions of reality so that he can be reunited with his own goodness.
.
Marx agrees with Feuerbach on the first part; but, disagrees on the second. He teaches that we are creatures of our relationship with the material world. And, in oder for man to be reunited with his goodness, his material world must be changed--politically. Religion is a false consciousness according to Marx.
.
.

Phil Johnson said...

Feuerbach taught that man reunites himself with his highest values when he brings Christ into his being. In fact, Feuerbach says that man is Christ in this sense.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Am I equal to those that are poverty stricken, or homeless< OR are their rights MORE important because of economic disadvantage? If I am NOT an equal before the law, then totalitarian governance is already "at the door" to bring about "the Christ" figure in me! Is this political liberty? Or manipulation of all aspects on a personal life and identity?

Phil Johnson said...

Put that in context for me, Angie.
.
There's civil equality and there is individual equality. Two different things. Is that from one of these four philosophers?
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Are you wanting a personal assessment of my psychological background? That could probably be analyzed by reading my blog.

Civil liberty is when government grants the right to individuals to pursue their own lives, and interests, it is called self ownership.

Individual liberty is the right to pursue personal and ultimate values.

Am I close? I've used Freud specifically in my blog writing. I have also quoted Neitszche. Feurbach, I think is many times alluded to. I'm not a great fan of Marxism (though I am not fully informed about his writing. I just find Utopian ideals aren't practical realities...). (and I did write about pragmatism not meeting the ideal...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

or maybe I should say that Marism systemizes what shouldn't be systemized, but then, Marx thought that socialism was a "higher development" than capitalism...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I don't think the Founders would be impressed by Marxist thinking, as they were too aware of the limitations of humans as to power.

Phil Johnson said...

My question about context had this post of yours in mind:

Am I equal to those that are poverty stricken, or homeless< OR are their rights MORE important because of economic disadvantage? If I am NOT an equal before the law, then totalitarian governance is already "at the door" to bring about "the Christ" figure in me! Is this political liberty? Or manipulation of all aspects on a personal life and identity?

.
I'm asking what was there about this particular blog that caused you to make that post. Are you referring to Feuerbach? How can I respond if I don't know what you're trying to elicit?
.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
I'm not so sure how Marx compared socialism to capitalism. His criticisms cannot be tossed aside merely because his utopian thinkings have been discredited.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
I can address your post; but, if you put it in context, my response will be more relevant. Otherwise, it seems off topic. And, my prefeerence is to give you the benefit.
????

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Marx economic philosophy mixed with Feuerbach, and Freud made me synthesize their teachings and "turn it on its head" which is Nietzschean....the culture today is a movement toward "social justice", and alturism, as these are of interest in/to the Academy...

Nietzschean criticism of "Christian culture" underlies the revolution of "comfort" and "ease" of the Christian conscience (as this is of interest regarding liberty of conscience to the "social justice" types)...

Maybe this is of interest to you.
http://mises.org/daily/5850/The-Liberation-of-the-Demons

Phil Johnson said...

.
I might be a little thick headed, Angie; so, you'll have to simplify your comment a little more for me. I am not getting your point.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I heard Ickenberg (Princeton, "Liberal Leviathan") who was suggesting that there was a move toward diminishing the "Superpower" status of the U.S. (partly, "they" surmise, out of necessity). It was a equalization of global power. Questions were obviously asked, about "tribalism", and what to do with those whose priviledged positions (the West or America) start to loose those priviledges. (I imagine the questioner was concerned over resistace movements). And the the question of China!

The rule of law was to guard against the tyranny that is brought by the disregardig of it, but today, "the rule of law" isn't going to be respected for the America citizen? Is Constituionality and the Bill of Rights not to have any more meaning or power because of a "global agenda"? Perhaps some of that, too, was in the back of my mind, as I worry about the future of this country...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Whenever an Equalization "project" is programmed then people LOOSE liberty for whatever is surmised by the "elite" or "empowered" to undermine equality!!!!

LIBERTY has to be first and foremost, otherwise none of us will be free except the "top eschalons of the empowered political class"....read the article from Mises...or mine;http://angiespoint.blogspot.com/2009/07/justified-by-science-to-dis-criminate.html

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The Personal Dies whenever priviledge gains ground! The rule of law applies to me, as well as the African American, the poor, the homeless, etc. That means to me personally, that I do not have to fear another invading my life with their "piousness" whether a religious piousness (Christianity) or a secular piousness (scientific materialism)!

Phil Johnson said...

.
I think--maybe--your thinking is beginning to migrate over into my mind. Maybe, just maybe, I understand what you're getting at here.
.
You are talking about your rights in comparison to the rights of others and you're using the idea of liberty to justify your position. Is that correct--do I have a handle on what you're getting at?
.
If I do, then, can I bring up the difference between your equality as a citizedn of the state relative to your equality as an individual in civil society.

So, where the Declaration of Independence declares all of us equal it is addressing itself to us as citizens of the state and not as individuals in civil society. I am in no way, as an individual in civil society, equal to Bill Gates; but, I am equal to him when it comes to being a citizen of the United States.
.
Do those two separate areas of identity respect the area of your concerns?
.
.

.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Granted I am not Bill Gates, or Mother Teresa. But, as an individual within civil society, am I free to make my choices about my own life, or will the State or Church determine that for me?

Equality means that there is respect for my private/individual life, otherwise everything becomes the public domain, which those that like to "spiritualize" socialized goals, seem to think it is "righteous" to do so!

Bill Gates does not have a right as an equal citizen to demand me to work for him. He might offer me a job, then that would be negotiable...as to whether I interviewed and we both came to an agreement!

Phil Johnson said...

.
I don't get the sense that Americans are used to separating our civil identity from our citizen identity.
.
One has to get a good understanding of what Marx is all about in order to get a clear picture of the difference. I'm giving a lot of thought to the idea as I would like to do a paper on it.
.
It stems out from Marx's view on religion as an opiate for the people. What is the role that religion carries out in our day to day experiences? What is the role the state carries out in that sense? What damage do we suffer to our psyche as a result?
.
It is a shame that we are so conditioned to pass Marx off as someone to be ignored as he seems to be the most influential social critic of modern times. You don't have to be a communist to appreciate Marx as--maybe--the most highly gifted social critic of our time.
.
Funny how people close out such a person based on some ideological bias, isn't it?
.
.

.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Seems your civil liberties may be limited by your ability to afford what it is your desires want you to experience. You just can't own a 250 foot pleasure yacht because it's your desire. But, you are free to dream about it. And, maybe you can work toward getting it. But, if you had a billion dollars, you could pretty much do whatever you felt like doing regardless of the cost. Even so, there are limits.
.

.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Yes, Phil, you are right, I haven't read Marx and given him a "good read". Maybe I will do that.

The Church as a representative of "God", should be a nurturer of people, when society's social structures break. Most do see the church in this way, I would think.

Government, though should provide for equal protections under the law, regarding personal interests. That was all I was saying in making a distinction.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The recent Supreme Court case, I think would also make that distinction between government and society, or the public and private.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Just an IMPORTANT question, Phil...
You asked if I wanted a yacht, meaning that values are all about a desire to attain a yacht? Does everyone boil down their values to the material? that means NOT that people should limit their desire, as ambition is dependent on a reward for effort, but, should leaders ASSUME that desire is always about material posessions? I'm NOT suggesting that material possessions are evil, or SHOULD be limited, NO, what I am asking is;

Is it OKAY for INDIVIDUALs to choose their own values and pursue them? OR should they be limited by "higher ups" because they "know better"? Are we to have a paternalistic government!? I don't think this is what the Founders had in mind. They wanted a citizenry that was self responsible,.....and liberty was not JUST about religious conscience, BUT the pursuit of happiness....which may or may not be material...that would be individually determined....NOT limited or prescribed by government!!!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I don't think that I can "in principle" agree that "ideals" are to be policy. "Ideals" aren't practicalities, as you pointed out about Bill Gates. I will never be his equal. Therefore, I am content with what I have and want others to be content to.

I don't believe that things work out equally, never did, nor ever will. Life is not fair, so we must "get over it". That is what I've come to believe, as we don't have control over the places we are born or who we have as parents....

Self interest is the best policy when it regards business affairs, because equality is a mutual need for the employer and the employee. Therefore, I am not for unions, but for the "right to work" legislation. I do not think that people should be forced to pay union dues.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I am also not for corporations to be "persons", either, from what I understand about that.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Bottom line for ME, is that I do not believe in CO-ERCIVE government or influences! (propaganda)....educating for particular purposes!!

I believe in the free and open market of ideas, that one can grapple with and aske questions in an open forum where questions are respected and answered honestly with no political agenda....