What do you think?
Rate this book
رساله دکترای فلسفه
=Difference between the philosophy of the nature of Democritus and Epicurus (doctoral dissertation)
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
171 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1841
8 people are currently reading
212 people want to read
About the author
Karl Marx
3,240 books6,509 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
October 21, 2019
Marx's doctoral dissertation is frozen in time. In retrospect, it is hard to detach its philosophical substance from its historical context, given what we know about Marx's later career. But if we abstract away from the loaded reception of Marx as the originator of Marxism, this text is an esoteric treatise on the conceptual minutiae of Democritean and Epicurean philosophies of nature. It shows Marx's skills as an original analyst as well as his infuriating tendency towards scholastic obscurantism (in this case, via Hegelian concepts). Understanding the thesis requires first of all a general understanding of the Greek philosophies in question; a modest understanding of Greek and Latin languages; and a toleration for the high level of obscurantist Hegelian jargon.
What is the text about? It is an attempt to understand, as the title implies, the conceptual differences between two natural philosophers who are often considered pretty similar. Nerdy stuff. Even though the focus on the external world as a HUMAN world is largely absent here, it still oozes of the normative passion that drives Marx in everything. Natural science is subsumed to the science of man as an acting being. The study of nature serves only one purpose: to liberate human self-consciousness and to provide a conceptual justification for individualism and freedom.
There are probably less than a hundred specialists in the world who are competent to say whether Marx's historical reconstruction of the respective philosophies of Mr. D and Mr. E is accurate. It is designed as an esoteric mind game filtered through an esoteric interpretation. But an attentive reader with a modest understanding of logical argumentation will no doubt suspect that there is something fundamentally brilliant and yet fundamentally mistaken about the analysis. The concepts don't quite cohere in the end. The flashes of rhetoric betray an empty core. As such, the thesis is a good microcosm of all that is great and yet very wrong about its author's style. Any good editor would have sent this paper back to the editing board. But who dares stop Marx?
Overall, the thesis is immensely curious as a historical document, because it contains intimations of Marx's lifelong obsessions. The metaphor of the Epicurean "declension" or "swirl" acts as a mental analogue for the revolutionary freedom, the spirit of deviating from a straight line, that still inspires poets, individualists, rebels, and revolutionaries of all stripes. And it is therefore no surprise that the Epicurean spirit of emancipation, both in the natural world and in the social world, inspired Marx who wanted to overthrow the entire social order with the help of swirling freedom. Deviating from a straight line, through freedom, is the first stage of a revolution.
What is the text about? It is an attempt to understand, as the title implies, the conceptual differences between two natural philosophers who are often considered pretty similar. Nerdy stuff. Even though the focus on the external world as a HUMAN world is largely absent here, it still oozes of the normative passion that drives Marx in everything. Natural science is subsumed to the science of man as an acting being. The study of nature serves only one purpose: to liberate human self-consciousness and to provide a conceptual justification for individualism and freedom.
There are probably less than a hundred specialists in the world who are competent to say whether Marx's historical reconstruction of the respective philosophies of Mr. D and Mr. E is accurate. It is designed as an esoteric mind game filtered through an esoteric interpretation. But an attentive reader with a modest understanding of logical argumentation will no doubt suspect that there is something fundamentally brilliant and yet fundamentally mistaken about the analysis. The concepts don't quite cohere in the end. The flashes of rhetoric betray an empty core. As such, the thesis is a good microcosm of all that is great and yet very wrong about its author's style. Any good editor would have sent this paper back to the editing board. But who dares stop Marx?
Overall, the thesis is immensely curious as a historical document, because it contains intimations of Marx's lifelong obsessions. The metaphor of the Epicurean "declension" or "swirl" acts as a mental analogue for the revolutionary freedom, the spirit of deviating from a straight line, that still inspires poets, individualists, rebels, and revolutionaries of all stripes. And it is therefore no surprise that the Epicurean spirit of emancipation, both in the natural world and in the social world, inspired Marx who wanted to overthrow the entire social order with the help of swirling freedom. Deviating from a straight line, through freedom, is the first stage of a revolution.
Read
September 10, 2023Great! One of Marx's most philosophical texts and yet remains fairly clear. From the appendix a very piercing criticism of Plutarch has a wonderful combination of Marx's youthful rhetoric and philosophical prowess:
"The mantle of love was only a shadow." !
Thus [Plutarch says] he who loses wife and children would rather that they were somewhere even under bad conditions, than that they had totally ceased to exist. If the issue were only love, then the wife and the child of the individual would be preserved in the greatest purity in his heart, a state of being far superior to that of empirical existence. But the facts are otherwise. Wife and child as such are only in empirical existence insofar as the individual to whom they belong exists empirically himself. That the individual therefore prefers to know that they are somewhere in sensuous space, even under bad conditions, rather than nowhere, only means that he wants to preserve the consciousness of his own empirical existence. The mantle of love was only a shadow. The naked empirical Ego, the love of self, the oldest love, is the core and has not rejuvenated itself into a more concrete, more ideal shape.(p.76)
"The mantle of love was only a shadow." !
April 28, 2021
I did not understand the more advanced parts, which is to be expected for a doctoral dissertation in a field I know little about, but the earlier parts were written simply and flowed well and after watching two introductory videos, one on Epicurus and one on Democritus, I understood enough to get something out of this. All in all it is pretty well written for a dissertation and fairly interesting.
June 22, 2020
Sobre algunos autores (y sus obras) no parece adecuado decir si se está de acuerdo o no con los mismos, ya sea parcial o completamente ―en una reseña breve, claro está; pues defender por qué se alaban o se desprecian ciertas ideas requiere de un escrito de mayor profundidad y extensión―.
Ante casos como éste, donde Marx no es el primero ni el último, me limitaré a hacer un recuento de los puntos más importantes que se encuentran en la obra que haya leído en ese momento. En el caso específico de esta obra, la pregunta del examen final sobre este filósofo estaba relacionada con la misma, por lo que la transcribo junto a mí respuesta:
¿EN QUÉ SENTIDO PUEDE DECIRSE QUE LA FILOSOFÍA ES ―SEGÚN MARX― FILOSOFÍA CRÍTICA O UNIDAD ORGÁNICA DE LAS OPOSICIONES CORRELATIVAS DE TEORÍA Y PRAXIS?
Ante casos como éste, donde Marx no es el primero ni el último, me limitaré a hacer un recuento de los puntos más importantes que se encuentran en la obra que haya leído en ese momento. En el caso específico de esta obra, la pregunta del examen final sobre este filósofo estaba relacionada con la misma, por lo que la transcribo junto a mí respuesta:
¿EN QUÉ SENTIDO PUEDE DECIRSE QUE LA FILOSOFÍA ES ―SEGÚN MARX― FILOSOFÍA CRÍTICA O UNIDAD ORGÁNICA DE LAS OPOSICIONES CORRELATIVAS DE TEORÍA Y PRAXIS?
¿Sabemos acaso qué son las ideas? Sí, dirá alguien por allí, son cosas que se nos meten en la cabeza. Y otro le responderá: estás equivocado, las cosas son ideas que se nos salen de la cabeza.
Aunque sólo parezca un mero juego de palabras, lo cierto es que cada respuesta muestra una postura similar y, sin embargo, opuesta a la otra. La primera, que podría identificarse con el materialismo abstracto,1 cree (o pre-supone) que el mundo externo es objetivamente real ―esta creencia tiene un origen religioso aunque quien participe de ella sea indiferente ante la religión, porque todas las religiones han enseñado que el mundo, la naturaleza, el universo, han sido creados por Dios antes de la creación del hombre―: es decir, que ya está dado, que fue hecho así, que está definido (de-limitado) de una vez y para siempre, y que, por ello, se trata de una realidad inmediata y no mediada, independiente de la actividad de los hombres; de modo que, desde esta perspectiva, lo único que queda es contemplar al mundo, y que las cosas se nos metan a la conciencia. La segunda, que podría identificarse con el espiritualismo abstracto, parte de la consideración de que las ideas, es decir, lo universal, lo genérico de las cosas reales, son la esencia2 de éstas últimas, de modo que lo único a que atiende es al ser abstraído (sólo pensado), al ser de la representación, en vez de a su existencia real; de modo que las cosas son sólo modos (la manzana, la pera, etc) de lo general (la idea de «la fruta»), y salen de la conciencia.
El planteamiento de la pregunta sobre las ideas y las cosas, no hay que dejar de decirlo, sólo puede darse gracias a la razón. Su respuesta ―brevemente esbozada desde dos perspectivas―, sin embargo, sólo puede desarrollarse gracias al entendimiento, cuya función consiste precisamente en fijar el conocimiento, esquematizarlo y formularlo. La razón constantemente obliga al entendimiento a revisar sus resultados, a fin de superarse a sí mismo. La razón nunca se contenta, siempre duda, siempre enjuicia al entendimiento, lo obliga a esforzarse, hace posible que el entendimiento abandone sus formas rígidas, abstractas.
La reflexión, que es producto del entendimiento, separa e invierte la relación de lo real con lo ilusorio...
El resto del escrito se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...
July 7, 2024
Marx em busca de uma filosofia epicurista onde a auto-consciência pudesse transformar o real, onde a abstração, universal, una, pudessem ser contornadas. Um primeiro passo de um materialista em form(acção).
August 17, 2025
Insgesamt scheint Marx eher auf Seiten Epikurs zu sein. Demokrit macht die Welt zum subjektiven Schein, Epikur zur objektiven Erscheinung.
Einer der Unterschiede zwischen ihnen besteht in der Beurteilung der Bewegung. Für Demokrit bewegen sie sich ohne Grund (wie Staub in der Sonne), Epikur meint, dass sie fallen (worüber sich später Russell lustig machen wird). Immerhin ist er der Meinung, dass sie mit der selben Geschwindigkeit fallen, trotz unterschiedlichen Gewichts!
Der Weise, sagt Epikur ist Dogmatiker, während Demokrit eher Skeptiker ist. In Wahrheit, sagt Demokrit, wissen wir nichts, denn im Abgrund des Brunnens liegt die Wahrheit.
Nur der Meinung nach ist das Kalte, nur der Meinung nach ist das Warme, in Wahrheit aber die Atome und das Leere.
Nach Epikur, und da kann ich Marx nicht mehr ganz folgen, ist die Atomistik die Naturwissenschaft des Selbstbewusstseins, während sie bei Demokrit nur Ausdruck der empirischen Naturforschung ist, eine abstrakte Kategorie.
Was mir gefällt ist seine Bemerkung zu Hegels Gottesbeweisen: Was müssen das für Klienten sein, die der Advokat nicht anders der Verurteilung entziehen kann, als indem er sie selbst totschlägt?
Einer der Unterschiede zwischen ihnen besteht in der Beurteilung der Bewegung. Für Demokrit bewegen sie sich ohne Grund (wie Staub in der Sonne), Epikur meint, dass sie fallen (worüber sich später Russell lustig machen wird). Immerhin ist er der Meinung, dass sie mit der selben Geschwindigkeit fallen, trotz unterschiedlichen Gewichts!
Der Weise, sagt Epikur ist Dogmatiker, während Demokrit eher Skeptiker ist. In Wahrheit, sagt Demokrit, wissen wir nichts, denn im Abgrund des Brunnens liegt die Wahrheit.
Nur der Meinung nach ist das Kalte, nur der Meinung nach ist das Warme, in Wahrheit aber die Atome und das Leere.
Nach Epikur, und da kann ich Marx nicht mehr ganz folgen, ist die Atomistik die Naturwissenschaft des Selbstbewusstseins, während sie bei Demokrit nur Ausdruck der empirischen Naturforschung ist, eine abstrakte Kategorie.
Was mir gefällt ist seine Bemerkung zu Hegels Gottesbeweisen: Was müssen das für Klienten sein, die der Advokat nicht anders der Verurteilung entziehen kann, als indem er sie selbst totschlägt?
March 2, 2022
marx é inigualável ao explicar as minúcias da filosofia epicurista. este maravilhoso trabalho, mesmo que órfão de várias de suas partes devido ao mau manuseio de seus papéis originais (curiosamente num caso parecido com os próprios textos de epicuro, perdidos também), é uma ode, uma homenagem... não sei dizer, mas faz jus pela primeira vez na história da filosofia, com exceção de lucrécio, aos estudos epicuristas, dando ao mestre do jardim a dignidade que merecia frente à comunidade filosófica. não sei o que mais me agrada nesta obra, as próprias ideias de epicuro ou a maneira espetacular em que marx a analisa, análise que se aprofunda em pormenores fascinantes, em especial, da atomística (ou melhor, do corporalismo). tempo como pura manifestação, a declinação do átomo e todo o movimento declinante como o princípio máximo das coisas... tantos apontamentos incríveis! texto fundamental para compreender epicuro a fundo. ótima edição.
September 9, 2023
A filosofia da natureza de Demócrito, que remonta ao século V a.C., é notável por sua abordagem atomista. Demócrito postulou que o universo é composto por átomos indivisíveis e eternos que se movem em um vazio infinito. Ele argumentou que todas as substâncias e fenômenos podem ser explicados pela combinação e movimento desses átomos. Demócrito enfatizou a ideia de que a realidade é regida por leis naturais e que o conhecimento científico pode ser alcançado através da observação e da razão.
Por outro lado, Epicuro, no século III a.C., desenvolveu uma filosofia baseada no epicurismo. Ele também aceitou a existência de átomos, mas sua ênfase estava na busca pelo prazer e na ataraxia (tranquilidade). Epicuro acreditava que a principal fonte de sofrimento era o medo, e ele argumentava que a compreensão científica da natureza, incluindo a física atomista, poderia ajudar as pessoas a superar seus medos e alcançar uma vida feliz. Para Epicuro, a filosofia era um meio de alcançar a serenidade mental e o prazer através da moderação e do conhecimento.
Portanto, a diferença fundamental entre Demócrito e Epicuro reside na ênfase de Demócrito na explicação científica da realidade através do atomismo, enquanto Epicuro concentra-se na busca da felicidade e da tranquilidade através do conhecimento científico e da prática de uma vida moderada e prazerosa. Ambos contribuíram significativamente para o desenvolvimento da filosofia da natureza na Grécia Antiga.
Karl Marx, em seus escritos, não abordou explicitamente a diferença entre a filosofia da natureza de Demócrito e a de Epicuro. Marx concentrou-se principalmente em questões de filosofia política, econômica e social, especialmente em sua crítica ao capitalismo e na promoção do comunismo. Portanto, não há uma análise direta de como Marx veria essa diferença filosófica.
No entanto, podemos especular sobre como Marx poderia abordar essa questão à luz de suas ideias gerais. Marx valorizava a análise materialista da sociedade e da história, focando nas relações de classe e nas forças econômicas. Ele pode argumentar que a diferença entre Demócrito e Epicuro, embora filosoficamente relevante, é menos significativa do que as condições materiais e sociais que moldam a filosofia de cada pensador.
Marx provavelmente enfatizaria que a base material da sociedade e a estrutura de classe têm um impacto mais profundo na forma como os filósofos desenvolvem suas teorias. Ele poderia argumentar que tanto Demócrito quanto Epicuro foram produtos de suas respectivas épocas e classes sociais, e suas visões filosóficas refletiram as preocupações e os interesses de suas sociedades.
Portanto, embora Marx não tenha analisado diretamente a diferença entre Demócrito e Epicuro em sua filosofia, ele teria abordado essa questão contextualizando-a dentro de seu enfoque materialista e histórico das condições sociais e econômicas.
Por outro lado, Epicuro, no século III a.C., desenvolveu uma filosofia baseada no epicurismo. Ele também aceitou a existência de átomos, mas sua ênfase estava na busca pelo prazer e na ataraxia (tranquilidade). Epicuro acreditava que a principal fonte de sofrimento era o medo, e ele argumentava que a compreensão científica da natureza, incluindo a física atomista, poderia ajudar as pessoas a superar seus medos e alcançar uma vida feliz. Para Epicuro, a filosofia era um meio de alcançar a serenidade mental e o prazer através da moderação e do conhecimento.
Portanto, a diferença fundamental entre Demócrito e Epicuro reside na ênfase de Demócrito na explicação científica da realidade através do atomismo, enquanto Epicuro concentra-se na busca da felicidade e da tranquilidade através do conhecimento científico e da prática de uma vida moderada e prazerosa. Ambos contribuíram significativamente para o desenvolvimento da filosofia da natureza na Grécia Antiga.
Karl Marx, em seus escritos, não abordou explicitamente a diferença entre a filosofia da natureza de Demócrito e a de Epicuro. Marx concentrou-se principalmente em questões de filosofia política, econômica e social, especialmente em sua crítica ao capitalismo e na promoção do comunismo. Portanto, não há uma análise direta de como Marx veria essa diferença filosófica.
No entanto, podemos especular sobre como Marx poderia abordar essa questão à luz de suas ideias gerais. Marx valorizava a análise materialista da sociedade e da história, focando nas relações de classe e nas forças econômicas. Ele pode argumentar que a diferença entre Demócrito e Epicuro, embora filosoficamente relevante, é menos significativa do que as condições materiais e sociais que moldam a filosofia de cada pensador.
Marx provavelmente enfatizaria que a base material da sociedade e a estrutura de classe têm um impacto mais profundo na forma como os filósofos desenvolvem suas teorias. Ele poderia argumentar que tanto Demócrito quanto Epicuro foram produtos de suas respectivas épocas e classes sociais, e suas visões filosóficas refletiram as preocupações e os interesses de suas sociedades.
Portanto, embora Marx não tenha analisado diretamente a diferença entre Demócrito e Epicuro em sua filosofia, ele teria abordado essa questão contextualizando-a dentro de seu enfoque materialista e histórico das condições sociais e econômicas.
July 11, 2025
Πιάνοντας στα χέρια μου τη διατριβή του Μαρξ για τον Δημόκριτο και τον Επίκουρο, περίμενα ένα αμιγώς θεωρητικό και απομακρυσμένο κείμενο. Τελικά βρήκα κάτι φορτισμένο φιλοσοφικά, με μια ένταση και πάθος που δεν περίμενα.
Φαίνεται πόσο γοητευμένος ήταν από την ιδέα της "παρέκκλισης", της μικρής αβίαστης κίνησης των ατόμων, που κατά τον Επίκουρο είναι η βάση για την ανθρώπινη ελευθερία και βούληση. Ο Δημόκριτος, από την άλλη, παρότι πιο "σύγχρονος" (με την έννοια ότι επηρέασε τη σύγχρονη επιστήμη, εμπνέοντας από επιστήμονες όπως τον Νεύτωνα και τον Φάινμαν έως τους διαφωτιστές π.χ. τους Τζον Λοκ, Ντιντερό) , αφήνει την εντύπωση ότι αντιμετωπίζει τον κόσμο ως κάτι αναίσθητο και ντετερμινιστικό, κάτι που ενοχλεί τον Μαρξ ο οποίος τονίζει και ασυνέπειες στις ιδέες του Δημόκριτου. Επίσης, εμμένει αρκετά στο πώς αντιλαμβάνονται τις αισθήσεις και τον χρόνο οι δύο φιλόσοφοι.
Μου άρεσε ο τρόπος που ο Μαρξ αντιδρά ενάντια στη θεολογία. Δεν το κάνει με επιθετικό τρόπο, αλλά υπογραμμίζει ότι η φιλοσοφία πρέπει να βασίζεται στη λογική και την εμπειρία, όχι στον φόβο των θεών. Ο Επίκουρος γίνεται έτσι σχεδόν ήρωας στο κείμενο.
Σίγουρα είναι δύσκολο βιβλίο, αφου η γλώσσα του Μαρξ είναι εξεζητημένη (επηρεασμένη σίγουρα από τον Χέγκελ), υπάρχουν αρχαιοελληνικά αποσπάσματα συνήθως χωρίς επεξηγήσεις και μεγάλη εστίαση σε λεπτομερείς φιλοσοφικές διακρίσεις. Έχει όμως κάτι το πολύ ζωντανό. Για αυτούς που τους αρέσει η φιλοσοφία, ειδικά η προσωκρατική σίγουρα αξίζει τον κόπο. Προσωπικά με κέρδισε περισσότερο με τις ερωτήσεις που θέτει παρά με τις απαντήσεις που δίνει.
Φαίνεται πόσο γοητευμένος ήταν από την ιδέα της "παρέκκλισης", της μικρής αβίαστης κίνησης των ατόμων, που κατά τον Επίκουρο είναι η βάση για την ανθρώπινη ελευθερία και βούληση. Ο Δημόκριτος, από την άλλη, παρότι πιο "σύγχρονος" (με την έννοια ότι επηρέασε τη σύγχρονη επιστήμη, εμπνέοντας από επιστήμονες όπως τον Νεύτωνα και τον Φάινμαν έως τους διαφωτιστές π.χ. τους Τζον Λοκ, Ντιντερό) , αφήνει την εντύπωση ότι αντιμετωπίζει τον κόσμο ως κάτι αναίσθητο και ντετερμινιστικό, κάτι που ενοχλεί τον Μαρξ ο οποίος τονίζει και ασυνέπειες στις ιδέες του Δημόκριτου. Επίσης, εμμένει αρκετά στο πώς αντιλαμβάνονται τις αισθήσεις και τον χρόνο οι δύο φιλόσοφοι.
Μου άρεσε ο τρόπος που ο Μαρξ αντιδρά ενάντια στη θεολογία. Δεν το κάνει με επιθετικό τρόπο, αλλά υπογραμμίζει ότι η φιλοσοφία πρέπει να βασίζεται στη λογική και την εμπειρία, όχι στον φόβο των θεών. Ο Επίκουρος γίνεται έτσι σχεδόν ήρωας στο κείμενο.
Σίγουρα είναι δύσκολο βιβλίο, αφου η γλώσσα του Μαρξ είναι εξεζητημένη (επηρεασμένη σίγουρα από τον Χέγκελ), υπάρχουν αρχαιοελληνικά αποσπάσματα συνήθως χωρίς επεξηγήσεις και μεγάλη εστίαση σε λεπτομερείς φιλοσοφικές διακρίσεις. Έχει όμως κάτι το πολύ ζωντανό. Για αυτούς που τους αρέσει η φιλοσοφία, ειδικά η προσωκρατική σίγουρα αξίζει τον κόπο. Προσωπικά με κέρδισε περισσότερο με τις ερωτήσεις που θέτει παρά με τις απαντήσεις που δίνει.
November 27, 2023
La nota sobre las pruebas de la existencia de Dios es absolutamente central y fundamental para el aparato conceptual marxista en general. Vendría bien un buen estudio introductorio que aclarase contra quién estaba pensando, quién era Demócrito en el entorno de Marx y quién Epicuro. Hay atisbos ontológicos fundamentales, y anticipaciones sobre el materialismo vulgar o la dialéctica importantísimos, e incluso una virtual refutación avant la lettre de la tesis sujeto-objeto de Historia y conciencia de clase en los desarrollos sobre epicuro, la existencia de los átomos y la alienación necesaria. Muy ilustrativo.
Read
July 14, 2021Muito difícil de ler se não tem uma base firme de filosofia da natureza. Dá pra pegar algumas das sementes do pensamento do Marx, inclusive as já presentes discordâncias dele com Hegel, mas definitivamente não é leitura obrigatória pra entender a trajetória dele. Pra tirar alguma coisa, leia sempre pensando que átomo = pessoa e o comportamento dos átomos = comportamento da sociedade kk
October 9, 2024
La aplicacion del metodo hegeliano en la teoría de los atomos de Demócrito y Epicuro para ver sus diferencias. No digo que esté mal, pero es que a mi no me interesa mucho. Lo que más mola es ver ciertos conatos de rebeldía en este Marx tan joven (esa idea de que la libertad empieza porque el atomo se salga de su linea recta, se desvie)
September 16, 2020
Uma leitura que sinceramente teria sido mais útil caso fosse melhor explicada por mais artigos analíticos e contextuais. De qualquer forma, uma interessante tentativa para aqueles que não estão familiarizados com esse lado acadêmico de Marx.
June 26, 2025
Bastante interesante el conocimiento del joven Marx acerca de la filosofía clásica. A pesar de que desde cierta tradición se ha forzado la lectura materialista de este texto, lo más revelador del mismo ha sido su esqueleto profundamente hegeliano.
May 31, 2021
Bazen Marx roman yazsaydı diyorum, araya sıkıştırdığı edebi ifadeleri çok güçlü geliyor her seferinde.
Want to read
November 10, 2022In the preface to his dissertation, Marx wrote, in the words of Aeschylus: "In sooth all gods I hate. 'Tis better to be bound on a rock than bound to the service of Zeus."
November 12, 2020
The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy is not an easy read. The thesis is complex and deals with not only philosophy but astrology and even some biology as well. However, despite its wordiness, it is interesting to read. Marx rushes to the defense of Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who was accused of basically ripping off Democritus' work. However, we soon see that Epicurus is a unique philosopher of his own right, building off Democritus' ideas instead of outright stealing them. Overall, while I think it is both biased towards Epicurus and against Democritus, I think it is still useful if one is curious about these ancient philosophers. A solid B would be my grade.
December 7, 2025
Marx'ın 1841'de yazdığı ve ilk metni ve doktora tezi. Doktora tezinin sayfaları eksik olduğu için bütünlükten kopuk ve anlaşılması zor. Sol yayınları daha iyi bir iş çıkarabilirmiş
October 21, 2014
Marx escribió esta tesis para su doctorado en filosofía. Marx hace énfasis en lo que ambos filósofos enseñaban de los átomos. Vale la pena leerla. Un poco de filosofía filosa no cae mal de vez en cuando.
Read
October 2, 2007be onvane payan name fogholadast!
February 28, 2016
Excellent Book. I wrote the description.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews