While it might seem odd at first to include atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism in a series on religion, these three systems of thought should be addressed here. Religion is sometimes defined as whatever about which a man is deeply concerned,1 and it is to such concerns that we now turn. Everyone, even the nontheist, attempts to make sense of and explain the reality around him While those who believe in some form of God attribute this world's existence in some way to that God (or gods); the atheist, agnostic, and skeptic form an alternative naturalistic explanation for this world.
Since our space is limited, we usually will refer to the three views as one, recognizing the great overlap among them. Where their distinctions are important we will point them out. After defining the three terms we will review briefly the history of the nontheistic (apart from God) movement. Then we will discuss five kinds of objections which represent most of the arguments brought by nonbelievers against a belief in God. These five objections include problems in the areas of language, knowledge, moral concepts, scientific method, and logic. Since this is to be a survey of nontheistic religions, and not a presentation of Christianity, we will not present systematic proofs for the existence of God, but we will present short theistic resolutions to the five problems mentioned. We have included the names of the major philosophers whose writings would be helpful in understanding these areas of belief.
Definitions
Atheism
The word atheism comes from the Greek prefix a (no or non-) and the noun theos (god or God). An atheist is one who believes that there exists positive evidence that there is no God. To the atheist, all of existence can be explained naturally rather than supernaturally. An atheist is convinced that all religious belief, evidence, and faith are false.
Popular authors and philosophy professors William and Mabel Sahakian explain it as follows:
Unlike Agnostics, the Atheist takes a definite stand, arguing that proof regarding God's existence or nonexistence is available, but that the evidence favors the assumption of nonexistence (William and Mabel Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966, p. 100).
Bishop Charles Gore summarizes atheistic belief as presupposing
that we see in the world of which we form a part no signs of anything corresponding to the mind or spirit or purposes which indisputably exist in man – no signs of a universal spirit or reason with which we can hold communion, nothing but blind and unconscious force (Charles Gore, The Reconstruction of Belief, London: John Murray, 1926, pp. 45,46).
Historically, atheism sometimes refers to a rejection of only particular gods or a particular God. Hans Schwarz informs us that :
When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, for instance, declared that the sun was an incandescent stone somewhat larger than the Peloponesus, he was accused of impiety or atheism and forced to leave his hometown Athens (Hans Schwarz, The Search for God, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975, p. 16).
Plato in his Laws X (c. 352-350 B C ) defined two basic kinds of atheists: those who are sincerely convinced God (or gods) does not exist; and those who assert that there is no place for God (or gods) in this world. The first kind of atheist is considered moral and upright while the second kind is seen as an anarchistic (without law) threat to society.2 Socrates may have been put to death for being this second kind of atheist. Again, Schwarz notes,
...when Socrates was indicted for "impiety" in 399 B.C. on grounds that he had corrupted the young and neglected the gods during worship ceremonies ordered by the city and had introduced religious novelties, he was sentenced to death and was condemned to drink the hemlock within twenty-four hours. But Socrates' position and that of other atheists was far from being atheistic in the modern sense (ibid., p. 17).
Agnosticism
Agnosticism comes from the Greek prefix a- (no or non-) and the noun gnosis (knowledge, usually by experience). An agnostic is one who believes there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God or gods. Agnostics criticize the theist and the atheist for their dogmatism and their presumption of such knowledge.
William and Mabel Sahakian say that agnosticism "refers to a neutralist view on the question of the existence of God; it is the view of the person who elects to remain in a state of suspended judgment" (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100}.
The Runes Dictionary of Phi1osophy defines agnosticism as:
l. (epist.} that theory of knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of a certain subject-matter. 2. (theol.) that theory of religious knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of God (Dagobert D. Runes, ed, Dictionary of Philosophy, Totowa, NJ. Littlefield, Adams 8. Company, 1960, 1962, p.&).
This is complemented by Peter Angeles' Dictionary of Phi1osophy, which defines agnosticism as:
1. The belief (a) that we cannot have knowledge of God and (b) that it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. 2. Sometimes used to refer to the suspension of judgment ..about some types of knowledge such as about the soul, immortality, spirits, heaven, hell, extraterrestrial life (Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, New York: Harper S Row, Publishers, 1981, p. 20).
There are two types of agnostics. One type says there is insufficient evidence but leaves open the possibility of sometime obtaining enough evidence to know with certainty. The second type is convinced that it is objectively impossible for anyone to ever know with certainty the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
William and Mabel Sahakian add this distinction to their definition of agnosticism (see above):
One group of Agnostics assumes that it merely lacks the facts necessary to form a judgment and defers any conclusion pending the acquisition of such facts; another group assumes a more dogmatic position, contending that facts are not available because it is impossible now (and will continue to be impossible) to obtain these facts – a view exemplified in Immanuel Kant's attacks upon the traditional arguments for the existence of God (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100)
Christian authors Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg also point out the distinction between the two kinds of agnostics:
One form of agnosticism claims that we do not know if God exists; the other insists that we cannot know. The first we'll call "soft" and the second "hard" agnosticism We are not here concerned about "soft" agnosticism, since it does not eliminate in principle the possibility of knowing whether God exists. It says in effect, "I do not know whether God exists but it is not impossible to know. I simply do not have enough evidence to make a rational decision on the question." We turn, then, to the "hard" form which claims that it is impossible to know whether God exists (Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 296)
Skepticism
Skepticism is derived from the Latin scepticus (inquiring, reflective, doubting). The Latin in turn comes from the Greek scepsis (inquiry, hesitation, doubt). The Greeks used the word to refer to a certain school of philosophical thought, the Skeptics3 (see History below), who taught that because real knowledge is unattainable, one should suspend judgment on matters of truth. This meaning is carried in Runes' Dictionary of Phi1osophy:
A proposition about a method of obtaining knowledge: that every hypothesis should be subjected to continual testing; that the only or the best or a reliable method of obtaining the knowledge of one or more of the above kinds is to doubt until something indubitable or as nearly indubitable as possible is found; that wherever evidence is indecisive, judgment should be suspended; that knowledge of all or certain kinds at some point rests on unproved postulates or assumptions (Runes, Philosophy, p. 278).
This is confirmed by B. A. G. Fuller's A History of Philosophy, where he reminds us that the "role of skepticism is to remind men that knowing with absolute certainty is impossible" (B. A G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955, vol. II, p. 581).
Peter Angeles shows in his definition of skepticism that there is a range of belief within the system He writes that skepticism is:
l. A state of doubting. 2. A state of suspension of judgment. 3. A state of unbelief or nonbelief. Skepticism ranges from complete, total disbelief in everything, to a tentative doubt in a process of reaching certainty [Angeles, Philosophy, p. 258).
While skepticism is sometimes synonymous with certain definitions of agnosticism, other writers distinguish between skepticism and agnosticism as does Warren Young, who writes:
Skepticism carries the negative attitude a step farther than agnosticism, denying the possibility of human knowledge. Truth in an objective sense is unattainable by any means within man's reach (Warren Young, A Christian Approach to Philosophy, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954, p.61)
Keeping in mind Geisler and Feinberg's two kinds of agnosticism (see above under the definition of agnosticism), their comments on the differences between agnosticism and skepticism are important. They write,
The skeptic neither affirms nor denies God's existence. And in contrast to the (hard) agnostic, the skeptic does not say it is impossible to know. For (hard} agnosticism too is a form of dogmatism – negative dogmatism The skeptic claims to take a much more tentative attitude toward knowledge. He is not sure whether a man can or cannot know God. In fact, the complete skeptic is not sure of anything (Geisler and Fein-berg, Philosophy, p. 299).
Because of the overlap of definitions for atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, it is at times difficult and even unnecessary to distinguish one's usage of the terms. What is most important to remember is that most nonreligious people, while they may label themselves with one of the three terms, usually have no clear understanding of how their own views fit one category but not the others. A person may be regarded as an atheist but, in actual practice, fall under the common definition of an agnostic. Another person may be regarded as a skeptic but admit to the possibility of change to accept some universal truths. If someone questions everything, the title "skeptic" can be applied. But since certainty might be found someday it would be appropriate to be seen as an agnostic. However, if at this time that person does not believe in God, is "atheist" the proper term'. While the three terms are useful to us (as in reading other philosophy works), the terms are relatively unimportant in most personal encounters. If we can establish what someone believes about knowledge, about obtaining knowledge, and about the ultimate meaning of existence, then we can deal with that person on the level at which he is comfortable. In such a situation, the label of atheist, agnostic, or skeptic is unimportant.
History
As we look at brief histories of atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, we will reverse our order of discussion to reflect the chronological development of these three areas of philosophical thought. There have been skeptics, atheists, and agnostics throughout the history of mankind, and we will treat skepticism first, then atheism, and finally agnosticism
Skepticism
The Greek schools of Skepticism began around 365 B.C. The first skeptic philosopher of note was Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 B.C.). The Pyrrhonic School held that skepticism was so pervasive that even their theory of skepticism was not certain. Skepticism was adopted as a way to avoid mental and emotional distress caused by conflicting data.
... the central idea of the early Skeptics was to avoid mental insecurity or doubt by abstaining from judgment on issues; suspension of judgment (epoche) became the fundamental theory of Skepticism. The policy of withholding judgment applied not only to metaphysical and logical questions, but also to value judgments pertaining to right conduct, the good, and the desirable....
The Skeptics, who were called the doubters, suspenders of judgment, and inquirers, based their philosophy on the premise that since we can know nothing of ultimate reality, then such basic things are matters of indifference to us, and they must be treated as inconsequential (William Sahakian, History of Philosophy, New York: Harper 8. Row, Publishers, 1968, pp. 48,49).
A second school of Skepticism is called Academic Skepticism, or the Middle Academy. Its leaders were Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia (315-241 B.C ), Carneades of Cyrene (214-129 B.C.), and Clitomachus (187-109 B.C.). The basic premise of Academic Skepticism is summarized well by Sahakian:
The Academic Skeptics set forth the fundamental premise that they could know only one thing, namely, that nothing is knowable (ibid., pp. 49,50).
The Academics spent most of their efforts attacking the teachings of the Stoics,4 and their presentation of Skepticism was often done in direct contrast to Stoicism. Arcesilaus stated that, while one could not know, even about ethics, one could judge probability and that, in fact, one should order his life by probability. He was followed by Carneades, who postulated three degrees of probability.
l. In the first place, we have mere probability, where we act with little or no observation of similar situations to help us, and where the chances therefore are about fifty-fifty, but seem worth taking in view of what we shall gain if we win.
2. Secondly, we have undisputed probability, where empirical observation shows us that other people have repeatedly taken the same chances successfully and to their advantage, and have never lost. Here the face-value of the probable truth and reliability of an impression is backed up by all the other impressions and notions related to it.
3. Finally, we may be able to act upon chances that not only look worth taking on a fifty-fifty basis and are uncontradicted and backed up by the experiences of other people, but have been thoroughly investigated and found to have solid reasons for taking them. In other words, we may be able to discover a "system" for life's gamble that mathematically, so to speak, ought to work. Then, says Carneades, we have a basis for action that is probable, undisputed, and tested (Fuller, Philosophy, pp. 277,278}.
Clitomachus (sometimes spelled Cleitomachus) was the third leader. He attacked the three degrees of probability, opting for a more uniform system of Skepticism
Sensationalistic Skepticism was the last of the classical schools of Skepticism. Its two most prominent leaders were Aenesidemus of Gnossus (first century B.C.) and Sextus Empiricus (200 A.D.). Aenesidemus exposed what he felt were fallacious tests for truth: sensation and confirmed opinion. He felt that these were subjective tests and could not be trusted. However, he had no objective tests for truth and instead was a confirmed skeptic, viewing life and existence as uncertain but livable on the basis of custom and probability. Sextus Empiricus was a doctor, from the empiricist school of doctors, and he put forth the maxim that life should be ordered by observation, or empiricism. Loyal to skepticism, Sextus promoted the study of Socrates' remark, "All that I know is that I know nothing." Sextus set forth his skepticism as follows:
The arche, or motive, for skepticism was the hope of reaching ataraxia, the state of "unperturbedness." .. Sextus Empiricus' skepticism had three stages: antithesis, epode (suspension of judgment), and ataraxia. The first stage involved a presentation of contradictory claims about the same subject. These claims were so constructed that they were in opposition to one another, and appeared equally probable or improbable.... The second state is epode, or the suspension of judgment. Instead of either asserting or denying any one claim about the subject at hand, one must embrace all mutually inconsistent claims and withhold judgment on each of them The final stage is ataraxia, a state of unperturbedness, happiness, and peace of mind. When that occurs one is freed from dogmatism. He can live peacefully and un-dogmatically in the world, following his natural inclinations and the laws or customs of society (Geisler and Feinberg, Philosophy, pp. 85, 86).
Skepticism died out for the most part during the ascendancy of Christianity. It did not become a noticeable philosophical movement again until the post-Reformation period of western European thought with Bishop John Wilkins (1614-1672) and Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680). They are sometimes called "mitigated skeptics." While clinging tenaciously to one area of skepticism, they compromised by not embracing skepticism as the answer to all knowledge problems in all fields. They distinguished between two types of knowledge. The first type, which they agreed was unreliable, was called "in-fallibly certain knowledge." Nothing, in other words, could be known infallibly and certainly. However, the second type of knowledge, by which one could order life, was called "indubitably certain knowledge." This was knowledge that one had no reason, experience, evidence, or report by which to doubt its veracity. Using this knowledge, Wilkins and Glanvill developed their own system of determining truth within the limits of "reasonable doubt."
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) wrote at the same time as Wilkins and Glanvill, although he is not considered to be a "mitigated skeptic." As a Christian theist, he used skepticism as a tool to prove the existence of God. Rather than seeing skepticism as an end in itself, he saw it as the way to begin to show the undeniability of the existence of God.
For Descartes, skepticism was not the conclusion of some argument, but the method whereby all doubt could be overcome. Descartes claimed that it is possible to arrive at indubitable knowledge through the rigorous and systematic application of doubt to one's beliefs (ibid., p. 91) .
From the time of Descartes, the majority of such thinkers have been atheists or agnostics. We will treat some of these skeptical thinkers more thoroughly in the historical sections on atheism and agnosticism. However, we will mention them briefly here.
David Hume (1711-1776) is known as a metaphysical5 skeptic. He believed that it was impossible to have any accurate knowledge about anything metaphysical. He pointed out that standards of probability for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience and must be accepted with some measure of faith.
Nicholas Horvath in his book, Philosophy, explains that: Hume claimed that only sense-knowledge based on experience is possible. Ideas are mere copies of sense impressions. Impressions and ideas constitute the human intellect. Ideas are not entirely unconnected; there is a bond of union between them and one calls up another. This phenomenon is called association of ideas.
Neither material nor spiritual substances exist in reality; their ideas are purely imaginative concepts, being nothing other than a constant association of impressions. Likewise there is nothing in man's experience that justifies a notion of necessary connection or causation; cause and effect designate merely a regular succession of ideas. Since the principle of causality is mere expectation due to custom, no facts outside consciousness are known to man.
Granted the negation of substance, the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul are only hypothetical. Freedom of will is an illusion; virtue is that which pleases, and vice is that which displeases (Nicholas A. Horvath, Phi1osophy, Woodbury, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1974, pp. 88,89).
More recently, A. J. Ayer (1910-1970), a limited skeptic, taught that any talk about metaphysics is meaningless. In addition, Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important of all the so-called "irrational" skeptics, asserted that there is no meaning, no knowledge that is objectively true, and no objective value. The entire history of skepticism has the same basic theme. It suspends judgment about truth. At various times skeptics have said that even their statement of skepticism is doubtful. At other times they have said that the one non-skeptical statement is the same statement, that skepticism is doubtful.
Atheism
Although the term atheism as a reference to the belief that God (or gods) does (do) not exist dates from the late sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli (d 1527) had already promoted a social ethic which did not depend on belief in, or the existence of, a supreme God. In his satirical essay, The Prince, he taught that the ruler ought to rule wisely and justly in order to secure his position and to satisfy his ego, rather than to satisfy some divine mandate. Machiavelli was one of the first to champion the then novel idea that "the end justifies the means." He argued that a ruler should not burden his subjects too much, not because it would be morally wrong to do so, but because it would not be expedient, for his oppressed subjects would then be more likely to revolt, depose him, and perhaps even kill him for his cruelty. Although Machiavelli cannot be termed an actual atheist, his system for successful governorship does not depend on, or presuppose, any divine order to this world.
Ideas from many philosophers, not all of whom were actually atheists, helped shape the atheistic philosophy of today.
During the enlightenment of the eighteenth century, Baron P H. T. d'Holbach referred to an atheist as
a man who destroys the dreams and chimerical beings that are dangerous to the human race so that men can be brought back to nature, to experience, and to reason (Enclyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, et. al. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1978, Macropaedia, II, p. 2,59).
As a brief and circumscribed overview of the history of atheism, we will review some of the contributions to modern atheism made by Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche, Jaspers, and Sartre. Ideas from philosophers such as Bayle, Spinoza, Fichte, and Hume, although not mentioned here, also contributed to the development of modern atheistic thought.
Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) was the man whose writings became an inspiration for the modern atheistic movement. He was one of the first prominent philosophers to advance the idea that God6 was dependent upon the world at least as much as the world was dependent upon God. He said that without the world God is not God. In some way, God needed His creation. This was the first step in saying that, since God was not sufficient in Himself, He was then unnecessary and ultimately imaginary.
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) was an early prominent atheistic philosopher. He denied all supernaturalism and attributed all talk about God to talk about nature. Man, he said, is dependent not on God, but on nature. Feuerbach promoted what is sometimes referred to as the wish-fulfillment idea of God He postulated that the idea of God arose as a result of men desiring to have some sort of supernatural Being as an explanation for their own existence and the events they observed around them This wish, or desire, was the seed from which the God-myth grew. Feuerbach thought this hypothesis proved that God actually did not exist.
Hegel and Feuerbach strongly influenced Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his collaborator, Frederich Engels (1820-1895). Marx, an avowed atheist, preached that religion is the opiate of the people and the enemy of all progress. Part of the task of the great proletariat revolution is the destruction of all religion.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was an early contemporary of Marx and Engels. He believed that God was an irrelevant superstition. As a result, Comte divided human development into three main stages:
"the Theological, or fictitious," "the Metaphysical, or ab-stract" and the Scientific, or positive." In the first the human mind looks for first causes and "supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings." The second is a transitional stage where the mind searches for "abstract forces" behind phenomena. But in the third and ultimate stage man's mind applies itself to the scientific study of the laws according to which things work. God and the supernatural are left behind as irrelevant superstition (Colin Brown, Phi1osophy and the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 241, 142).
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is often called the Father of the Death of God School. He laid the cornerstone for later nihilists by teaching that since God does not exist, man must devise his own way of life.
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1971} were two prominent existentialist thinkers who discussed the ambiguous (and therefore meaningless) nature of religious transcendence. In addition, Heidegger stressed that one's salvation lay in his own independence as an individual separated from every other individual, including, of course, any sort of God.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1981} was the most popular proponent of existentialism. He argued that man not only creates his own destiny, but that each man has only himself as the sole justification for his existence. There is no ultimate, objective, eternal meaning to life. An individual simply exists without reference to others.
A good example of atheistic perspective is contained in the Humanist Manifesto (1933). It was composed and signed by leading secular humanists who declared, in part, that "Humanism is faith in the supreme value and selfperfectability of human personality " Although there have been many other important thinkers in the history of atheism, these are representative of the most influential contributors shaping modern atheistic thought. Other modern atheistic thinkers are discussed in some of the references mentioned in the bibliography.
Agnosticism
Although agnosticism is a very broad field, we have chosen to limit our historical discussion of it to three of the most influential philosophers in its recent expressions. As we stated before, there is some overlap among atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, and many of the philosophers important in the development of one are also important to the others.
David Hume (1711-1776}, known for promoting metaphysical skepticism, showed the close marriage between skepticism and agnosticism. As a British Empiricist, he declared that the probabilistic standards for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience. We act on faith, then, not on knowledge. We do not know for sure: we are agnostic. However, we still act, having chosen to trust faith while at the same time being prepared for faith to let us down. Belief is not to be confused with ultimate truth, which is unknowable.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), although a theist, developed Hume's skepticism into metaphysical agnosticism. He believed it was impossible to know reality and consequently impossible to know metaphysical reality.
Colin Brown credits T. H. Huxley (1825-1895) with the term agnostic.
The word agnosticism is of much more recent coinage. It is generally ascribed to T. H. Huxley, the Victorian scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, who devised it to describe his own state of mind. He used it, not to deny God altogether, but to express doubt as to whether knowledge could be attained, and to protest ignorance on 'a great many things that the-ists and the-ites about me professed to be familiar with' (ibid., p. 132) .
Hume, Kant and Huxley represent a short history of contemporary agnosticism, which is distinguished by its assertion that one cannot know. Other prominent agnostics include Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Karl Marx: Religion Detach Self Human being
Marx alone believe that capitalistic society it is true offer the happening of human being itself realization, but that thing is only happened to some people and non for all society. Marx later offer what referred as with communist society that in communist society each individual will enjoy active life, rich, and have a meaning of; even that thing are barbed coexisted, however itself realization remain to be enabled.
In alienation context, Marx differentiate at least there is three things which must be referred as by when people converse about alienation or detached that is alienation as no realize itself, as no autonomous and alienation related to role of capital to the labor. But here I will only try to comprehend detached deeper which confessed by Marx as alienation because no itself realization. Told by Marx that in religion there no forms realize itself truthfully. This matter because in human being religion shall only bow and unopened to be dialogued giving possibility for every individual to express itself. Religion do not develop man innermost intact, because human being only depend on sham authority which created its own.
According to Marx religion which only can punish his, surely capitalist clan creation religion to grind and lay down small people with pious doctrine. Where in that doctrine of people obliged by pious life processed heavy asceticism and accept grief voluntarily to be can win the day in heaven. Here Marx sees that that thing is only representing society creation, is specially referred as by Marx: power society, to strengthen its power hegemony to small society which led it
But in fact what becoming concern of Marx? Clear that Marx see in such religion action of people very depend on its own creation. Human being is not autonomous. Human being have to at one's feet of rule which have made of own. This can be explained like in course of production. Marx says that in course of production every worker will within call goods which is making of, so that he spatially can touch and treating him. But when that goods change hands, the worker shall no longer in command to the goods. In religion, according to Marx, when human being above the ground as free creature – without religion- he spatially can make order, sanction, rites and others; but when he enter and start to believe a[n religion, human being then bow with made rites and order it own. At the time of that's detached human being from his self. Human being throw itself go out and bow to the its own creation, which none other than beautiful shadow from creature which suffering, longing authority protecting it, but that happened exactly on the contrary that that authority progressively handcuff and add its grief.
Despitefully also, Marx see that religion give exemption grind namely with surrenderness attitude. This referred as by Marx as nature of fetishism referred at material object having the power of supernatural. Marx says that that religion fetishism emerge when illusion in life lifted to become doctrine which will do not want to peremptory by each individual. This Fetishism will bear what referred as by Marx as ‘sham expectation of oppressed people.’ Religion Fetishism makes society unable to make a move spatially to free itself from poorness clutch. This which progressively settle confidence of Marx mentioning religion is not other as society opium.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Nilai Edukatif Kematian: Bukan ‘kata Akhir’
Pertama, kesadaran akan kematian mendorong manusia untuk berbuat guna menanda kematian yang tak terelakkan. Untuk mengatasi rasa tidak aman, fundamental eksistensi mansuai, yang secara terus menerus dihadapkan pada kematian, manusia telah menciptakan kebudayan dan peradaban. Orang menciptakan dunia yang lebih manusiawi di mana ada pangan dan papan untuk semua, di mana keadilan ditegakkan dan di mana manusia dapat hidup dan mengembankan identitasnya. Manusia berjuang melawan penyakit, ketidakadilan, alienasi yang membuat kematian menjadi suatu yang berat dan tak dapat diterima. Levinas juga menekankan fungsi edukatif kematian tersebut. Kematian mendorong manusia untuk membangun struktur-struktur yang menunda ancaman kematian dan yang memungkinkan manusia hidup lebih manusiawi di dunia.
Kedua, kesadaran akan kematian yang tak terelakkan, sementara menuntut diciptakannya suatu kebudayaan yang menunda kematian, juga menghapuskan kita untuk mempertanyakan makna pekerjaan manusia di dunia. Keharusan mati mengharuskan kita untuk mengakui nilai terbatas dari barang duniawi. Makna fundamental eksistensi manusia tidak dapat merupakan akumulasi dari kekayaan pribadi yang digunakan untuk kepentingan pribadi semata. Segala sesuatu yang dimiliki akan ditinggalkan pada yang masih hidup, yang berbuat menurut kemauannya. Sartre mengatakan bahwa kematian adalah absurd karena seluruh eksistensi ditinggalkan sebagai jarahan di tangan orang lain. Kaum Marxis juga mengatakan bahwa hidup ini tak bermakna kalau manusia mencari makna eksistensi hanya pada milik pribadi, karena hal itu merupakan ekspresi suatu situasi alienasi manusia. Namun kematian tidak mengajarkan kesia-siaan dan kemu-baziran kepemilikian in se. Kematian mengajarkan bahwa harta yang digunakan secara eksklusif bagi kepentingan diri sendiri adalah kesia-siaan. Dengan lain perkataan, kematian menyinari makna positif harta benda, yaitu bahwa semua barang kebudyaan hanya memiliki makna kalau digunakan untuk meningkatkan martabat sesama. Barang-barang pada hakekatnya bukan barang yang harus dimiliki dan disimpan, tetapi realitas yang harus diberikan. “Barang-barang”, kata Lévinas, “tidak memanifestasikan diri sebagai sesuatu yang harus ditumpuk, tetapi sebagai sesuatu yang harus diberikan.”
Ketiga, menurut Lévinas, kematian mengajak manusia untuk meneruskan kehidupannya sendiri dan cinta kasih kepada sang anak. Anak adalah manusia yang besar lebih dari karya materiil dan kebudayaan. Pada manusia baru itu harus dinyalakan kepribadian dan cintakasih, melalui kata-kata yang diucapkan dan melalui cintakasih yang diberikan. hal itu memiliki prospek tak terbatas dalam masa depan manusia, karena setiap manusia dapat melaksanakan kembali karya itu dengan memperbaharui pengalaman manusia untuk selama-lamanya.
Keempat, kematian menisbikan segala peran dan status sosial. Kematian mengajarkan kesamaan absolut semua manusia, karena semua mengalami pengalaman maut yang sama. Semua kembali kepada debu tanah: semua manusia di hadapan kematian, tanpa pengecualian, sama-sama miskin. Juga di sini kematian mengajak kita melihat peran sosial sebagai pelanyaan untuk meningkatkan martabat yang lain dan mengembangkan kebersamaan. Kematian mengundang kita untuk membangun dunia yang lebih manusiawi di mana persamaan fundamental de fakto diakui.
Kelima, kematian mengalahkan egoisme dan kesombongan, kehendak untuk berkuasa dan kehausan akan dominasi. Kematian mengundang kita untuk bersikap toleran dalam berhadapan dengan yang lain. Kematian mengajak kita untuk memberi tempat kepada semua, karena tidak seorang pun mutlak dalam komunitas manusia. Perbedaan antara yang kaya dan yang miskin, yang berkuasa dan yang sengsara dihapus oleh kematian.
Keenam, kematian memberikan kepada manusia suatu makna totalitas. Totalitas tidak berarti bahwa kematian merupakan bab terakhir sebuah buku yang telah selesai, atau ‘finishing’ bangunan baru yang telah selesai. Kematian mematahkan dan mengancam, maka dalam arti itu kematian in se bukanlah pemenuhan dan bukan pula totalitas. Kematian memberikan makna totalitas, artinya: pertama, kematian sebagai horizon kesadaran manusia memungkinkan manusia melihat seluruh hidupnya secara keseluruhan. Kedua, kematian sebagai akhir segala kemungkinan menghambat kita untuk mengubah makna hidup dan perjalanan hidup kita. Apa yang telah dibuat selama hidup dipasang pada figurnya. Dengan kematian kemungkinan habis dan kebebasan menjadi tidak berdaya untuk mengubah orientasi atau realisasi eksistensi.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Karl Marx: Agama Mengasingkan Diri Manusia
Marx sendiri meyakini bahwa masyarakat kapitalistik memang menawarkan terjadinya realisasi diri manusia, tetapi hal itu hanya terjadi bagi segelintir orang dan bukan bagi seluruh masyarakat. Marx kemudian menawarkan apa yang disebut dengan masyarakat komunis bahwa dalam masyarakat komunis setiap inidividu akan menikmati kehidupan yang aktif, kaya, dan bermakna; kendati hal itu berkait dengan hidup bersama, akan tetapi realisasi diri tetap dimungkinkan.
Dalam konteks alienasi, Marx membedakan setidaknya ada tiga hal yang harus disebut ketika orang berbicara tentang alienasi atau keterasingan yaitu alienasi sebagai tiadanya realisasi diri, sebagai tiadanya otonomi dan alienasi yang berkaitan dengan peran modal atas tenaga kerja. Namun di sini saya hanya akan mencoba memahami lebih dalam keterasingan yang diakui oleh Marx sebagai alienasi karena ketiadaan realsasi diri. Dikatakan oleh Marx bahwa dalam agama tidak ada bentuk realisasi diri yang sesungguhnya. Hal ini karena dalam agama manusia hanya boleh tunduk dan tidak terbuka bagi dialog yang memberikan kemungkinan bagi setiap individu untuk mengekspresikan dirinya. Agama tidak mengembangkan jati diri manusia secara utuh, karena manusia hanya tergantung pada otoritas semu yang diciptakannya sendiri.
Menurut Marx agama yang hanya mampu menghukum pemeluknya, pastilah agama ciptaan kaum kapitalis untuk menindas dan ‘meninabobokan’ orang-orang kecil dengan doktrin-doktrin kesalehan. Di mana dalam doktrin itu orang diharuskan hidup saleh dengan olah tapa yang berat dan menerima penderitaan dengan sukarela agar dapat memperoleh kemenangan di surga. Di sini Marx melihat bahwa hal itu hanya merupakan ciptaan masyarakat, khususnya disebut oleh Marx: masyarakat penguasa, untuk memperkuat hegemoni kekuasaannya terhadap masyarakat kecil yang dipimpinnya.
Tapi sebenarnya apa yang menjadi keprihatinan Marx? Jelas bahwa Marx melihat dalam tindakan agama semacam itu orang sangat tergantung pada ciptaannya sendiri. Manusia tidak otonom. Manusia harus tunduk pada ketentuan-ketentuan yang telah dibuatnya sendiri. Hal mana dapat dijelaskan seperti dalam proses produksi. Marx mengatakan bahwa dalam proses produksi setiap pekerja akan sangat dekat barang yang sedang dibuatnya, sehingga ia dengan leluasa dapat menyentuh dan memperlakukannya. Tetapi ketika barang itu berpindah tangan, sang pekerja itu tidak lagi berkuasa atas barang itu. Dalam agama, menurut Marx, ketika manusia masih hidup sebagai makhluk yang bebas –tanpa agama- ia dengan leluasa dapat membuat aturan-aturan, sanksi, ritus dan lain-lain; tetapi ketika ia masuk dan mulai meyakini suatu agama, manusia kemudian tunduk dengan aturan dan ritus yang dibuatnya sendiri. Pada saat itulah manusia terasing dari dirinya sendiri. Manusia melemparkan dirinya keluar dan tunduk atas ciptaannya sendiri, yang tidak lain adalah bayangan-bayangan indah dari makhluk yang menderita, yang merindukan otoritas yang melindunginya, tetapi yang terjadi justru sebaliknya bahwa otoritas itu semakin membelenggu dan menambah penderitaannya.
Di samping itu juga, Marx melihat bahwa agama memberikan pembebasan dari penindasan yakni dengan sikap pasrah. Inilah yang disebut oleh Marx sebagai sifat fetisisme dengan merujuk pada benda-benda material yang memiliki kekuatan supranatural. Marx mengatakan bahwa fetisisme agama itu muncul ketika ilusi-ilusi dalam kehidupan diangkat menjadi doktrin yang mau tidak mau harus ditaati oleh setiap individu. Fetisisme ini akan melahirkan apa yang disebut oleh Marx sebagai ‘harapan semu orang tertindas.’ Fetisisme agama membuat masyarakat tidak mampu bergerak dengan leluasa untuk membebaskan dirinya dari cengkeraman kemiskinan. Ini yang semakin memantapkan keyakinan Marx yang menyebut agama tidak lain sebagai candu masyarakat.
Karl Marx: Agama sebagai Candu Masyarakat
Bagi Marx, agama merupakan medium dari ilusi sosial. Dalam agama tidak ada pendasaran yang real-objektif bagi manusia untuk mengabdi pada kekuasaan supranatural. Ia justru melihat bahwa agama tidak berkembang karena ada kesadaran dari manusia akan pembebasan sejati namun karena kondisi yang diciptakan oleh orang-orang yang memiliki kuasa untuk melanggengkan kekuasaannya. Propaganda inilah yang disebutnya sebagai candu bagi masyarakat. Berkaitan dengan hal ini Marx mengkritik agama Kristen yang telah mempropagandakan etika ketertundukan. Dalam etika ketertundukan itu manusia hanya bisa tunduk terhadap segala aturan yang dilegitimasi sebagai aturan dari Allah. Manusia pasif dan menerima penderitaan sebagai karunia, sebagai sarana untuk mencapai kebahagiaan kekal. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa manusia akhirnya hanya bisa menerima penderitaannya tak berbuat apa-apa. Justru sikap tunduk inilah yang menguntungkan kaum kapitalis yang nota bene menguasai roda perekonomian. Dalam konteks ini Marx melihat bahwa agama adalah ekspresi langsung dari kelas yang berkepentingan, kelas yang dominan secara ekonomi bahkan politik yaitu kelas kapitalis.
Untuk itulah, Marx mengusulkan lahirnya masyarakat komunis. Dalam masyarakat komunis ini tidak ada lagi bentuk-bentuk penindasan kelas satu terhadap yang lain. Untuk mencapai cita-cita masyarakat komunis itu –yang dipandang olehnya sebagai suatu penghapusan stratifikasi sosial dalam masyarakat- agama harus sepi. Artinya agama harus dipinggirkan dan tidak mendominasi kehidupan masyarakat.
Kritik agama yang dilancarkan oleh Marx di atas sebenarnya merupakan langkah awal atau sebagai ‘pintu gerbang’ untuk memasuki wilayah kritik masyarakat. Bagi Marx, kritik agama tidak akan mengubah keadaan manusia yang menderita. Yang dibutuhkan adalah kritik masyarakat, agar agama tidak lahir. Dengan demikian, dapat dikatakan di sini bahwa kritik surga menjadi kritik dunia, kritik agama menjadi kritik hukum, dan kritik teologi menjadi kritik politik
Karl Marx: Agama Sebagai Instrumen Penindasan
Karl Marx menjelaskan bahwa tidak ada alasan lain bagi siapa pun bahwa orang harus menganut agama karena penderitaan dan penindasan. Keyakinan Marx ini, berangkat dari kritik agama Feurbach yaitu bahwa agama adalah institusi alienatif. Berangkat dari hal ini, Marx yakin bahwa orang menganut agama karena orang tersebut mengalami penderitaan dan penindasan dalam hidupnya. Penindasan yang dipahami oleh Marx adalah suatu perilaku eksploitatif-ekonomistik, di mana manusia dijadikan objek yang bisa dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan tertentu. Marx yakin bahwa orang jatuh dalam kemiskinan karena tindakan-tindakan penindasan kepada mereka. Hal ini paling nyata dilakukan oleh para kapitalis. Dengan kata lain, kemiskinan itu disebabkan oleh struktur-struktur ekonomi masyarakat yang menindas, yang diciptakan oleh para kapitalis demi memperbesar modal mereka.
Berhadapan dengan struktur-struktur yang menindas dan memiskinan itu, orang tidak bisa berbuat lain kecuali pasrah dan akhirnya bersimpuh di hadapan Tuhan yang diciptakannya sendiri. Inilah yang disebut oleh Marx sebagai alienasi bahwa dalam agama alienasi itu terjadi karena manusia tunduk dan berada di bawah entitas suci yang diciptakannya sendiri. Dengan menciptakan Tuhan, dengan sendirinya manusia merendahkan martabatnya sendiri sehingga ia semakin asing dengan dirinya sendiri. Dengan demikian, agama tidak lain adalah instrumen penindas yang diciptakan manusia sendiri.
Berangkat dari perihal di atas, Marx kemudian menjelaskan bagaimana usaha agama untuk melestarikan diri. Agar dapat tetap exist, agama akan melanggengkan kemiskinan, kesengsaraan, dan perbudakan. Sehingga baginya agama hanya akan berakhir ketika kondisi-kondisi yang diperlukan untuk survivenya –kesengsaraan, kekuasaan kelas, eksploitasi komoditas- dihilangkan. Lalu muncul pertanyaan mengapa setiap masyarakat mempunyai agama? Marx menanggapinya demikian bahwa agama mendukung dan melayani kepentingan tertentu yang terkait denga dominasi kelas dan penundukan kelas. Dia menyebutkan bahwa agama dari sudut sosialitasnya adalah rengekan golongan masyarakat yang tertindas, sehingga baginya agama tidak lain adalah candu masyarakat.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Marx's Labor Theory Of Value
One of the commonly debated topics of Marxism is the concept of 'the law of value'. Marx developed many different theories and various aspects of those theories are controversial. This paper will focus, however, only on the most basic of his theories, namely that of 'the labor theory of value'. This theory took several alternative forms over the course of Marx's different volumes of publications. It was very often in the center of criticism, but because of the short length of this paper not much can be said about the critics of Marx's theory.
Marx's central theme is the importance of the 'commodity production'. Marx defines a commodity as anything which possesses both use and exchange value, and price as its monetary expression. Marx tried to say that trees, unmined metals, or barren land were not commodities but were merely gifts of nature. An exchange value had to come into play for something to be considered a commodity.
The most easily recognized aspect of commodity production is the use of labor. For a commodity to be produced a certain amount of labor must be involved in the production process. Marx put labor at such an important position that unless labor was used commodity had no value. By doing this he made it clear how important everyone's labor contribution is to the economy. " If he could establish the fact that human labor-and labor alone-was value creating, it could be made to follow that only those who worked were entitled to share in the resulting output."(Balinky,60). Marx believed that if he could maintain the importance of labor then his plan would succeed.
This is why Marx considered labor as the essential part of any production process. The value of a product is directly related to the amount of labor that is needed to produce that product. The more productive the labor is the more value it adds to the commodity. Marx believed that if two products needed the same amount of labor to produce them, then they contained the same value. " Commodities... that can be produced in the same labour time...have the same values, and that, on the other hand, differences in value find their measure in the quantitative difference in the labour time required for the production of commodities" (Kuhne,70). Labor is directly related to the price of the commodity. Some of Marx's ideas about the value were changed in his later writings.
One would probably ask how could Marx account for the importance of capital. He knew that critics would jump at the opportunity to discredit his theory by claiming that he downplayed other vital inputs to production. Marx claimed that machinery and other means of production had needed labor for their production. "He began with the simple proposition that a commodity is produced by utilization of some combination of labor and physical instruments, i.e., machinery, tools, equipment, etc. He referred to this combination as the means of production necessary to the creation of any commodity".(Balinky, 61). Marx distinguished between two different types of capital, variable and constant. Variable capital was the capital used to pay for the wages of labor. This was the only type of capital Marx considered relevant for creation of value. According to his reasoning constant capital needed labor before it could produce anything. Machines without the necessary labor to run them could not contribute to value in Marx's theory. They would sit there unused and useless. So although he downplayed its importance of the capital, Marx attempted to explain why he did so.
Marx needed a unit of measurement to consistently and accurately measure the value of labor. He came up with the most simple explanation: the time. He would use hours, days and weeks as the "pure and simple" way to measure the amount of labor that was used to produce a commodity. However, a specialized labor in producing a product was worth more than a 'simple' unskilled labor. Marx did not really explain how he came to this conclusion, he left it to the faith of his follower to believe in his theory.
Marx knew that there were many questions about his labor theory of value. He made two revisions to it after his original exposition. In his first model, exchange values were relative to the quantities of labor needed to produce commodities in question. This assumed that every firm in that industry had the same 'composition of capital', i.e. the same capital-labor ratio. In his revision of the labor-value theory "he was forced to admit that even in the long run--for technical as well as value reasons--the organic composition of capital did vary significantly from one industry or sphere of production to another" (Balinky, 82). The effect of this was different rates of profit in different industries. This fact was not acknowledged in the original model. In his third model he changed his stance about a link between supply and demand. This shows that Marx did see faults in his original theory and tried to fix some of its problems.
The labor theory of value's main premise is that the common way to measure value of commodities is through the amount of labor used. Marx acknowledged value for only something that used labor and could be exchanged. The idea of commodity production was a very central and important part of his theory. He emphasized the importance of value that comes from these commodities and how all these can be measured by the common element of labor.
The Communist Manifesto
Throughout the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx talks about how the "spectre of Communism" is spreading across Europe and the World. Yet, on the whole, he never really discusses much what Communism is as much as he derides Capitalism and the many faults that he has with other Socialist systems. It would have been more appropriate for his work to be called "Anti-Capitalist and Other Socialism Ideas Manifesto." Marx does not, however, go into much detail about how Communists would run the economy. Due to the many misconceptions of what the Communist Manifesto is about, the following is a short summary and critique of this important piece of literature that had influenced many in this world.
The introduction of the manifesto starts off with the popular quote "A spectre is haunting Europe-the spectre of Communism."(p.54) This provides much imagery to the reader and draws his or her into the body of work. Marx tries to make a clear understanding of what Communism is and how people would go about creating Communism. In a way, it was a platform for what Communism was to Marx. The organization Marx was in, the Second Congress of the Communist League, wanted him to write this manifesto so that it could be spread around. It was a way of promoting Communism, thus spreading throughout Europe much like the introduction wanted it to be thought of as.
Marx then goes into the first part of the body of his manifesto, which is the section entitled "Bourgeois and Proletarians." In this part, he goes into how society started communal but then became more unequal as time went on. Systems such as Feudalism, Mercantilism, and finally Capitalism benefited from the use of exploitation. He first introduces the idea that economic concerns of a nation drive history, and that the struggle between the rich bourgeoisie and the hard working proletariat would eventually lead to Communism. He goes on and on how the bourgeois have always got what they wanted. Marx does site positives that were done by this group, but he certainly seemed more reflective on the negatives committed by the bourgeois. Marx states the bourgeoisie "has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands." (Marx, p.59) He then describes the proletarians, or the labor class, and how they were formed, how they have suffered, and how they must overcome their struggles. Marx declares that this "`dangerous class,' the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution." (Marx, p.65) A revolution where the proletariats take over and dethrone the bourgeoisie.
The second section entitled "Proletarians and Communists" distinguishes how these two groups are one and the same. Marx first goes into detail about what Communists believe in, tries to show similarities between the two, and recommends that Communism be the best choice instead of the other forms of socialism. This is implied when Marx states "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the prletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." (Marx, p.67) He tries to give concrete details of what Communism is, such as his idea that "in Communist society, the present dominates the past." (Marx, p.69) This section, however is still doing a lot of bashing on the bourgeoisie. For example, Marx wrote that in "bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." (Marx, p.69) He goes on and on about capital, bourgeois and communism. However, he really does not state any concrete ideas on how communists would run the economy.
"Socialist and Communist Literature" is the heading for the third section, and it is itself divided into many smaller sections. Reactionary Socialism has a)feudal socialism, b)petty bourgeois socialism, and c)German, or "True" Socialism as subsections. Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism do not have any subsections under them. Here, Marx goes into great detail trying to explain very briefly what each of these earlier, popular theories of socialism are all about, as well as his opinion on each of them. He states "Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions, for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions." (Marx, p.83) However, Communism does not need to do this and justifies itself by the movement of the proletariat. Once again, however, Marx does not offer any differing economic theories from these other Socialist ideologies. He still does not give a sample of Communist economic theory either.
Finally, Marx's last section of his Communist Manifesto is entitled "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties" where he goes on giving the view of the Second Congress of the Coummunist League for which he was asked to write the manifesto for. He reiterates that "the Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement." (Marx, p.85) Yet again, no economic theory for Communism is stated. Thus, the Communist Manifesto is a very brief political rather than economic summary of what Communism is about. If one wishes to find capitalist bashing, other socialist ideas rebuked, and an opinion of bourgeoisie and proletariat life, the Communist Manifesto has all of this. But if one wants to find concise, specific information on what Communist ideologies and economic theories propose, the Communist manifesto will be too general.
Karl Marx's Economic Theories
For Karl Marx, the basic determining factor of human history is economics. According to him, humans — even from their earliest beginnings — are not motivated by grand ideas but instead by material concerns, like the need to eat and survive. This is the basic premise of a materialist view of history. At the beginning, people worked together in unity and it wasn’t so bad.
But eventually, humans developed agriculture and the concept of private property. These two facts created a division of labor and a separation of classes based upon power and wealth. This, in turn, created the social conflict which drives society.
All of this is made worse by capitalism which only increases the disparity between the wealthy classes and the labor classes. Confrontation between them is unavoidable because those classes are driven by historical forces beyond anyone’s control. Capitalism also creates one new misery: exploitation of surplus value.
For Marx, an ideal economic system would involve exchanges of equal value for equal value, where value is determined simply by the amount of work put into whatever is being produced. Capitalism interrupts this ideal by introducing a profit motive — a desire to produce an uneven exchange of lesser value for greater value. Profit is ultimately derived from the surplus value produced by workers in factories.
A laborer might produce enough value to feed his family in two hours of work, but he keeps at the job for a full day — in Marx’s time, that might be 12 or 14 hours. Those extra hours represent the surplus value produced by the worker. The owner of the factory did nothing to earn this, but exploits it nevertheless and keeps the difference as profit.
In this context, Communism thus has two goals: First it is supposed to explain these realities to people unaware of them; second it is supposed to call people in the labor classes to prepare for the confrontation and revolution. This emphasis on action rather than mere philosophical musings is a crucial point in Marx’s program. As he wrote in his famous Theses on Feuerbach : “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
Society
Economics, then, are what constitute the base of all of human life and history — generating division of labor, class struggle, and all the social institutions which are supposed to maintain the status quo. Those social institutions are a superstructure built upon the base of economics, totally dependent upon material and economic realities but nothing else. All of the institutions which are prominent in our daily lives — marriage, church, government, arts, etc. — can only be truly understood when examined in relation to economic forces.
Marx had a special word for all of the work that goes into developing those institutions: ideology. The people working in those systems — developing art, theology, philosophy, etc. — imagine that their ideas come from a desire to achieve truth or beauty, but that is not ultimately true.
In reality, they are expressions of class interest and class conflict. They are reflections of an underlying need to maintain the status quo and preserve current economic realities. This isn’t surprising — those in power have always wished to justify and maintain that power.
Why Does Religion Exist?: Karl Marx's Analysis of Religion
According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.”
According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.
Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.
Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.”
Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.
Martin Luther preached the ability of each individual to interpret the Bible, but sided with aristocratic rulers and against peasants who fought against economic and social oppression. According to Marx, this new form of Christianity, Protestantism, was a production of new economic forces as early capitalism developed. New economic realities required a new religious superstructure by which it could be justified and defended.
Marx’s most famous statement about religion comes from a critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
This is often misunderstood, perhaps because the full passage is rarely used: the boldface in the above is my own, showing what is usually quoted. The italics are in the original. In some ways, the quote is presented dishonestly because saying “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...” leaves out that it is also the “heart of a heartless world.” This is more a critique of society that has become heartless and is even a partial validation of religion that it tries to become its heart. In spite of his obvious dislike of and anger towards religion, Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it.
Marx is saying that religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Marx is not entirely without sympathy: people are in distress and religion does provide solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.
The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering.
Life dan Work
The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the most influential political writers in history. Indeed, in the last half of the twentieth century, almost half the people in the world lived in countries governed by principles based on Marx's work.
To understand the scope and importance of Marx, we must look to his childhood and to the political situation of his time. Marx grew up in a learned family that prized education. In fact, he came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of the family. In 1835, at the age of 17, Marx went to the University of Bonn to study law. However, Marx's father felt his son should go to a more serious school so, a year later, Marx was sent to the University of Berlin where he studied for four years.
Even as a young man, Marx had a thoughtful, philosophical bent. When he was 17 years old, he wrote a letter to his father, in which he pondered the choices that a young person must make when choosing a profession:
"...But the chief guide which must direct us in the choice of a profession is the welfare of mankind and our own perfection. It should not be thought that these two interests could be in conflict, that one would have to destroy the other; on the contrary, Man's nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the perfection, for the good, of his fellow men. If he works only for himself, he may perhaps become a famous man of learning, a great sage, an excellent poet, but he can never be a perfect, truly great man."
I have quoted from this letter at such length to show you that Marx was much more than a political philosopher. As he grew older, he developed into a highly educated economist, a historian, a social scientist and, eventually, a revolutionary.
In October 1842, not long after finishing his formal education, Marx began to edit a 4-month old liberal newspaper, "Rheinische Zeitung", in the Prussian city of Cologne. (At the time, Prussia was an independent kingdom, the largest and most important of the Germanic states.)
Up to now, Marx had looked at the study of the law only as an academic pursuit. However, "Rheinische Zeitung" was an outlet for the region's middle class and intellectuals, people who were strongly opposed to Prussian authoritarianism. As editor, Marx was obliged -- for the first time in his life -- to confront legal and political issues from a practical viewpoint. This led him to turn his attention to economics and, within a short time, he began to develop a progressive, anti- authoritarian philosophy.
In November of 1842, Marx met Friedrich Engels, a German writer who was visiting the newspaper on his way to England. Marx and Engels began to collaborate, the start of a fruitful and stimulating partnership that was to last the rest of their lives. Under Marx's guidance and Engels' influence, the newspaper became more and more radical. In March 1843, Marx was forced to resign and, two weeks later, the Prussian government closed down the paper.
Marx then traveled to Paris, where he became involved with working-class, socialist groups. At the end of 1844, he was expelled from Paris, and he and Engels went to Brussels, where they stayed for three years. During this interval, Marx devoted himself to an intensive study of history, developing a materialistic conception of the field. In doing so, he took a very important philosophical step.
At the time, European metaphysics was dominated by Hegel's philosophy of idealism, based on two ideas. First, that reality is a creation of the mind; second, that history can be explained as an eternal struggle between opposing spiritual forces, a concept known as the Hegelian dialectic.
For Marx, reality was material, not spiritual. He rejected Hegel's interpretation of history in favor of a more practical doctrine, which came to be known as Dialectical Materialism. According to Marx, all progress takes place because of a "struggle of opposites", a naturally occurring process that cannot be influenced by individuals. People make social decisions solely in response to their economic needs and, thus, over time, the characteristics of a society are determined by its economic structure. Within a particular culture, classes arise based on people's relationships to the means of production. (For example, there are owners, managers, workers, and so on.)
These ideas served as the basis of a complex political doctrine that came to be called Marxism. Briefly, Marxism holds that the history of society is best-understood as "the history of class struggle". In the same way that the old feudal nobility was replaced by the bourgeoisie (that is, the capitalist class), the bourgeoisie itself will, one day, be replaced by the proletariat (the working class). In a capitalist system, the bourgeoisie is able to flourish because it extracts surplus profit from the products produced by the proletariat. However, capitalism has inherent contradictions, fatal weaknesses that, over time, become more and more severe. Eventually, the proletariat will become so impoverished that they will revolt and take control of the means of production, resulting in a completely classless society. Once this happens, the oppressive, coercive capitalist state will be replaced by a society based on rational economic cooperation.
While living in Brussels, Marx and Engels joined a newly formed organization of German emigre workers. The organization was based in London and called the Communist League. At the end of 1847, Marx and Engels traveled to London for a Communist League conference, where they were commissioned to write a "succinct declaration" of the organization's principles.
The result, published in 1848, was "The Communist Manifesto", arguably the single most influential political statement in history. Within the Communist Manifesto, Marx applied the concepts of dialectical materialism, asserting that social reform -- "the triumph of the working class" -- was not only desirable, but inevitable.
In May 1849, Marx was once again exiled. This time he moved to London, where he would live for the rest of his life. During this time, Marx did a great deal of writing and political organizing.
In the 1850s, he studied political economics and wrote weekly articles as a foreign correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune. In 1857, he produced an 800-page manuscript called "The Grundrisse" (Outlines), which was not published until 1941.
In the 1860s, he wrote three large volumes, "Theories of Surplus Value", in which he discussed theories of political economics. And in 1864, he and Engels helped found the International Workingmen's Association.
From 1867 to 1894, Marx created his greatest work, a three- volume treatise called "Das Kapital" ("Capital"), in which he used Dialectical Materialism to analyze and explain economic and social history. The first volume was published in 1876, and Marx worked on the other two for the rest of his life.
On March 14, 1883, Marx died. At his funeral, he was eulogized by Engels: "Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival... Though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy. His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work." After Marx's death, Engels edited and published the second and third volumes of "Das Kapital".
Although it is true that many of Marx's predictions about the course of the revolutionary movement were wrong (at least, so far), there is no gainsaying that he was a true genius who left a firm, enduring mark on the world in which he lived. Even today, there are many who believe, as Engels did, that, "just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history." As Marx himself wrote in a letter (to Engels in 1868):
"It is absolutely impossible to transcend the laws of nature. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws expose themselves."
Posts
