What do you think?
Rate this book
By Ludwig Feuerbach - Principles of the Philosophy of the Future: 1st (first) Edition
Principles Of The Philosophy Of The Future by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. Translated by Manfred Vogel
Paperback
First published January 1, 1843
11 people are currently reading
508 people want to read
About the author
Ludwig Feuerbach
393 books241 followersLudwig Andreas von Feuerbach (July 28, 1804 – September 13, 1872) was a German philosopher and anthropologist best known for his book The Essence of Christianity, which provided a critique of Christianity which strongly influenced generations of later thinkers, including both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Feuerbach was the fourth son of the eminent jurist Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach, brother of mathematician Karl Wilhelm Feuerbach and uncle of painter Anselm Feuerbach. An associate of Left Hegelian circles, Feuerbach advocated liberalism, atheism and materialism. Many of his philosophical writings offered a critical analysis of religion. His thought was influential in the development of dialectical materialism, where he is often recognized as a bridge between Hegel and Marx.
Feuerbach is best known for his criticism of Idealism and religion, especially Christianity, written in the early forties. He believed that any progress in human culture and civilization required the repudiation of both. His later writings were concerned with developing a materialistic humanism and an ethics of human solidarity. With the recent publication of a new critical edition of his works, a new generation of scholars have argued that his mature views are philosophically interesting in their own right.
His most important work, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841), was translated by George Eliot into English as The Essence of Christianity.
More: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lud...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/feu...
http://www.nndb.com/people/964/000094...
http://www.egs.edu/library/ludwig-feu...
http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-Feuerbac...
Feuerbach was the fourth son of the eminent jurist Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach, brother of mathematician Karl Wilhelm Feuerbach and uncle of painter Anselm Feuerbach. An associate of Left Hegelian circles, Feuerbach advocated liberalism, atheism and materialism. Many of his philosophical writings offered a critical analysis of religion. His thought was influential in the development of dialectical materialism, where he is often recognized as a bridge between Hegel and Marx.
Feuerbach is best known for his criticism of Idealism and religion, especially Christianity, written in the early forties. He believed that any progress in human culture and civilization required the repudiation of both. His later writings were concerned with developing a materialistic humanism and an ethics of human solidarity. With the recent publication of a new critical edition of his works, a new generation of scholars have argued that his mature views are philosophically interesting in their own right.
His most important work, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841), was translated by George Eliot into English as The Essence of Christianity.
More: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lud...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/feu...
http://www.nndb.com/people/964/000094...
http://www.egs.edu/library/ludwig-feu...
http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-Feuerbac...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 5, 2019
Ludwig Feuerbach continues his journey from theology to philosophy through the anthropological lens that confronts Hegel’s methodology and the intellectual status quo. Feuerbach promulgates a new kind of embodied philosophy that stays silent toward abstraction. Yet, this argument can only be seen as fodder for producing new philosophies from future readers.
What one finds within the argumentation and conclusions of Feuerbach is nascent thoughts and greatly influencing some of the masters of suspicion (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) and Western European existentialists (Heidegger, Jaspers, Buber, Sarte). Its deconstructive angle is important for the philosopher, theologian, or public intellectual that needs to clear away assumptions in order to feel a kind of “new wind” take them into producing knowledge. Nevertheless, Feuerbach's anthropocentric angle is at best a pill for idealism, at worst a mudding of the waters on the question of what is a human being. On the other hand, the best thing one can take from Ludwig is a sense of true grappling with the psychology of human experience and the sociological framework for human experience.
Feuerbach attacks Hegel’s totalizing philosophy that much of academia still wrestles with, not Kant. However, Ludwig never reaches the production of principles for this future philosophy, only paradoxically proving the difficult task of casting off the chains of intellectual history and embeddedness. The audience of such literature would be most helpful for most seminary students, particularly Feuerbach's acceptance of skepticism and adherence towards the finitude of human capacity for full knowledge. Dubious though it may sound, Feuerbach is not to be feared, nor radically embraced. Feuerbach punts on much of what could solidify or explicate his point.
Thomas Wartenberg properly accents Ludwig Feuerbach's brilliance and the necessity for being read towards the end of his introduction. "In [Feuerbach's] work, there are deep and stimulating reflections on the nature of human existence, but reflections that one feels impelled to push further, to develop in different directions. Being the stimulus to original philosophical reflection is, after all, one of the most important roles that a philosopher can play, and it is a role for which Ludwig Feuerbach is still eminently suited."
What one finds within the argumentation and conclusions of Feuerbach is nascent thoughts and greatly influencing some of the masters of suspicion (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) and Western European existentialists (Heidegger, Jaspers, Buber, Sarte). Its deconstructive angle is important for the philosopher, theologian, or public intellectual that needs to clear away assumptions in order to feel a kind of “new wind” take them into producing knowledge. Nevertheless, Feuerbach's anthropocentric angle is at best a pill for idealism, at worst a mudding of the waters on the question of what is a human being. On the other hand, the best thing one can take from Ludwig is a sense of true grappling with the psychology of human experience and the sociological framework for human experience.
Feuerbach attacks Hegel’s totalizing philosophy that much of academia still wrestles with, not Kant. However, Ludwig never reaches the production of principles for this future philosophy, only paradoxically proving the difficult task of casting off the chains of intellectual history and embeddedness. The audience of such literature would be most helpful for most seminary students, particularly Feuerbach's acceptance of skepticism and adherence towards the finitude of human capacity for full knowledge. Dubious though it may sound, Feuerbach is not to be feared, nor radically embraced. Feuerbach punts on much of what could solidify or explicate his point.
Thomas Wartenberg properly accents Ludwig Feuerbach's brilliance and the necessity for being read towards the end of his introduction. "In [Feuerbach's] work, there are deep and stimulating reflections on the nature of human existence, but reflections that one feels impelled to push further, to develop in different directions. Being the stimulus to original philosophical reflection is, after all, one of the most important roles that a philosopher can play, and it is a role for which Ludwig Feuerbach is still eminently suited."
Read
September 5, 2007اصول فلسفه آینده کتاب کوچکی است درباره گذر از خداشناسی سنتی و همچنین فلسفه تاملی بوسیله فلسفه ای کاملا حس گرا و ماتریالیستی. فویرباخ معتقد است که کار هگل گذر از خداشناسی سنتی بوده است اما دوباره همان فلسفه تاملی را به نوعی خداشناسی دیگر بازگردانده است. بنابراین دچار دور شده است.
نشر چشمه چاپ این کتاب را برعهده گرفته . امیداورم بزودی در بیاد.
نشر چشمه چاپ این کتاب را برعهده گرفته . امیداورم بزودی در بیاد.
October 3, 2024
"Onde não há amor algum também não há verdade alguma. E só é alguma coisa quem ama alguma coisa - nada ser e nada amar é o mesmo. Quanto mais alguém é, tanto mais ama, e inversamente."
April 18, 2016
It's a quick and easy read for those familiar with Hegelianism and its predecessors, serving as an early, rough attempt at exploring the practical limitations of various Idealisms. A free online translation is available from marxists.org, where it is put into context as an eventual jumping-off point for the more robust theoretical work of another young Hegelian by the name of Karl Marx - perhaps you've heard of him? Marx took certain cues from Feuerbach, who can be seen here attempting, in largely metaphorical terms, to formulate a philosophy of materialism.
The lapses into metaphorical argument (and what are arguably glammed-up appeals to common sense) are a weak point, at least for me, regarding the philosophical rigor of this text. It isn't that such methods are always invalid; they do, however, undermine the anti-idealist thrust of the central thesis.
Another issue I can't help but raise against this work is the equivocal use of the term "imagination", seemingly fluctuating between designating a Kantian-inspired faculty and merely denouncing, in "common sense"-fashion, certain notions as unreal or fantastical.
Also, it's possible that Feuerbach misreads or unjustly simplifies Hegel's philosophy. For instance, Hegel himself refers in various writings to the poverty of the idea of Being, the purely abstract starting point of his Logic. For Hegel's doctrine, Being was necessary to consider, though basically purely formal.
Furthermore, Feuerbach claims that Hegel's negation and sublimation acts on theology to first subvert it, negated to philosophy, but only to ultimately resurrect theology. Yes and no. The movement of the Aufhebung can't necessarily be pinned to any one conception, distinctions like "theology"/"philosophy" being no exception. I prefer to think of the Hegelian Absolute as a conceptual horizon which serves mainly to elucidate obscure connections between seemingly unrelated ideas - Hegel, in refusing to rest on any one conception, exposes the continuity and genetic possibilities of thought/experience. Feuerbach is uncomfortable with the way Hegel expresses his terms, which can make thought and experience sound like movements of thought alone, but again, I read Hegel with an eye for the unearthing of occulted relations and challenges to ways of thinking that default to such oppositions as thought/experience. As such, I don't feel that Feuerbach effectively accounts for these problems.
More positively, Feuerbach's famed analysis of theology - especially the controversial claim that its logical realization must be pantheism - briefly shows itself here, and his introduction of this idea is remarkable enough to make the essay a worthwhile read.
The main reason I regard it somewhat highly, though, is another premature formulation of a theme that would be realized in later philosophies. I'm talking about the way Feuerbach problematizes the notion of Being. The way he attaches it to a pre-theoretical, pre-systematic, phenomenal engagement with one's own being, despite his emphasis on being with other beings, which is clearly Hegelian dialectic residue (even given Feuerbach's rejection of the abstract Absolute), calls to mind the ontological interrogations seen in Heidegger's Being and Time, one of the most monumental works of contemporary philosophy. The early appearance, ever-so slight, of this line of thinking intrigued me more than anything.
The lapses into metaphorical argument (and what are arguably glammed-up appeals to common sense) are a weak point, at least for me, regarding the philosophical rigor of this text. It isn't that such methods are always invalid; they do, however, undermine the anti-idealist thrust of the central thesis.
Another issue I can't help but raise against this work is the equivocal use of the term "imagination", seemingly fluctuating between designating a Kantian-inspired faculty and merely denouncing, in "common sense"-fashion, certain notions as unreal or fantastical.
Also, it's possible that Feuerbach misreads or unjustly simplifies Hegel's philosophy. For instance, Hegel himself refers in various writings to the poverty of the idea of Being, the purely abstract starting point of his Logic. For Hegel's doctrine, Being was necessary to consider, though basically purely formal.
Furthermore, Feuerbach claims that Hegel's negation and sublimation acts on theology to first subvert it, negated to philosophy, but only to ultimately resurrect theology. Yes and no. The movement of the Aufhebung can't necessarily be pinned to any one conception, distinctions like "theology"/"philosophy" being no exception. I prefer to think of the Hegelian Absolute as a conceptual horizon which serves mainly to elucidate obscure connections between seemingly unrelated ideas - Hegel, in refusing to rest on any one conception, exposes the continuity and genetic possibilities of thought/experience. Feuerbach is uncomfortable with the way Hegel expresses his terms, which can make thought and experience sound like movements of thought alone, but again, I read Hegel with an eye for the unearthing of occulted relations and challenges to ways of thinking that default to such oppositions as thought/experience. As such, I don't feel that Feuerbach effectively accounts for these problems.
More positively, Feuerbach's famed analysis of theology - especially the controversial claim that its logical realization must be pantheism - briefly shows itself here, and his introduction of this idea is remarkable enough to make the essay a worthwhile read.
The main reason I regard it somewhat highly, though, is another premature formulation of a theme that would be realized in later philosophies. I'm talking about the way Feuerbach problematizes the notion of Being. The way he attaches it to a pre-theoretical, pre-systematic, phenomenal engagement with one's own being, despite his emphasis on being with other beings, which is clearly Hegelian dialectic residue (even given Feuerbach's rejection of the abstract Absolute), calls to mind the ontological interrogations seen in Heidegger's Being and Time, one of the most monumental works of contemporary philosophy. The early appearance, ever-so slight, of this line of thinking intrigued me more than anything.
April 19, 2023
"Do not think as a thinker, that is, with a faculty torn from the totality of the real human being and isolated for itself; think as a living and real being, as one exposed to the vivifying and refreshing waves of the world's oceans. Think in existence."
June 23, 2024
My comments in video: https://youtu.be/w69iABSgVW8
In the work of the German philosopher, several trends towards the future are presented, based on the criticisms he makes of the philosophical thought before him. It highlights the preponderance of love and concrete existence as the foundation of the perception of reality, as opposed to absolute thinking that has marked the limits and paths of the search for truth, which is why it encourages us to train our sensitivity in the perception of reality, even with examples within art and literature. I also especially liked some references to aspects that I have highlighted in other videos, such as the luxury and advantages that reflection presents, the biases of thinkers in reducing man to a single of his distinctive characteristics, and some of the criticisms that I raised in the video of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
I hope you are encouraged to watch the video and leave your comments.
En la obra del filósofo alemán se presentan varias tendencias hacia el futuro, fundamentadas en las críticas que realiza del pensamiento filosófico anterior a él. Destaca la preponderancia del amor y la existencia concreta como fundamento de la percepción de la realidad, en contraposición al pensamiento absoluto que ha marcado los límites y derroteros de la búsqueda de la verdad, por lo que nos anima a entrenar nuestra sensibilidad en la percepción de la realidad, incluso con ejemplos dentro del arte y la literatura. También me gustó especialmente, algunas referencias a aspectos que he destacado en otros videos, como el lujo y ventajas que presenta la reflexión, los sesgos de los pensadores en reducir al hombre a una sola de sus características distintivas, y algunas de las críticas que planteé en el video de las Meditaciones de Marco Aurelio.
Espero se animen a ver el video y dejar sus comentarios.
In the work of the German philosopher, several trends towards the future are presented, based on the criticisms he makes of the philosophical thought before him. It highlights the preponderance of love and concrete existence as the foundation of the perception of reality, as opposed to absolute thinking that has marked the limits and paths of the search for truth, which is why it encourages us to train our sensitivity in the perception of reality, even with examples within art and literature. I also especially liked some references to aspects that I have highlighted in other videos, such as the luxury and advantages that reflection presents, the biases of thinkers in reducing man to a single of his distinctive characteristics, and some of the criticisms that I raised in the video of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
I hope you are encouraged to watch the video and leave your comments.
En la obra del filósofo alemán se presentan varias tendencias hacia el futuro, fundamentadas en las críticas que realiza del pensamiento filosófico anterior a él. Destaca la preponderancia del amor y la existencia concreta como fundamento de la percepción de la realidad, en contraposición al pensamiento absoluto que ha marcado los límites y derroteros de la búsqueda de la verdad, por lo que nos anima a entrenar nuestra sensibilidad en la percepción de la realidad, incluso con ejemplos dentro del arte y la literatura. También me gustó especialmente, algunas referencias a aspectos que he destacado en otros videos, como el lujo y ventajas que presenta la reflexión, los sesgos de los pensadores en reducir al hombre a una sola de sus características distintivas, y algunas de las críticas que planteé en el video de las Meditaciones de Marco Aurelio.
Espero se animen a ver el video y dejar sus comentarios.
July 21, 2024
The basis for M&E's thought can clearly be seen here, so is the historical evolution of dialectics and the need to bring it to its "natural conclusion". A similiar historic background can be traced in Ilyenkov's work, with a more in-depth study on the philosophers and Feuerbach himself (Although I have not finished it as of now). Note 33 seemed the most interesting for me, but I do not have anything to add on that as of now.
Read
July 23, 2020´-´
October 19, 2013
Read this for my theology class at Baylor in Fall 2013 with Dr. Barry Harvey. I didn't read this volume.
March 28, 2019
Este é um bom livro para nos iniciarmos no estudo do Hegelianismo em particular e da filosofia alemã do século XVII no grande plano. Tendo feito parte do grupo de Jovens Hegelianos (ou hegelianos de esquerda, como se denominaram), Feuerbach mantém o seu Hegelianismo forte, nomeadamente quando reafirma a necessidade de movimento permanente e de evolução histórica (dialética a la Hegel), mas não deixa de ser crítico em relação ao seu professor.
Declara-se ateu, mas considera ainda que Deus deve ser substituído pelo Ser Humano - postura que no ano seguinte será criticada por Max Stirner no seu livro O Único e a Sua Propriedade, onde se dirá que esta posição não revela um verdadeiro ateísmo - revelando um antropocentrismo. O seu ateísmo é definido como "um abandono de um Deus distinto do Homem" e defende que nos devemos divinizar, que nos devemos tornar novamente religiosos. O Estado verdadeiro é visto como uma descrença em relação a Deus.
O mais comovente neste livro é a vontade e necessidade de mudança, de certo modo naturalista. É anti-natural estar cristalizado. Feuerbach escreve de um modo muito contemporâneo, isto é, fluído, inteligente, alegre e ao ritmo certo do pensamento. Introduz temas difíceis de serem pensados, não só para o século XVIII, mas para nós. A sua escrita é inflamada de juventude.
É um bom livro para introduzir o pensamento filosófico alemão desta época porque é um ponto de viragem. A partir dele podemos regressar a Hegel - que não é simples - e prosseguir para os outros críticos.
Declara-se ateu, mas considera ainda que Deus deve ser substituído pelo Ser Humano - postura que no ano seguinte será criticada por Max Stirner no seu livro O Único e a Sua Propriedade, onde se dirá que esta posição não revela um verdadeiro ateísmo - revelando um antropocentrismo. O seu ateísmo é definido como "um abandono de um Deus distinto do Homem" e defende que nos devemos divinizar, que nos devemos tornar novamente religiosos. O Estado verdadeiro é visto como uma descrença em relação a Deus.
O mais comovente neste livro é a vontade e necessidade de mudança, de certo modo naturalista. É anti-natural estar cristalizado. Feuerbach escreve de um modo muito contemporâneo, isto é, fluído, inteligente, alegre e ao ritmo certo do pensamento. Introduz temas difíceis de serem pensados, não só para o século XVIII, mas para nós. A sua escrita é inflamada de juventude.
É um bom livro para introduzir o pensamento filosófico alemão desta época porque é um ponto de viragem. A partir dele podemos regressar a Hegel - que não é simples - e prosseguir para os outros críticos.
September 8, 2017
Tasarımdaki zaman, boş zamandır, yani hesabımızın başlangıç ve bitiş noktası arasında hiçbir şey yoktur; oysa gerçek yaşam süresi, şimdi ile sonra arasında yığın yığın her çeşit güçlüğün yer
aldığı orta yerdeki dolu zamandır.
aldığı orta yerdeki dolu zamandır.
June 5, 2021
The butler did it.
April 8, 2025
I am getting excited about philosophy for the first time. I've always avoided it because of a combined lack of confidence and intimidation of it all. I want to read Marx's early philosophical writings, and Hegel and Feuerbach are the two major influences on Marx for this period. The Phenomenology of Spirit is still too imposing for me so I read this.
I was surprised when starting Principles to learn that it is an atheist takedown of theology. I have always ignored modern atheists because I think they are dull group of people (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Ricky Gervais lol). It was interesting to read logical, intelligent arguments on the non-existence of God. He doesn't dispute religion with a moral argument, but instead tries to use theology's own positions to find contradictions within. Feuerbach traces the history of theology and then the break from theology to rationalist speculative philosophy by Descartes and Leibniz. He then moves to the idealism of Kant and the perfection of this thought with Hegel's absolute idealism. This first Part is very fun, exciting to read, stimulating and understandable.
Part 2 is his critique of Hegel. I have only read excerpts of Hegel so this was difficult for me. I will try to summarize my understanding. The early philosophers see God as the object, we are the subjects, his creation. God exists outside of ourselves, He exists outside of reason, He is the ideal man. The role of man is to attempt through his life to liberate himself from the material, sin and temptation, through internal struggle, to try and live up to this ideal. Modern philosophers reverse this relationship. God is now subject. God is a speculative, thinking being, He is reason. Man is the object, God is not material, he is pure intellect.
For Hegel, the intellect, or spirit, is what is important. Matter is the negation of spirit. The problem is, how can God be a part of this dialectical struggle with matter if He is separate and outside of ourselves? Hegel resolves this by saying that matter exists within God. This is what makes God God. The Absolute Being absorbs matter into itself. It is the negation of the negation. God negates matter and creates a double positive. This is Hegel's dialectic, I think. Absorbing the contradiction and creating something new out of it. Feuerbach's big critique of all this is that "the dialectic negates theology through philosophy in order then to negate philosophy through theology". He sees Hegel as coming full circle and reinforcing theological positions through philosophy. I am sure this is reductive of Hegel because he is a robust thinker with a whole system of philosophy, but I haven't read it so I can't dispute.
Feuerbach then builds on his idea that materialism, not idealism, should be paramount. "Being is not a general concept that can be separated from things. It is one with that which is." In other words, the intellect is nothing without being. Universal concepts contradict the reality of individual beings.
Part 3 turns into Feuerbach's beginning of an attempt to create a new philosophy. This was kind of funny because it turns into a New Age, feel good worldview. Feuerbach starts talking about the power of love: only love is real, love is truth, without love one does not exist. He wants people to embrace sensuousness and experience. He states that the great secret of religion, the Essence of Christianity, is the secret of communal and social life. It is this connection to your fellow man that is crucial, not all the intellectual pursuits of truth and perfection. The intellect is isolated, the material is unity. The new dialectic is not God-Man but Man-Man. You and I together create. He wants to take the best part of religion and bring it back down to Earth, removing God from the equation. It is a touching and commendable position, in my opinion. I think he has a good heart.
Parts of Principles are very clear and digestible, and then other parts get very circular and self referential. There are passages in this that felt very vague. Feuerbach wants to go beyond Hegel but he seems stuck within his way of thinking. He is using all of Hegel's language and rhetoric to try and create something new. He makes some provoking points but there isn't a new foundation here. It will be interesting to see where Marx takes this.
Edit: Reread this in 2025. I liked it less but understand it more. A stepping stone for Marx. Materiality is still abstract in Feuerbach, it is the end point for him and the origin for Marx.
I was surprised when starting Principles to learn that it is an atheist takedown of theology. I have always ignored modern atheists because I think they are dull group of people (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Ricky Gervais lol). It was interesting to read logical, intelligent arguments on the non-existence of God. He doesn't dispute religion with a moral argument, but instead tries to use theology's own positions to find contradictions within. Feuerbach traces the history of theology and then the break from theology to rationalist speculative philosophy by Descartes and Leibniz. He then moves to the idealism of Kant and the perfection of this thought with Hegel's absolute idealism. This first Part is very fun, exciting to read, stimulating and understandable.
Part 2 is his critique of Hegel. I have only read excerpts of Hegel so this was difficult for me. I will try to summarize my understanding. The early philosophers see God as the object, we are the subjects, his creation. God exists outside of ourselves, He exists outside of reason, He is the ideal man. The role of man is to attempt through his life to liberate himself from the material, sin and temptation, through internal struggle, to try and live up to this ideal. Modern philosophers reverse this relationship. God is now subject. God is a speculative, thinking being, He is reason. Man is the object, God is not material, he is pure intellect.
For Hegel, the intellect, or spirit, is what is important. Matter is the negation of spirit. The problem is, how can God be a part of this dialectical struggle with matter if He is separate and outside of ourselves? Hegel resolves this by saying that matter exists within God. This is what makes God God. The Absolute Being absorbs matter into itself. It is the negation of the negation. God negates matter and creates a double positive. This is Hegel's dialectic, I think. Absorbing the contradiction and creating something new out of it. Feuerbach's big critique of all this is that "the dialectic negates theology through philosophy in order then to negate philosophy through theology". He sees Hegel as coming full circle and reinforcing theological positions through philosophy. I am sure this is reductive of Hegel because he is a robust thinker with a whole system of philosophy, but I haven't read it so I can't dispute.
Feuerbach then builds on his idea that materialism, not idealism, should be paramount. "Being is not a general concept that can be separated from things. It is one with that which is." In other words, the intellect is nothing without being. Universal concepts contradict the reality of individual beings.
Part 3 turns into Feuerbach's beginning of an attempt to create a new philosophy. This was kind of funny because it turns into a New Age, feel good worldview. Feuerbach starts talking about the power of love: only love is real, love is truth, without love one does not exist. He wants people to embrace sensuousness and experience. He states that the great secret of religion, the Essence of Christianity, is the secret of communal and social life. It is this connection to your fellow man that is crucial, not all the intellectual pursuits of truth and perfection. The intellect is isolated, the material is unity. The new dialectic is not God-Man but Man-Man. You and I together create. He wants to take the best part of religion and bring it back down to Earth, removing God from the equation. It is a touching and commendable position, in my opinion. I think he has a good heart.
Parts of Principles are very clear and digestible, and then other parts get very circular and self referential. There are passages in this that felt very vague. Feuerbach wants to go beyond Hegel but he seems stuck within his way of thinking. He is using all of Hegel's language and rhetoric to try and create something new. He makes some provoking points but there isn't a new foundation here. It will be interesting to see where Marx takes this.
Edit: Reread this in 2025. I liked it less but understand it more. A stepping stone for Marx. Materiality is still abstract in Feuerbach, it is the end point for him and the origin for Marx.
October 16, 2016
Hegelci eleştiri bakımından iyi, Tanrı üzerine lafları bir iki yüz yıl sonra hala liseli ergen bebelerin ağzında.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews