What do you think?
Rate this book
Materialismo (ATALAYA)
Es difícil sustraerse al encanto de Terry Eagleton y a su forma de abordar cualquier cuestión literaria o filosófica. La suya es una mirada reveladora, intelectualmente estimulante, revulsiva. En Materialismo, Eagleton compara de un modo nunca visto hasta ahora los valores y creencias de tres materialistas muy distintos: Marx, Nietzsche y Wittgenstein, y traza sorprendentes comparaciones entre sus filosofías, al tiempo que recorre una amplia variedad de temas, desde la ideología y la historia al lenguaje, la ética y la estética.
Sin perder de vista el rigor ni el humor —«a diferencia de Marx, Nietzsche no sería el compañero ideal para ir de bares»—, Eagleton ejecuta aquí una brillante introducción al concepto filosófico de materialismo y a su relevancia en la ciencia y la cultura contemporáneas, y demuestra, de paso, de forma contundente que es nuestra actividad corporal lo que hace posible el pensamiento y la conciencia.
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 7, 2017
About the author
Terry Eagleton
173 books1,317 followersWidely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Terry Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
January 25, 2021
"If Terry Eagleton didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him." So wrote Simon Critchley, but the more of Professor Terry's books I read, the less I agree with this statement.
Terry Eagleton is a unique writer whose work could never be created by artificial means. It's the sense of humour and fun amongst the serious arguments he's making that sets him above artificial creation. He understands Marx, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche so well he can interlace musings about these philosophers with statements that are funny, absurd, and yet wholly appropriate.
This style makes the book a lively read. With the chapter titles such as 'Do badgers have souls?' the prose zips along in an entertaining way. Eagleton demonstrates how, in different ways, materialism tears us away from the belief that human beings are self-determining.
I will provide two examples of this style mixing deep philosophical points with fun and humour.
1) "How absurdly idealist to imagine that it is philosophers who can transform our activity! 'That man will be revolutionary who can first revolutionise himself' Wittgenstein comments and a philosopher can no more do this for you than he can sneeze on your behalf. Like yawning or vomiting emancipation is something you have to do for yourself".
2) "Freud argues a similar case about pathological human behaviour in which it is one's actions that become rigid and unbending. (Wittgenstein himself seems to have been afflicted with such a neurosis. He was physically rigid and unbending as well as morally so. He felt that his knees were stiff and that if he knelt to pray he might go soft and dissolve away. There have been less exotic excuses for not going to church.)"
Finally, you might wish to have a dictionary to hand...
Terry Eagleton is a unique writer whose work could never be created by artificial means. It's the sense of humour and fun amongst the serious arguments he's making that sets him above artificial creation. He understands Marx, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche so well he can interlace musings about these philosophers with statements that are funny, absurd, and yet wholly appropriate.
This style makes the book a lively read. With the chapter titles such as 'Do badgers have souls?' the prose zips along in an entertaining way. Eagleton demonstrates how, in different ways, materialism tears us away from the belief that human beings are self-determining.
I will provide two examples of this style mixing deep philosophical points with fun and humour.
1) "How absurdly idealist to imagine that it is philosophers who can transform our activity! 'That man will be revolutionary who can first revolutionise himself' Wittgenstein comments and a philosopher can no more do this for you than he can sneeze on your behalf. Like yawning or vomiting emancipation is something you have to do for yourself".
2) "Freud argues a similar case about pathological human behaviour in which it is one's actions that become rigid and unbending. (Wittgenstein himself seems to have been afflicted with such a neurosis. He was physically rigid and unbending as well as morally so. He felt that his knees were stiff and that if he knelt to pray he might go soft and dissolve away. There have been less exotic excuses for not going to church.)"
Finally, you might wish to have a dictionary to hand...
July 29, 2025
في البدأ يستعرض الكاتب بشكل سريع أنواع المادية في فلسفات مختلفة و من ضمن الأنواع التي عرضها و سلط الضوء عليها هي : المادية الاختزالية ، المادية الجديدة ، المادية الحيوية ، المادية الديناميكية ، المادية الثقافية ،المادية السيمانطيقية ،المادية الديالكتيكية ، المادية التأملية ، المادية اللغوية ، المادية السوماتية (الجسدية).
مع تعريف كل نوع و علاقتها بأنواع الفكر الفلسفي و الإجتماعي مثل الماركسية والشيوعية ، كذلك قارن بين أفكار نيتشه و فينغشتاين و ماركس من حيث التشابه والاختلاف ، وهل أفكارهم تطبق واقعياً في الحياة المادية أم فقط نظرياً
كيف نتحرر من الأوهام ؟ كيف نفرق بين الموجود فعلاً و المخلوق من قبل خيالنا ومن ثم اصبحنا تابعين له ؟ ما فائدة الفلسفة و علاقتها بالمادية؟
كلها أسئلة يحاول تيري ايغنتون الإجابة عليها من خلال نظريات كل من ماركس و فينغشتاين و نيتشة.
-رأيي : دراسة مهمة لكن السرد صعب و ممل و كلام غير مترابط بعض الأحيان و من المحتمل الخلل في الترجمة .
مع تعريف كل نوع و علاقتها بأنواع الفكر الفلسفي و الإجتماعي مثل الماركسية والشيوعية ، كذلك قارن بين أفكار نيتشه و فينغشتاين و ماركس من حيث التشابه والاختلاف ، وهل أفكارهم تطبق واقعياً في الحياة المادية أم فقط نظرياً
كيف نتحرر من الأوهام ؟ كيف نفرق بين الموجود فعلاً و المخلوق من قبل خيالنا ومن ثم اصبحنا تابعين له ؟ ما فائدة الفلسفة و علاقتها بالمادية؟
كلها أسئلة يحاول تيري ايغنتون الإجابة عليها من خلال نظريات كل من ماركس و فينغشتاين و نيتشة.
-رأيي : دراسة مهمة لكن السرد صعب و ممل و كلام غير مترابط بعض الأحيان و من المحتمل الخلل في الترجمة .
Read
March 25, 2019برغم قصر الكتاب النسبي وعنوانه العام –إن صح التعبير-، يقدم إيغلتون في هذا الكتاب لمحةً مثيرةً عن الفلسفة الماديّة وأهمية إعادة الاعتبار لها في النقاشات الفلسفية المعاصرة. ففي مقدمة الكتاب، يتطرق إيغلتون للخلل المعرفيّ الناجم عن إغفال الجسد في التفلسف الثقافي-النسبيّ أو في الفلسفات المثالية بمختلف عناوينها. فحسبما يعتقد إيغلتون، يمكن جعل الجسد نقطة انطلاقٍ للتفلسف بوصفه بُعدًا جمعيًّا وفردانيًا في الآن ذاته، أي أنه جزءٌ من انتمائنا للنوع الإنسانيّ وعاملٌ لممايزتنا عن غيرنا ممن ينتمون لهذا النوع.
من هذا المنطلق، يحلل إيغلتون في البداية المدارس المادية المختلفة. فبرغم اشتراكها في كونها "مادية" بشكلٍ أو بآخر، تتفاوت المدارس المختلفة في أسس هذه المادية وما ينبني عليها. يعرج الكتاب بشكلٍ موجز على ما يسميه إيغلتون المادية الديالكتيكية والمادية التاريخية والمادية الإبتسمولوجية والمادية الأنطولوجية وغيرها قبل أن يصب تركيزه على ثلاثة فلاسفة: ماركس ونيتشه وفيتغنشتاين.
لا يركز إيغلتون على ما يطرحه هؤلاء الثلاثة عن المادية بشكل مباشر وحسب، بل يحلل تجلياتها في مفاهيمهم المختلفة عن اللغة والثقافة والفلسفة والتاريخ مثلًا. وبالإضافة لذلك، عوض تحليل كل مفكرٍّ بمعزلٍ عن الآخر، يحاول إيغلتون تبيان العوامل المشتركة في فلسفتهم المادية حتى وإن بدا وأن النتائج التي يصل إليها كل منهم مختلفة (راديكالية نيتشه في مقابل محافظة فيتغنشتاين مثلًا، أو تباين دور اللغة في تكوين فهمنا للعالم عند ماركس وفيتنغشتاين).
وفيما يقوم إيغلتون بتحليل الفلاسفة الثلاثة ومقارنة منطلقاتهم الفلسفية، يشدد أثناء طرحه على الكيفية التي تناول كلّ منهم الجسد والنتائج التي أدى إليها اختزاله في بعض أبعاده (الجسد بوصفه رداءً للوعي إن صح التعبير، بوصفه مجرد مادة، بوصفه غير فاعلٍ في بيئته). ما يطرحه إيغلتون بديلًا لهذه الاختزالات هو مفهوم الجسد (body) الذي تتكامل فيه كل الأبعاد لأنه –بالضرورة- موجودٌ بتكاملها. فالوعي مصدره في المقام الأخير ذات الجسد الذي يمتلك احتياجاتٍ غريزيةٍ وينخرط في مجتمعٍ مع غيره من الأجساد ويتواصل معهم بما يلبي تلك الاحتياجات وغيرها من الاحتياجات الاجتماعية. هو الجسد الذي لا ينفكّ فيه العقل أو الروح أو أي ماهيّةٍ أخرى عن الجسد المادي الطبيعي.
أحب أن أقرأ إيغلتون، وأسلوبه الفلسفي الساخر يحضر هنا كما حضر في كتبه السابقة.
من هذا المنطلق، يحلل إيغلتون في البداية المدارس المادية المختلفة. فبرغم اشتراكها في كونها "مادية" بشكلٍ أو بآخر، تتفاوت المدارس المختلفة في أسس هذه المادية وما ينبني عليها. يعرج الكتاب بشكلٍ موجز على ما يسميه إيغلتون المادية الديالكتيكية والمادية التاريخية والمادية الإبتسمولوجية والمادية الأنطولوجية وغيرها قبل أن يصب تركيزه على ثلاثة فلاسفة: ماركس ونيتشه وفيتغنشتاين.
لا يركز إيغلتون على ما يطرحه هؤلاء الثلاثة عن المادية بشكل مباشر وحسب، بل يحلل تجلياتها في مفاهيمهم المختلفة عن اللغة والثقافة والفلسفة والتاريخ مثلًا. وبالإضافة لذلك، عوض تحليل كل مفكرٍّ بمعزلٍ عن الآخر، يحاول إيغلتون تبيان العوامل المشتركة في فلسفتهم المادية حتى وإن بدا وأن النتائج التي يصل إليها كل منهم مختلفة (راديكالية نيتشه في مقابل محافظة فيتغنشتاين مثلًا، أو تباين دور اللغة في تكوين فهمنا للعالم عند ماركس وفيتنغشتاين).
وفيما يقوم إيغلتون بتحليل الفلاسفة الثلاثة ومقارنة منطلقاتهم الفلسفية، يشدد أثناء طرحه على الكيفية التي تناول كلّ منهم الجسد والنتائج التي أدى إليها اختزاله في بعض أبعاده (الجسد بوصفه رداءً للوعي إن صح التعبير، بوصفه مجرد مادة، بوصفه غير فاعلٍ في بيئته). ما يطرحه إيغلتون بديلًا لهذه الاختزالات هو مفهوم الجسد (body) الذي تتكامل فيه كل الأبعاد لأنه –بالضرورة- موجودٌ بتكاملها. فالوعي مصدره في المقام الأخير ذات الجسد الذي يمتلك احتياجاتٍ غريزيةٍ وينخرط في مجتمعٍ مع غيره من الأجساد ويتواصل معهم بما يلبي تلك الاحتياجات وغيرها من الاحتياجات الاجتماعية. هو الجسد الذي لا ينفكّ فيه العقل أو الروح أو أي ماهيّةٍ أخرى عن الجسد المادي الطبيعي.
أحب أن أقرأ إيغلتون، وأسلوبه الفلسفي الساخر يحضر هنا كما حضر في كتبه السابقة.
March 27, 2017
Three thinkers (four if you add Aquinas, for whom Eagleton seems to have a soft spot) whose thought at first glance seems quite unrelated are here examined; but TE identifies certain common strands in their thinking (language being chief among them) and ends with a resounding clarion call for thinkers (especially leftists) to remember that all their high-brow philosophizing doesn't mean jack-shit unless it transfers over into the real world (something which he argues Wittgenstein would've approved of)-- which, by the way, sounds suspiciously like Marx's favorite phrase, "Philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world, but the point is to change it". Also, fun stuff on how Christianity is a fully materialist religion; how Aquinas was a materialist; how religion and materialism are not incompatible-- also, has Mr Eagleton ever published a book without referencing Madonna? Also, the jokes are quite good here. Not bad work for a 74 year old leftie.
July 27, 2019
Ramblings
In this book it felt like Eagleton didn’t have a firm grasp of what he wanted to say. It felt more like reading the stream of consciousness of a very bright and well read individual, who never the less had no overall point he wanted to land.
Although there were interesting moments, on the whole I did not enjoy this book.
In this book it felt like Eagleton didn’t have a firm grasp of what he wanted to say. It felt more like reading the stream of consciousness of a very bright and well read individual, who never the less had no overall point he wanted to land.
Although there were interesting moments, on the whole I did not enjoy this book.
March 31, 2018
Kompakte Annäherung an die materialistische Denktradition bei Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein und (in geringerem Ausmaß) Freud. Polemisch, mit klarem politischem Standpunkt aber ohne Scheuklappen. Die Entwicklung eines eigenen Materialismus-Begriffs kommt etwas zu kurz und es handelt sich auch nicht um eine Einführung sondern eine sehr spezifische Auseinandersetzung mit den genannten Denkern. Trotzdem sehr gut lesbar. Sehr gelungene deutsche Übersetzung mit Gespür für Eagletons Humor.
November 14, 2020
I did not understand half of this book but Terry Eagleton's prose is so elegant. I can read more of his books just for his style of writing.
June 7, 2026
[English below]
Mit großer Vorfreude habe ich Terry Eagletons “Materialismus” zur Hand genommen. Eagleton gehört für mich zu den spannendsten marxistischen Intellektuellen der Gegenwart. Seine “Einführung in die Literaturtheorie” und seine Arbeiten zur Ideologiekritik haben mich über Jahre begleitet. Zwar teile ich viele seiner Positionen nicht, insbesondere dort, wo er poststrukturalistische Ansätze kritisiert, doch gerade seine Fähigkeit, produktive Widersprüche offenzulegen und scharfsinnige Einwände zu formulieren, habe ich stets geschätzt.
Bereits das Vorwort von “Materialismus” ließ mich jedoch aufhorchen. Eagleton bezeichnet das Buch selbst als Polemik. Was zunächst wie eine stilistische Selbstbeschreibung erscheint, entwickelt sich schnell zum Grundproblem des gesamten Werkes. Denn die Polemik wird nicht nur zum Mittel der Argumentation, sondern ersetzt sie stellenweise. Dabei entsteht der Eindruck eines Gelehrten, der sich gegen poststrukturalistische, konstruktivistische und dekonstruktivistische Ansätze im Bereich von Körper, Kultur, Natur und Sprache wendet, ohne deren stärkste Argumente wirklich ernst zu nehmen.
Im ersten Kapitel setzt sich Eagleton mit neueren Materialismen auseinander, insbesondere mit dem New Materialism. Seine Beobachtung, dass politische und ethische Fragestellungen in manchen Varianten neuer Materialismen in den Hintergrund treten können, ist durchaus diskussionswürdig. Problematisch wird es jedoch dort, wo seine Kritik kaum über Zuspitzungen und ironische Seitenhiebe hinausgeht. Statt zentrale theoretische Konflikte – etwa die Beziehung zwischen historischem und dialektischem Materialismus – systematisch darzustellen, greift Eagleton häufig zu polemischen Beispielen, die die Gegenposition lächerlich machen sollen. Das erzeugt zwar gelegentlich Witz, ersetzt aber keine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung.
Dieses Muster zieht sich durch das gesamte Buch. Eagletons sprachliche Brillanz ist unbestritten. Doch gerade seine rhetorische Stärke wird zu einer Schwäche des Werkes. Die Polemik wird so dominant, dass sie die berechtigten Fragen, die Eagleton stellen möchte, häufig verdeckt. Anstatt seine Gegner zu widerlegen, karikiert er sie. Dadurch verliert seine Kritik an Überzeugungskraft.
Besonders deutlich wird dies in seinen Überlegungen zu Sprache und Bedeutung. Wenn Eagleton behauptet, Bedeutung sei nichts Unsichtbares, sondern ebenso praktisch wie die Benutzung eines Dosenöffners, dann verfehlt dieser Vergleich gerade jene Dynamiken, die moderne Sprachtheorien herausgearbeitet haben. Bedeutung entsteht nicht nur durch Gebrauch, sondern wird ständig reproduziert, verschoben und neu ausgehandelt. Diskurse wirken gerade deshalb so mächtig, weil minimale Verschiebungen von Symbolen, Begriffen und Praktiken erhebliche gesellschaftliche Folgen haben können. Die Beziehung zwischen Zeichen, Bedeutung und sozialer Wirklichkeit lässt sich nicht auf eine unmittelbar sichtbare Praxis reduzieren.
Das zweite Kapitel über Leib und Seele gehört für mich zu den stärkeren Teilen des Buches. Die Verbindung von Phänomenologie, Thomas von Aquin, Marx und Wittgenstein ist originell und anregend. Eagleton betont überzeugend die Materialität des Körpers und wendet sich gegen idealistische Vorstellungen eines vom Leib losgelösten Geistes. Gleichzeitig entsteht jedoch ein bemerkenswerter Widerspruch: Viele der Einsichten, die er hier entwickelt, finden sich auch im New Materialism, den er zuvor scharf kritisiert hat.
Zudem bleibt seine Vorstellung des Körpers erstaunlich statisch. Wenn Eagleton betont, dass Körper reale materielle Grundlagen besitzen, ist dem grundsätzlich zuzustimmen. Doch er unterschätzt, wie sehr Körper zugleich kulturell geformt, diszipliniert und hervorgebracht werden. Gerade die Arbeiten von Judith Butler oder Michel Foucault zeigen, dass Materialität und kulturelle Formung nicht gegeneinander ausgespielt werden können. Körper sind nicht nur materielle Gegebenheiten, sondern auch historische und politische Produkte. Diese Perspektive wird von Eagleton weitgehend ignoriert.
Ähnliches gilt für sein Kapitel über Natur und Kultur. Eagleton hat Recht, wenn er darauf hinweist, dass Kultur niemals außerhalb der Natur existiert. Jede kulturelle Praxis bleibt an materielle Bedingungen gebunden. Gleichzeitig verkennt er jedoch, wie tief Natur und Kultur heute ineinander verwoben sind. Seine Argumentation bleibt häufig bei einer Gegenüberstellung stehen, die neuere ökologische, posthumanistische und neomaterialistische Ansätze längst problematisiert haben.
Besonders irritierend erscheint dabei, dass Eagleton sich immer wieder auf Marx beruft, dabei aber zentrale Einsichten marxistischer Theorie selbst ausblendet. Marx hat gezeigt, dass gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse eine Eigenlogik entwickeln können, die sich den Absichten einzelner Akteure entzieht. Der Kapitalismus erscheint bei Marx gerade nicht als vollständig kontrollierbares System, sondern als eine Dynamik, die Menschen ebenso hervorbringt wie beherrscht. Genau diese Frage nach Autonomie, Emergenz und Eigendynamik materieller Prozesse findet sich auch im New Materialism wieder. Eagleton kritisiert solche Überlegungen scharf, obwohl sie an entscheidenden Punkten an Marx anschließen.
An dieser Stelle wird für mich die eigentliche Problematik des Buches sichtbar. Eagletons Ziel besteht nicht einfach darin, den Materialismus gegen seine Kritiker zu verteidigen. Sein Projekt zielt auf die Wiedergewinnung einer substanzontologischen Grundlage des Politischen. Materie soll wieder als reale, universale und stabile Basis menschlicher Existenz erscheinen, aus der sich politisches Handeln begründen lässt. Materialismus wird dadurch mit einem starken Begriff von Intentionalität verbunden.
Gerade hierin liegt jedoch die theoretische Schwäche des Buches.
Um diesen Zusammenhang von Ontologie und Intentionalität zu stabilisieren, muss Eagleton jene autonomen Dynamiken zurückweisen, die sich weder auf menschliche Absichten noch auf feste materielle Substanzen reduzieren lassen. Deshalb richtet sich seine Kritik nicht nur gegen den New Materialism, sondern gegen nahezu jede Theorie, die von Eigenlogiken, Emergenzen, Relationen oder selbstorganisierten Prozessen ausgeht.
Dabei gerät ausgerechnet eine Einsicht aus dem Blick, die bereits bei Marx selbst angelegt ist. Marx beschreibt den Kapitalismus nicht lediglich als Summe bewusster Handlungen einzelner Akteure. Vielmehr entwickelt das Kapital eine Eigendynamik, die sich den Absichten von Arbeitern ebenso wie denen von Kapitalisten entzieht. Der Kapitalismus erscheint gerade als ein autonomes gesellschaftliches Verhältnis, das seine Akteure hervorbringt und zugleich beherrscht.
Genau an diesem Punkt entsteht für mich ein fundamentaler Widerspruch. Eagleton möchte einen sozialistischen Materialismus verteidigen, blendet jedoch jene autonomen Prozesse aus, die Marx selbst analysiert hat. Was bei Marx als Eigendynamik gesellschaftlicher Verhältnisse erscheint, wird bei Eagleton zugunsten eines intentionalen Handelns zurückgedrängt.
Dies zeigt sich besonders deutlich in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Wittgenstein. Eagleton stellt die Lebensform gegen die Vorstellung autonomer Zeichensysteme. Bedeutung entsteht für ihn durch Gebrauch, Praxis und gemeinschaftliches Handeln. Das ist zunächst plausibel. Gleichzeitig unterschätzt er jedoch, dass sich sprachliche, kulturelle und ökonomische Systeme verselbstständigen können. Zeichen, Diskurse und Institutionen entwickeln Dynamiken, die nicht vollständig durch die Intentionen ihrer Akteure kontrolliert werden.
Genau hier treffen sich strukturalistische, poststrukturalistische und marxistische Einsichten. Die Frage lautet nicht, ob solche Prozesse existieren, sondern wie sie zu beschreiben sind. Wer sie ignoriert, erklärt zwar die Möglichkeit politischen Handelns, verliert aber aus dem Blick, warum Menschen so häufig an den Verhältnissen scheitern, die sie selbst hervorbringen.
Die Kapitel über Nietzsche und Wittgenstein gehören dennoch zu den interessantesten Teilen des Buches. Eagleton zeigt überzeugend, wie Nietzsche den Körper gegen idealistische Traditionen stark macht und wie Wittgenstein Bedeutung als soziale Praxis versteht. Paradoxerweise führen gerade diese Kapitel jedoch vor Augen, wie nahe manche seiner Einsichten denjenigen Denkern stehen, die er zuvor kritisiert hat. Wenn Bedeutung aus Handlungen, Lebensformen und sozialen Praktiken entsteht, dann befindet sich Eagleton wesentlich näher an konstruktivistischen und diskurstheoretischen Ansätzen, als ihm selbst lieb sein dürfte.
Letztlich verfolgt Eagleton ein nachvollziehbares Anliegen. Er möchte die materielle Grundlage menschlicher Existenz gegen jede Form eines entkörperlichten Denkens verteidigen und politische Handlungsfähigkeit zurückgewinnen. Dieses Anliegen ist wichtig und teilweise sogar notwendig. Das Problem besteht jedoch darin, dass er dieses Ziel um den Preis theoretischer Vereinfachungen verfolgt.
Paradoxerweise läuft Eagletons Versuch, einen politischen Materialismus zu retten, dadurch Gefahr, genau jene Mechanismen zu verdecken, die den Kapitalismus historisch so erfolgreich gemacht haben. Wer die Autonomie von Systemen, Diskursen und sozialen Dynamiken ignoriert, erklärt zwar die Möglichkeit intentionalen Handelns, verliert aber aus dem Blick, warum politische Akteure von Kräften bestimmt werden, die sich ihrer unmittelbaren Kontrolle entziehen.
Meine grundlegende Kritik lautet daher: Eagleton verteidigt einen Materialismus der Substanz und der Intention gegen einen Materialismus der Relationen, Dynamiken und Eigengesetzlichkeiten. Gerade dadurch wird sein Projekt theoretisch schwächer und politisch weniger radikal, als es sein Anspruch vermuten lässt. Sein Materialismus soll ein linkes Projekt retten. Ironischerweise läuft er dabei Gefahr, jene autonomen Prozesse unsichtbar zu machen, die marxistische Theorie ursprünglich sichtbar machen wollte.
So bleibt am Ende ein widersprüchliches Buch zurück: gelehrt, witzig, brillant geschrieben und voller anregender Beobachtungen, zugleich aber theoretisch überraschend einseitig. “Materialismus” ist weniger eine Einführung in aktuelle Materialismusdebatten als eine temperamentvolle Streitschrift für einen bestimmten Typus marxistischen Denkens. Wer sich auf diese Polemik einlässt, wird viele kluge Gedanken finden. Wer jedoch eine offene Auseinandersetzung mit den stärksten Gegenpositionen erwartet, dürfte enttäuscht werden.
[English]
I approached Terry Eagleton’s “Materialism” with great anticipation. Eagleton has long been one of the most stimulating Marxist intellectuals of our time. His “Literary Theory: An Introduction” and his writings on ideology have accompanied me for years. Although I disagree with many of his positions, especially where he criticizes post-structuralist approaches, I have always appreciated his ability to expose productive contradictions and formulate incisive criticisms.
Already in the preface, however, I found myself raising an eyebrow. Eagleton explicitly describes the book as a polemic. What initially appears to be a stylistic self-description soon becomes the book’s central problem. Polemic is not merely a rhetorical device here; at times it replaces argumentation altogether. The result is the impression of a scholar determined to challenge post-structuralist, constructivist, and deconstructive approaches to body, culture, nature, and language without seriously engaging their strongest arguments.
In the opening chapter, Eagleton addresses contemporary forms of materialism, particularly New Materialism. His observation that political and ethical concerns sometimes recede into the background within certain strands of contemporary materialism is certainly worth discussing. The problem arises when his critique rarely moves beyond exaggeration and ironic caricature. Instead of systematically addressing key theoretical disputes—such as the relationship between historical and dialectical materialism—he often resorts to examples designed to ridicule opposing positions. These passages can be amusing, but they do not amount to a serious engagement.
This pattern runs throughout the book. Eagleton’s brilliance as a writer is beyond question. Yet his rhetorical strength often becomes a weakness. Polemic overshadows the legitimate questions he wishes to raise. Rather than refuting his opponents, he frequently caricatures them. As a result, his critique loses much of its persuasive force.
This becomes particularly evident in his reflections on language and meaning. When Eagleton argues that meaning is no more invisible than using a can opener, the comparison misses precisely those dynamics that modern theories of language have sought to illuminate. Meaning is not simply produced through use; it is constantly reproduced, displaced, contested, and renegotiated. Discourses derive their power precisely from the fact that minor shifts in symbols, concepts, and practices can have far-reaching social consequences. The relationship between signs, meaning, and social reality cannot be reduced to immediately visible practices.
The chapter on body and soul is among the book’s stronger sections. Eagleton’s dialogue with phenomenology, Thomas Aquinas, Marx, and Wittgenstein is both original and thought-provoking. His insistence on the materiality of the body provides an important corrective to idealist conceptions of mind. Yet a striking contradiction emerges. Many of the insights he develops here resemble positions found within New Materialism itself—the very approach he previously mocked and dismissed.
Moreover, his conception of the body remains surprisingly static. While it is entirely reasonable to insist that bodies possess a material reality, Eagleton tends to underestimate the extent to which bodies are also culturally produced, disciplined, and shaped. The work of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault demonstrates that materiality and cultural formation cannot simply be separated. Bodies are not merely material givens; they are also historical and political products. This dimension is largely absent from Eagleton’s analysis.
A similar problem appears in his discussion of nature and culture. Eagleton is right to emphasize that culture never exists outside nature. Every cultural practice depends upon material conditions. Yet he underestimates how deeply nature and culture have become entangled. His argument often relies upon distinctions that ecological, posthumanist, and neomaterialist thinkers have long since problematized.
More troubling still is the way Eagleton invokes Marx while overlooking some of Marx’s most significant insights. Marx demonstrated that social relations develop their own internal logic, one that cannot be reduced to the intentions of individual actors. Capitalism appears in Marx not as a system fully controlled by human subjects but as a dynamic process that simultaneously produces and dominates them. Questions of autonomy, emergence, and self-organizing processes are therefore not foreign to Marxism; they are central to it. Yet these are precisely the kinds of processes that Eagleton repeatedly attacks.
At this point, the deeper problem of the book becomes visible. Eagleton’s aim is not simply to defend materialism against its critics. His project seeks to recover a substantial ontological foundation for politics. Matter is presented as a stable, universal, and objective basis of human existence from which political action can be grounded. Materialism thus becomes closely tied to a strong concept of intentionality.
This, however, is where I believe the book’s greatest weakness lies.
In order to stabilize the connection between ontology and intentional political action, Eagleton must reject autonomous dynamics that cannot be reduced either to human intentions or to fixed material substances. His critique is therefore directed not only against New Materialism but against almost every theoretical approach that emphasizes emergence, relationality, self-organization, or systemic autonomy.
Ironically, this means neglecting an insight already present in Marx himself. Marx did not describe capitalism merely as the sum of conscious human actions. Capital develops a dynamic of its own, one that escapes the intentions of both workers and capitalists alike. Capitalism emerges as an autonomous social relation that produces its subjects while simultaneously subordinating them.
Here, a fundamental contradiction appears. Eagleton seeks to defend a socialist materialism while sidelining precisely those autonomous processes that Marx himself analyzed. What Marx understood as the self-moving character of social relations is reduced in Eagleton’s account to a framework centered upon intentional action.
This becomes especially apparent in his reading of Wittgenstein. Eagleton opposes autonomous systems of signs by emphasizing forms of life. Meaning arises through use, practice, and shared activity. This is initially persuasive. Yet he underestimates the extent to which linguistic, cultural, and economic systems can acquire a relative autonomy of their own. Signs, discourses, and institutions develop dynamics that are not fully controlled by the intentions of their participants.
It is precisely here that structuralist, post-structuralist, and Marxist insights converge. The question is not whether such autonomous processes exist, but how they should be understood. Ignoring them may preserve the possibility of intentional political action, but it obscures why human beings so often become trapped within the very systems they create.
The chapters on Nietzsche and Wittgenstein remain among the most engaging parts of the book. Eagleton convincingly demonstrates how Nietzsche challenges idealism through the body and how Wittgenstein roots meaning in social practice. Yet these chapters also reveal how close Eagleton often comes to the very thinkers he criticizes. If meaning emerges from practices, forms of life, and social interaction, then Eagleton stands much closer to constructivist and discourse-theoretical approaches than he seems willing to admit.
Ultimately, Eagleton pursues a legitimate and important goal. He wants to defend the material foundations of human existence against forms of thought that risk becoming detached from embodied reality. He also seeks to recover the possibility of political agency. Both ambitions are understandable and, in many respects, necessary.
The problem is that he pursues these goals at the cost of theoretical complexity.
Paradoxically, Eagleton’s attempt to rescue political materialism risks obscuring the very mechanisms that have made capitalism so powerful. By denying the autonomy of systems, discourses, and social dynamics, he safeguards intentional action but loses sight of the forces that shape human behavior beyond immediate control.
My fundamental criticism, therefore, is this: Eagleton defends a materialism of substance and intention against a materialism of relations, dynamics, and emergent processes. In doing so, his project becomes both theoretically weaker and politically less radical than it intends to be. His materialism aims to save a socialist political project. Ironically, it risks rendering invisible precisely those autonomous processes that Marxist critique originally sought to expose.
The result is a deeply contradictory book: learned, witty, brilliantly written, and often intellectually stimulating, yet also surprisingly one-sided in its theoretical commitments. “Materialism” is less an introduction to contemporary debates on materialism than a spirited defense of one particular strand of Marxist thought. Readers willing to engage its polemical style will find many valuable insights. Those seeking an open engagement with the strongest opposing arguments may leave disappointed.
Mit großer Vorfreude habe ich Terry Eagletons “Materialismus” zur Hand genommen. Eagleton gehört für mich zu den spannendsten marxistischen Intellektuellen der Gegenwart. Seine “Einführung in die Literaturtheorie” und seine Arbeiten zur Ideologiekritik haben mich über Jahre begleitet. Zwar teile ich viele seiner Positionen nicht, insbesondere dort, wo er poststrukturalistische Ansätze kritisiert, doch gerade seine Fähigkeit, produktive Widersprüche offenzulegen und scharfsinnige Einwände zu formulieren, habe ich stets geschätzt.
Bereits das Vorwort von “Materialismus” ließ mich jedoch aufhorchen. Eagleton bezeichnet das Buch selbst als Polemik. Was zunächst wie eine stilistische Selbstbeschreibung erscheint, entwickelt sich schnell zum Grundproblem des gesamten Werkes. Denn die Polemik wird nicht nur zum Mittel der Argumentation, sondern ersetzt sie stellenweise. Dabei entsteht der Eindruck eines Gelehrten, der sich gegen poststrukturalistische, konstruktivistische und dekonstruktivistische Ansätze im Bereich von Körper, Kultur, Natur und Sprache wendet, ohne deren stärkste Argumente wirklich ernst zu nehmen.
Im ersten Kapitel setzt sich Eagleton mit neueren Materialismen auseinander, insbesondere mit dem New Materialism. Seine Beobachtung, dass politische und ethische Fragestellungen in manchen Varianten neuer Materialismen in den Hintergrund treten können, ist durchaus diskussionswürdig. Problematisch wird es jedoch dort, wo seine Kritik kaum über Zuspitzungen und ironische Seitenhiebe hinausgeht. Statt zentrale theoretische Konflikte – etwa die Beziehung zwischen historischem und dialektischem Materialismus – systematisch darzustellen, greift Eagleton häufig zu polemischen Beispielen, die die Gegenposition lächerlich machen sollen. Das erzeugt zwar gelegentlich Witz, ersetzt aber keine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung.
Dieses Muster zieht sich durch das gesamte Buch. Eagletons sprachliche Brillanz ist unbestritten. Doch gerade seine rhetorische Stärke wird zu einer Schwäche des Werkes. Die Polemik wird so dominant, dass sie die berechtigten Fragen, die Eagleton stellen möchte, häufig verdeckt. Anstatt seine Gegner zu widerlegen, karikiert er sie. Dadurch verliert seine Kritik an Überzeugungskraft.
Besonders deutlich wird dies in seinen Überlegungen zu Sprache und Bedeutung. Wenn Eagleton behauptet, Bedeutung sei nichts Unsichtbares, sondern ebenso praktisch wie die Benutzung eines Dosenöffners, dann verfehlt dieser Vergleich gerade jene Dynamiken, die moderne Sprachtheorien herausgearbeitet haben. Bedeutung entsteht nicht nur durch Gebrauch, sondern wird ständig reproduziert, verschoben und neu ausgehandelt. Diskurse wirken gerade deshalb so mächtig, weil minimale Verschiebungen von Symbolen, Begriffen und Praktiken erhebliche gesellschaftliche Folgen haben können. Die Beziehung zwischen Zeichen, Bedeutung und sozialer Wirklichkeit lässt sich nicht auf eine unmittelbar sichtbare Praxis reduzieren.
Das zweite Kapitel über Leib und Seele gehört für mich zu den stärkeren Teilen des Buches. Die Verbindung von Phänomenologie, Thomas von Aquin, Marx und Wittgenstein ist originell und anregend. Eagleton betont überzeugend die Materialität des Körpers und wendet sich gegen idealistische Vorstellungen eines vom Leib losgelösten Geistes. Gleichzeitig entsteht jedoch ein bemerkenswerter Widerspruch: Viele der Einsichten, die er hier entwickelt, finden sich auch im New Materialism, den er zuvor scharf kritisiert hat.
Zudem bleibt seine Vorstellung des Körpers erstaunlich statisch. Wenn Eagleton betont, dass Körper reale materielle Grundlagen besitzen, ist dem grundsätzlich zuzustimmen. Doch er unterschätzt, wie sehr Körper zugleich kulturell geformt, diszipliniert und hervorgebracht werden. Gerade die Arbeiten von Judith Butler oder Michel Foucault zeigen, dass Materialität und kulturelle Formung nicht gegeneinander ausgespielt werden können. Körper sind nicht nur materielle Gegebenheiten, sondern auch historische und politische Produkte. Diese Perspektive wird von Eagleton weitgehend ignoriert.
Ähnliches gilt für sein Kapitel über Natur und Kultur. Eagleton hat Recht, wenn er darauf hinweist, dass Kultur niemals außerhalb der Natur existiert. Jede kulturelle Praxis bleibt an materielle Bedingungen gebunden. Gleichzeitig verkennt er jedoch, wie tief Natur und Kultur heute ineinander verwoben sind. Seine Argumentation bleibt häufig bei einer Gegenüberstellung stehen, die neuere ökologische, posthumanistische und neomaterialistische Ansätze längst problematisiert haben.
Besonders irritierend erscheint dabei, dass Eagleton sich immer wieder auf Marx beruft, dabei aber zentrale Einsichten marxistischer Theorie selbst ausblendet. Marx hat gezeigt, dass gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse eine Eigenlogik entwickeln können, die sich den Absichten einzelner Akteure entzieht. Der Kapitalismus erscheint bei Marx gerade nicht als vollständig kontrollierbares System, sondern als eine Dynamik, die Menschen ebenso hervorbringt wie beherrscht. Genau diese Frage nach Autonomie, Emergenz und Eigendynamik materieller Prozesse findet sich auch im New Materialism wieder. Eagleton kritisiert solche Überlegungen scharf, obwohl sie an entscheidenden Punkten an Marx anschließen.
An dieser Stelle wird für mich die eigentliche Problematik des Buches sichtbar. Eagletons Ziel besteht nicht einfach darin, den Materialismus gegen seine Kritiker zu verteidigen. Sein Projekt zielt auf die Wiedergewinnung einer substanzontologischen Grundlage des Politischen. Materie soll wieder als reale, universale und stabile Basis menschlicher Existenz erscheinen, aus der sich politisches Handeln begründen lässt. Materialismus wird dadurch mit einem starken Begriff von Intentionalität verbunden.
Gerade hierin liegt jedoch die theoretische Schwäche des Buches.
Um diesen Zusammenhang von Ontologie und Intentionalität zu stabilisieren, muss Eagleton jene autonomen Dynamiken zurückweisen, die sich weder auf menschliche Absichten noch auf feste materielle Substanzen reduzieren lassen. Deshalb richtet sich seine Kritik nicht nur gegen den New Materialism, sondern gegen nahezu jede Theorie, die von Eigenlogiken, Emergenzen, Relationen oder selbstorganisierten Prozessen ausgeht.
Dabei gerät ausgerechnet eine Einsicht aus dem Blick, die bereits bei Marx selbst angelegt ist. Marx beschreibt den Kapitalismus nicht lediglich als Summe bewusster Handlungen einzelner Akteure. Vielmehr entwickelt das Kapital eine Eigendynamik, die sich den Absichten von Arbeitern ebenso wie denen von Kapitalisten entzieht. Der Kapitalismus erscheint gerade als ein autonomes gesellschaftliches Verhältnis, das seine Akteure hervorbringt und zugleich beherrscht.
Genau an diesem Punkt entsteht für mich ein fundamentaler Widerspruch. Eagleton möchte einen sozialistischen Materialismus verteidigen, blendet jedoch jene autonomen Prozesse aus, die Marx selbst analysiert hat. Was bei Marx als Eigendynamik gesellschaftlicher Verhältnisse erscheint, wird bei Eagleton zugunsten eines intentionalen Handelns zurückgedrängt.
Dies zeigt sich besonders deutlich in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Wittgenstein. Eagleton stellt die Lebensform gegen die Vorstellung autonomer Zeichensysteme. Bedeutung entsteht für ihn durch Gebrauch, Praxis und gemeinschaftliches Handeln. Das ist zunächst plausibel. Gleichzeitig unterschätzt er jedoch, dass sich sprachliche, kulturelle und ökonomische Systeme verselbstständigen können. Zeichen, Diskurse und Institutionen entwickeln Dynamiken, die nicht vollständig durch die Intentionen ihrer Akteure kontrolliert werden.
Genau hier treffen sich strukturalistische, poststrukturalistische und marxistische Einsichten. Die Frage lautet nicht, ob solche Prozesse existieren, sondern wie sie zu beschreiben sind. Wer sie ignoriert, erklärt zwar die Möglichkeit politischen Handelns, verliert aber aus dem Blick, warum Menschen so häufig an den Verhältnissen scheitern, die sie selbst hervorbringen.
Die Kapitel über Nietzsche und Wittgenstein gehören dennoch zu den interessantesten Teilen des Buches. Eagleton zeigt überzeugend, wie Nietzsche den Körper gegen idealistische Traditionen stark macht und wie Wittgenstein Bedeutung als soziale Praxis versteht. Paradoxerweise führen gerade diese Kapitel jedoch vor Augen, wie nahe manche seiner Einsichten denjenigen Denkern stehen, die er zuvor kritisiert hat. Wenn Bedeutung aus Handlungen, Lebensformen und sozialen Praktiken entsteht, dann befindet sich Eagleton wesentlich näher an konstruktivistischen und diskurstheoretischen Ansätzen, als ihm selbst lieb sein dürfte.
Letztlich verfolgt Eagleton ein nachvollziehbares Anliegen. Er möchte die materielle Grundlage menschlicher Existenz gegen jede Form eines entkörperlichten Denkens verteidigen und politische Handlungsfähigkeit zurückgewinnen. Dieses Anliegen ist wichtig und teilweise sogar notwendig. Das Problem besteht jedoch darin, dass er dieses Ziel um den Preis theoretischer Vereinfachungen verfolgt.
Paradoxerweise läuft Eagletons Versuch, einen politischen Materialismus zu retten, dadurch Gefahr, genau jene Mechanismen zu verdecken, die den Kapitalismus historisch so erfolgreich gemacht haben. Wer die Autonomie von Systemen, Diskursen und sozialen Dynamiken ignoriert, erklärt zwar die Möglichkeit intentionalen Handelns, verliert aber aus dem Blick, warum politische Akteure von Kräften bestimmt werden, die sich ihrer unmittelbaren Kontrolle entziehen.
Meine grundlegende Kritik lautet daher: Eagleton verteidigt einen Materialismus der Substanz und der Intention gegen einen Materialismus der Relationen, Dynamiken und Eigengesetzlichkeiten. Gerade dadurch wird sein Projekt theoretisch schwächer und politisch weniger radikal, als es sein Anspruch vermuten lässt. Sein Materialismus soll ein linkes Projekt retten. Ironischerweise läuft er dabei Gefahr, jene autonomen Prozesse unsichtbar zu machen, die marxistische Theorie ursprünglich sichtbar machen wollte.
So bleibt am Ende ein widersprüchliches Buch zurück: gelehrt, witzig, brillant geschrieben und voller anregender Beobachtungen, zugleich aber theoretisch überraschend einseitig. “Materialismus” ist weniger eine Einführung in aktuelle Materialismusdebatten als eine temperamentvolle Streitschrift für einen bestimmten Typus marxistischen Denkens. Wer sich auf diese Polemik einlässt, wird viele kluge Gedanken finden. Wer jedoch eine offene Auseinandersetzung mit den stärksten Gegenpositionen erwartet, dürfte enttäuscht werden.
[English]
I approached Terry Eagleton’s “Materialism” with great anticipation. Eagleton has long been one of the most stimulating Marxist intellectuals of our time. His “Literary Theory: An Introduction” and his writings on ideology have accompanied me for years. Although I disagree with many of his positions, especially where he criticizes post-structuralist approaches, I have always appreciated his ability to expose productive contradictions and formulate incisive criticisms.
Already in the preface, however, I found myself raising an eyebrow. Eagleton explicitly describes the book as a polemic. What initially appears to be a stylistic self-description soon becomes the book’s central problem. Polemic is not merely a rhetorical device here; at times it replaces argumentation altogether. The result is the impression of a scholar determined to challenge post-structuralist, constructivist, and deconstructive approaches to body, culture, nature, and language without seriously engaging their strongest arguments.
In the opening chapter, Eagleton addresses contemporary forms of materialism, particularly New Materialism. His observation that political and ethical concerns sometimes recede into the background within certain strands of contemporary materialism is certainly worth discussing. The problem arises when his critique rarely moves beyond exaggeration and ironic caricature. Instead of systematically addressing key theoretical disputes—such as the relationship between historical and dialectical materialism—he often resorts to examples designed to ridicule opposing positions. These passages can be amusing, but they do not amount to a serious engagement.
This pattern runs throughout the book. Eagleton’s brilliance as a writer is beyond question. Yet his rhetorical strength often becomes a weakness. Polemic overshadows the legitimate questions he wishes to raise. Rather than refuting his opponents, he frequently caricatures them. As a result, his critique loses much of its persuasive force.
This becomes particularly evident in his reflections on language and meaning. When Eagleton argues that meaning is no more invisible than using a can opener, the comparison misses precisely those dynamics that modern theories of language have sought to illuminate. Meaning is not simply produced through use; it is constantly reproduced, displaced, contested, and renegotiated. Discourses derive their power precisely from the fact that minor shifts in symbols, concepts, and practices can have far-reaching social consequences. The relationship between signs, meaning, and social reality cannot be reduced to immediately visible practices.
The chapter on body and soul is among the book’s stronger sections. Eagleton’s dialogue with phenomenology, Thomas Aquinas, Marx, and Wittgenstein is both original and thought-provoking. His insistence on the materiality of the body provides an important corrective to idealist conceptions of mind. Yet a striking contradiction emerges. Many of the insights he develops here resemble positions found within New Materialism itself—the very approach he previously mocked and dismissed.
Moreover, his conception of the body remains surprisingly static. While it is entirely reasonable to insist that bodies possess a material reality, Eagleton tends to underestimate the extent to which bodies are also culturally produced, disciplined, and shaped. The work of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault demonstrates that materiality and cultural formation cannot simply be separated. Bodies are not merely material givens; they are also historical and political products. This dimension is largely absent from Eagleton’s analysis.
A similar problem appears in his discussion of nature and culture. Eagleton is right to emphasize that culture never exists outside nature. Every cultural practice depends upon material conditions. Yet he underestimates how deeply nature and culture have become entangled. His argument often relies upon distinctions that ecological, posthumanist, and neomaterialist thinkers have long since problematized.
More troubling still is the way Eagleton invokes Marx while overlooking some of Marx’s most significant insights. Marx demonstrated that social relations develop their own internal logic, one that cannot be reduced to the intentions of individual actors. Capitalism appears in Marx not as a system fully controlled by human subjects but as a dynamic process that simultaneously produces and dominates them. Questions of autonomy, emergence, and self-organizing processes are therefore not foreign to Marxism; they are central to it. Yet these are precisely the kinds of processes that Eagleton repeatedly attacks.
At this point, the deeper problem of the book becomes visible. Eagleton’s aim is not simply to defend materialism against its critics. His project seeks to recover a substantial ontological foundation for politics. Matter is presented as a stable, universal, and objective basis of human existence from which political action can be grounded. Materialism thus becomes closely tied to a strong concept of intentionality.
This, however, is where I believe the book’s greatest weakness lies.
In order to stabilize the connection between ontology and intentional political action, Eagleton must reject autonomous dynamics that cannot be reduced either to human intentions or to fixed material substances. His critique is therefore directed not only against New Materialism but against almost every theoretical approach that emphasizes emergence, relationality, self-organization, or systemic autonomy.
Ironically, this means neglecting an insight already present in Marx himself. Marx did not describe capitalism merely as the sum of conscious human actions. Capital develops a dynamic of its own, one that escapes the intentions of both workers and capitalists alike. Capitalism emerges as an autonomous social relation that produces its subjects while simultaneously subordinating them.
Here, a fundamental contradiction appears. Eagleton seeks to defend a socialist materialism while sidelining precisely those autonomous processes that Marx himself analyzed. What Marx understood as the self-moving character of social relations is reduced in Eagleton’s account to a framework centered upon intentional action.
This becomes especially apparent in his reading of Wittgenstein. Eagleton opposes autonomous systems of signs by emphasizing forms of life. Meaning arises through use, practice, and shared activity. This is initially persuasive. Yet he underestimates the extent to which linguistic, cultural, and economic systems can acquire a relative autonomy of their own. Signs, discourses, and institutions develop dynamics that are not fully controlled by the intentions of their participants.
It is precisely here that structuralist, post-structuralist, and Marxist insights converge. The question is not whether such autonomous processes exist, but how they should be understood. Ignoring them may preserve the possibility of intentional political action, but it obscures why human beings so often become trapped within the very systems they create.
The chapters on Nietzsche and Wittgenstein remain among the most engaging parts of the book. Eagleton convincingly demonstrates how Nietzsche challenges idealism through the body and how Wittgenstein roots meaning in social practice. Yet these chapters also reveal how close Eagleton often comes to the very thinkers he criticizes. If meaning emerges from practices, forms of life, and social interaction, then Eagleton stands much closer to constructivist and discourse-theoretical approaches than he seems willing to admit.
Ultimately, Eagleton pursues a legitimate and important goal. He wants to defend the material foundations of human existence against forms of thought that risk becoming detached from embodied reality. He also seeks to recover the possibility of political agency. Both ambitions are understandable and, in many respects, necessary.
The problem is that he pursues these goals at the cost of theoretical complexity.
Paradoxically, Eagleton’s attempt to rescue political materialism risks obscuring the very mechanisms that have made capitalism so powerful. By denying the autonomy of systems, discourses, and social dynamics, he safeguards intentional action but loses sight of the forces that shape human behavior beyond immediate control.
My fundamental criticism, therefore, is this: Eagleton defends a materialism of substance and intention against a materialism of relations, dynamics, and emergent processes. In doing so, his project becomes both theoretically weaker and politically less radical than it intends to be. His materialism aims to save a socialist political project. Ironically, it risks rendering invisible precisely those autonomous processes that Marxist critique originally sought to expose.
The result is a deeply contradictory book: learned, witty, brilliantly written, and often intellectually stimulating, yet also surprisingly one-sided in its theoretical commitments. “Materialism” is less an introduction to contemporary debates on materialism than a spirited defense of one particular strand of Marxist thought. Readers willing to engage its polemical style will find many valuable insights. Those seeking an open engagement with the strongest opposing arguments may leave disappointed.
July 20, 2021
I'm generally very sympathetic with Eagleton's account of "somatic" materialism, especially as explored through the intersections of Wittgenstein, Marx, and Aquinas. Eagleton teases out some of these connections in very interesting and insightful ways, but at times the highlighting of superfluous or irrelevant connections takes priority over more extensive treatment of the most fruitful connections. This gives the book a bit of a messy feeling, which is matched with Eagleton's wandering prose. He jumps from topic to topic to topic without much reflection on how those steps are being made (or why they are important). This book, I suspect, would benefit from a tad more structure and direction.
March 25, 2018
Having read Eagleton before (in a number of contexts, on a number of subjects), I come to MATERIALISM without any illusions that I am likely to agree w/ everything the man says. Though I am absolutely a materialist myself, I did not read this book simply hoping to have my beliefs ratified. I expected lucid and lively writing on subjects that interest me. Plus: it is not every day a book crosses one's path that groups Marx, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein together. Eagleton is interested in a practical kind of materialism. He is steadfastly not interested in ontology. In point of fact, he routinely conflates ontology w/ metaphysics, as though ontology were simply doing metaphysics by more sneaky and invidious means. In a blustery take-down of Gilles Deleuze (full disclosure: Deleuze is the philosopher I prize above all others), Eagleton straight-out calls him a metaphysician, a characterization I find a little perplexing. Certainly if Deleuze is a metaphysician by virtue of his ontology, then so is Nietzsche. While Eagleton is happy to go on at length about the Will to Power as a kind of practical matter in the realm of political and social relations, he very rarely mentions "force," and certainly refrains from acknowledging that Nietzsche would seem to fully formulate an ontology of force. Predictably, Eagleton also casts scorn upon vitalists. (Later in the book he further misrepresents Deleuze - obviously thinking of the work done in concert w/ Guattari - by stating that Deleuze advocates for "the free reign of one's instincts," an incorrect and all-too-common assertion that Deleuze has directly and convincingly repudiated.) Eagleton tellingly wants to attribute to Marx a belief in "historical materialism," placing responsibility for "dialectical materialism" (and its desire to make bigger and broader claims) on Engels. What Eagleton really wants to say is very simple: everything is somatic (a particular kind of way of relating to the body), and that language and consciousness and soul (if we wish to go that far) are extensions of practices based in somatic engagement w/ forms of life (sociality). That the book begins w/ a jeremiad against the tendency in our poststructuralist age to elaborate the constructedness of all things is curious since ultimately "constructing" our world is pretty much what our "forms of life" do (Wittgenstein clearly sees this, but to him it is far less problematic in and of itself than is wayward philosophy, a field populated w/ false idols in need of taking down). Of the three philosophers already mentioned, Marx is treated w/ the most reverence (and no small amount of baffling naïveté). (Thomas Aquinas is also dealt w/ at length in a way that is reverent and actually quite fruitful.) Eagleton calls out the poststructuralists for overlooking the ugly (political) side of Nietzsche only to overcompensate and give us a very ugly Nietzsche indeed (this is a philosopher of contradictions and some pretty bizarre nuances that are nuances all the same). Wittgenstein comes off as a very confused and not particularly self-aware man, though it must be conceded that Eagleton sums him up marvelously in the last two sentences of the book. Because Eagleton is aware that common sense is often wrong, what he wants to present us w/ is something slightly better than common sense but as close to it as possible. His outright mockery of spirituality (which is simple-minded and serves no purpose) and his general tendency to be a smart-ass are unattractive. Of course, he is famous for absurdist metaphors, analogies, and examples. While they can be funny, they wreak havoc w/ his tone. The book is often more useful and wise than my review may suggest. However, its liabilities are clearly substantial.
April 7, 2017
Hotel chocolat
A new Terry Eagleton book is like a box of handmade chocolates. Full of revealing moments and a treat throughout and when finished there's little to show for it but the memory of the pleasure of eating/reading it. His style is so clear you can almost skim through hair raising philosophical assertions and exegesis without pausing to draw breath as it were, to assimilate the material I suppose I mean. This is due also to the authority in his style. At any rate for those of us who value the intellect it is an invitation to spend a few hours with some of the greats, in close proximity thanks to Eagleton's unswerving instinct for what's really at issue. Anyone familiar with his (recent) work will recognise the talent reviewed in this volume, Aquinas, Marx, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche, with ref. to Freud and the Frankfurt school among others. An absolute pleasure.
A new Terry Eagleton book is like a box of handmade chocolates. Full of revealing moments and a treat throughout and when finished there's little to show for it but the memory of the pleasure of eating/reading it. His style is so clear you can almost skim through hair raising philosophical assertions and exegesis without pausing to draw breath as it were, to assimilate the material I suppose I mean. This is due also to the authority in his style. At any rate for those of us who value the intellect it is an invitation to spend a few hours with some of the greats, in close proximity thanks to Eagleton's unswerving instinct for what's really at issue. Anyone familiar with his (recent) work will recognise the talent reviewed in this volume, Aquinas, Marx, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche, with ref. to Freud and the Frankfurt school among others. An absolute pleasure.
November 26, 2021
Honestly, this book probably deserves a higher score, it just wasn't what I thought it'd be. As a dialectical and historical materialist, I thought this would be focused on things a little more tangible than it was. Instead, this book is more about applying different types of materialism to a variety of philosophical issues. Not a bad book by any means, and there were some parts I did very much enjoy (like when he compared Marx and Nietzsche's styles of materialism), but there were other parts I simply was not very interested in. If the way I described the book sounds interesting to you, though, this is definitely a book to check out. Eagleton is a great writer and clearly understands the thinkers he analyzes quite well.
May 28, 2023
I don’t really know what historical or dialectical materialisms are, even though so much of my politics refer to those all the time. I was hoping this book will enlighten me and show me in opposition to what exactly does historical materialism stand. To some degree it’s done that, but I have a feeling all of the material in this book actually defining and systematically discussing the different materialisms can be collated and better presented as a tiktok. As much as I found it a very pleasant and interesting read, there are whole chapters of this book which seem to have not much to do with the title. Terry Eagleton’s style is amazing though and I’ll certainly be coming back to his books soon.
Did Not Finish
February 6, 2022Got 14 pages into this, and decided I had no interest in continuing to read it. I’ve read another Eagleton book (and didn’t care for it), and abandoned another, so this makes two of his works that I quit on. I guess I just don’t like his stuff. Only reason I even attempted this one is that it is to be discussed at the next meeting of a “philosophy reading group” that I pretty much don’t participate in anyway.
I’m pretty sure, in the exceedingly unlikely event that I ever wrote a book, that Terry Eagleton wouldn’t like my book either.
I’m pretty sure, in the exceedingly unlikely event that I ever wrote a book, that Terry Eagleton wouldn’t like my book either.
March 20, 2017
I'm not 100% sure I agree with everything in the book, but because it's a sort of overview of the materialist thought of three thinkers (Marx, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein) and I'm woefully unqualified to say whether or not Eagleton has interpreted them correctly, I can only say that his prose is fairly accessible, light and charming.
I was, I must admit, at times somewhat annoyed by Eagleton's constant joking. I realize this makes me seem like an enormous pile of wet blankets but it was to the point where it was almost distracting. Perhaps I would have been less miffed if they had all landed. Many of them did! Hence the 5 star review. But still. One needn't always be "on," after all.
I was, I must admit, at times somewhat annoyed by Eagleton's constant joking. I realize this makes me seem like an enormous pile of wet blankets but it was to the point where it was almost distracting. Perhaps I would have been less miffed if they had all landed. Many of them did! Hence the 5 star review. But still. One needn't always be "on," after all.
April 10, 2017
The thread linking Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Friedrich Nietzsche to Karl Marx may seem tenuous to many, but with typical verve and bravura and not a little waspish humour Eagleton has made these connections in his defence of materialism and critique of the metaphysical. In the preface he nails his colours to the mast of “unabashed universalism” which he hopes will scandalise “only those postmodern dogmatists for whom all universal claims are oppressive”.
In his discussion of different forms of materialism he provides one of the clearest definitions of the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism: “The world is a dynamic complex of interlocking forces in which all phenomena are interrelated, nothing stays still, quantity converts into quality, no absolutes are available, everything is perpetually turning into its opposite and reality evolves through the unity of conflicting powers.”
Full review: socialistreview.org.uk/423/materialism
In his discussion of different forms of materialism he provides one of the clearest definitions of the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism: “The world is a dynamic complex of interlocking forces in which all phenomena are interrelated, nothing stays still, quantity converts into quality, no absolutes are available, everything is perpetually turning into its opposite and reality evolves through the unity of conflicting powers.”
Full review: socialistreview.org.uk/423/materialism
October 29, 2017
Eagleton is always interesting and the evolution of his career is a map of the twists and turns of the history of cultural theory. This is one of a number of his recent works that are handbooks or primers on large topics. This is a not unrewarding summary view of materialisms various guises and a deeper look at key thinkers. But I found it just a bit too glib and facile - Eagleton is not as funny as he thinks he is. Would have preferred a more workmanlike approach to a subject that indeed defines the nature of man's work. I thought the chapter on Nietzsche was excellent but that might be because I know little about him. Also, this ends v abruptly. Again, could have used a prosaic but useful summation.
June 24, 2023
I will have to come clean that I am not a materialist. Well, kind of. I am a Christian but one who is influenced by certain thinkers such as Marx who are materialists. However, materialism offers an interesting view of the universe. In many ways, I am 40% of an idealist and 60% of a materialist. So what problems do I have with this book?
Terry Eagleton's book Materialism attempts to give an overview of the ideals (no pun intended) of materialism. The chapter Materialisms argues there are multiple different materialist theories. The chapter Do Badgers Have Souls looks at souls and spirituality; the chapter Emancipating The Senses looks at Marx's philosophy; High Spirits looks at Nietzsche's philosophy; The Rough Ground looks at Wittgenstein.
The first chapter appears to be quite jumbled, jumping between different materialist theories. It leaps from Dialectical Materialism, Reductive Determinism to make quite a convoluted chapter. The pick of Neitzche, Marx and Wittgenstein to be the benchmarks of materialism seems rather odd. Marx is a good pick, but where areDavid Hume, Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes? I also did not agree with the Zizek citation that Zizek claims that Lord of The Rings is a materialist book. Tolkien was a Catholic and much of the book is about spiritual beings (Sauron and Gandalf are both angels). To claim the book is about materialism seems to be reading ideas into books.
Materialism as the basis of reality is looked at but more so for the basis of society. Problems with the materialist world view have arisen in recent times. For example, subquantum theory has raised doubts as to the material causality on the micro-level. Research into quarks has found observation affects the outcome of experiments. With the famous Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, the cat is both dead and alive at the exact same time. Likewise, the theory about the world being a simulation has emerged from theorists such as Rizwan Virk. Materialism can give good answers about society but challenged by the emergents of new ideas.
The other consideration is the idea that material conditions affect ideas. But then again, this could be challenged by history itself. The English Civil Wars can be seen as being caused by material conditions such as weather and the emergence of new social classes. However, Christian theology was certainly a factor. The clash of Calvinism and Arminianism seen in the Parliamentarian and Royalist forces can be seen as a factor that cannot be ignored. In fact the Bishop Wars was entirely caused by religious differences; not to mention the 30 Years War.
History is littered with examples of how religions and philosophies shape the society and economic structures. For example, the dominance of materialist and empiricist thinkers in English philosophy (Bacon, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Smith) may be due to the dominance of Calvinist Protestant thinking in 16th-18th England and Scotland which focused on the sovereignty of God, cessationism and determinism rather than Catholic theology, which is much more idealistic with free will and supernatural aspects. This is in fact a thesis that is put forward in the book The World Turned Upside Down, in which the author links Calvinism to the rise of Atheism in the Western world. The Reformation, Renaissance and Englightenment Periods were ideal in that they were societal reordering based on new ideas and material, based on new technologies. Max Weber puts forward that rather than changes in social relationships gave rise to capitalism, that it was theology or specifically the rise of Protestantism that gave birth to capitalism. Hence, to think that existence can be boiled down purely to material conditions isn't exactly accurate. What I think is happening is an interplay between ideas and material factors that makes the world appear complex in whether the world is primarily ideal or material.
Furthermore language is interesting in that the argument put forward by Eagleton is that language is material. But this is assumptive to view language as being the construction of sounds and words as being material in origin. But other idealist philosophies have it different. In John's Gospel, the word being Logos meaning Jesus echoes Greek philosophy in that rationality and language are constructs of a logic that John points to being Jesus. If Christian theology is to be believed language is the essence of God himself, the triune of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that lived before the world and reality was created. A non-Christian would disagree with that being the case but may nevertheless believe that language is eternal. A Muslim believes language is eternal because the Qur'an is an eternal book and so language must have existed before the world was created. Whether language is or isn't material depends on the assumptions of the philosophical theory.
Language itself shapes the reality. Bridges are beautiful or strong depending on whether the word for bridge is feminine or masculine. This itself is an example in history. Abstract versus concrete nouns give rise as to whether meaning exists. Socialism isn't anything in itself. But what about love or nothing? Is a beautiful sunset an actual thing because beautiful is a meaningless idea?
So what is my overall problem with the book? I think the problem is that Eagleton tries to boil down a complex philosophical theory of the world (materialism) to three philosophers. I suspect calling the book "Three Materialists in a Bar" wouldn't be catchy but that is what it's about. The first chapter seems too disorganised as to give materialism a good understanding. Perhaps I am being too harsh on the book. I put it down to the name Materialism; but is that an idea or material thing?
Terry Eagleton's book Materialism attempts to give an overview of the ideals (no pun intended) of materialism. The chapter Materialisms argues there are multiple different materialist theories. The chapter Do Badgers Have Souls looks at souls and spirituality; the chapter Emancipating The Senses looks at Marx's philosophy; High Spirits looks at Nietzsche's philosophy; The Rough Ground looks at Wittgenstein.
The first chapter appears to be quite jumbled, jumping between different materialist theories. It leaps from Dialectical Materialism, Reductive Determinism to make quite a convoluted chapter. The pick of Neitzche, Marx and Wittgenstein to be the benchmarks of materialism seems rather odd. Marx is a good pick, but where areDavid Hume, Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes? I also did not agree with the Zizek citation that Zizek claims that Lord of The Rings is a materialist book. Tolkien was a Catholic and much of the book is about spiritual beings (Sauron and Gandalf are both angels). To claim the book is about materialism seems to be reading ideas into books.
Materialism as the basis of reality is looked at but more so for the basis of society. Problems with the materialist world view have arisen in recent times. For example, subquantum theory has raised doubts as to the material causality on the micro-level. Research into quarks has found observation affects the outcome of experiments. With the famous Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, the cat is both dead and alive at the exact same time. Likewise, the theory about the world being a simulation has emerged from theorists such as Rizwan Virk. Materialism can give good answers about society but challenged by the emergents of new ideas.
The other consideration is the idea that material conditions affect ideas. But then again, this could be challenged by history itself. The English Civil Wars can be seen as being caused by material conditions such as weather and the emergence of new social classes. However, Christian theology was certainly a factor. The clash of Calvinism and Arminianism seen in the Parliamentarian and Royalist forces can be seen as a factor that cannot be ignored. In fact the Bishop Wars was entirely caused by religious differences; not to mention the 30 Years War.
History is littered with examples of how religions and philosophies shape the society and economic structures. For example, the dominance of materialist and empiricist thinkers in English philosophy (Bacon, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Smith) may be due to the dominance of Calvinist Protestant thinking in 16th-18th England and Scotland which focused on the sovereignty of God, cessationism and determinism rather than Catholic theology, which is much more idealistic with free will and supernatural aspects. This is in fact a thesis that is put forward in the book The World Turned Upside Down, in which the author links Calvinism to the rise of Atheism in the Western world. The Reformation, Renaissance and Englightenment Periods were ideal in that they were societal reordering based on new ideas and material, based on new technologies. Max Weber puts forward that rather than changes in social relationships gave rise to capitalism, that it was theology or specifically the rise of Protestantism that gave birth to capitalism. Hence, to think that existence can be boiled down purely to material conditions isn't exactly accurate. What I think is happening is an interplay between ideas and material factors that makes the world appear complex in whether the world is primarily ideal or material.
Furthermore language is interesting in that the argument put forward by Eagleton is that language is material. But this is assumptive to view language as being the construction of sounds and words as being material in origin. But other idealist philosophies have it different. In John's Gospel, the word being Logos meaning Jesus echoes Greek philosophy in that rationality and language are constructs of a logic that John points to being Jesus. If Christian theology is to be believed language is the essence of God himself, the triune of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that lived before the world and reality was created. A non-Christian would disagree with that being the case but may nevertheless believe that language is eternal. A Muslim believes language is eternal because the Qur'an is an eternal book and so language must have existed before the world was created. Whether language is or isn't material depends on the assumptions of the philosophical theory.
Language itself shapes the reality. Bridges are beautiful or strong depending on whether the word for bridge is feminine or masculine. This itself is an example in history. Abstract versus concrete nouns give rise as to whether meaning exists. Socialism isn't anything in itself. But what about love or nothing? Is a beautiful sunset an actual thing because beautiful is a meaningless idea?
So what is my overall problem with the book? I think the problem is that Eagleton tries to boil down a complex philosophical theory of the world (materialism) to three philosophers. I suspect calling the book "Three Materialists in a Bar" wouldn't be catchy but that is what it's about. The first chapter seems too disorganised as to give materialism a good understanding. Perhaps I am being too harsh on the book. I put it down to the name Materialism; but is that an idea or material thing?
July 9, 2019
ماتریالیسم نوشته تری ایگلتون با ترجمه رحمان بوذری از نشر مرکز رو خوندم
May 15, 2021
Awful, awful stuff. Verbose to the point of being impenetrable. Reading this is like talking to a fella who takes far too long to get to the point of his story.
January 5, 2022
Nietzsche was a total freak (philosophy-wise). I can’t believe they still teach him in philosophy courses, but avoid Hegel like the plague.
December 17, 2020
Eagleton has a creative and fluid writing style, which allows him to express ideas effectively and to entertain his readers. It's clear he's an English professor--I certainly learned a few words from reading this book. He makes many interesting philosophical connections, from Marx and Aquinas to Nietzche and Wittgenstein, all contrasted to express his view of materialism. A problem however is that this view is a little hard to follow, and by the end, the conversation seems less about materialism and more about... linguistics and materialism? I got a little lost I suppose, probably because I know nothing about Wittgenstein, who's a very influential figure in this book. But there's a lot Eagleton expresses here. From connecting the body to politics to examining the body's relation to consciousness, Eagleton's overview of materialist thinking is provocative and insightful. That success aside, a problem I had was the ideological bend of this book, which made the first chapter very difficult to read. Eagleton spends a lot of time disparaging postmodernism and adjacent philosophical currents, under labels such as "idealists", "new materialists", etc. At its most extreme he compares Deleuze's views with Gnosticism. Now I'm no postmodernist, but it seems like Eagleton's out for blood here--he begins disparaging postmodernism from the first paragraph--and it often makes his portrayals of his framed opponents a bit inaccurate. Once he gets away from these topics and in his intellectual comfort zone, the bias wanes down, and the book becomes an enjoyable read. Judging from his comments and intellectual references it's pretty evident Eagleton is some kind of Christian, but it doesn't distort the book, and I find his takes on the matter pretty interesting. All in all, I certainly learned quite a bit from this little book, which has a lot to say and can be very humorous at times (his quips at Nietzche are especially funny). This book is a worthwhile read and I may come back to Eagleton again.
June 23, 2024
Pues éste es el libro que acabé ayer… Tal vez lo mejor sería comenzar con una confesión: no sé nada de filosofía. No tengo una mínima capacidad para entender la mayoría de los conceptos con los que trabaja el lenguaje filosófico, y menos aún, entender un discurso en el que se entremezclan para transmitir una idea elaborada. No puedo atender las fuentes primeras de la filosofía, es decir, leer y entender cualquiera de los muchos libros escritos por los muchos filósofos que ha habido y hay en la historia de la humanidad. Creo que para hacerlo hay que tener unos estudios elementales previos, que la vayan recorriendo desde sus inicios, en sus idas y vueltas, sus meandros y bifurcaciones. Y éste no es mi caso. Lo que me explicaron -de aquella manera- cuando era un bachiller, quedó enterrado y olvidado y de poco o nada me sirvió entonces y, menos aún, me sirve ahora.
Sin embargo, me gusta la filosofía. Esa manera que tenemos en la civilización occidental de explicarnos el mundo, la vida. Y por eso me gustan los libros que la ponen al alcance de gente como yo de una manera elemental, la “vulgarizan” (en el mejor de los sentidos de la palabra, es decir, la esclarecen al vulgo, a la plebe).
MATERIALISMO ha conseguido que -más o menos- salga de mi ignorancia de lo que significa este concepto en la filosofía. Que entienda su significado básico y sus significados diversos según los filósofos que lo utilizan y según los adjetivos que le dan al concepto. Y todo ello después de una cuidadosa y elaborada introducción para luego centrarse en tres de los referentes filosóficos en los que dicho concepto tiene un papel fundamental en la elaboración de su pensamiento filosófico: Marx, Nietzsche, y Wittgenstein. … Y encima, de tanto en tanto, te ríes con las reflexiones colaterales del autor: Terry Eagleton.
Si tienes algún interés en el tema, éste, tal vez, sea tu libro
Sin embargo, me gusta la filosofía. Esa manera que tenemos en la civilización occidental de explicarnos el mundo, la vida. Y por eso me gustan los libros que la ponen al alcance de gente como yo de una manera elemental, la “vulgarizan” (en el mejor de los sentidos de la palabra, es decir, la esclarecen al vulgo, a la plebe).
MATERIALISMO ha conseguido que -más o menos- salga de mi ignorancia de lo que significa este concepto en la filosofía. Que entienda su significado básico y sus significados diversos según los filósofos que lo utilizan y según los adjetivos que le dan al concepto. Y todo ello después de una cuidadosa y elaborada introducción para luego centrarse en tres de los referentes filosóficos en los que dicho concepto tiene un papel fundamental en la elaboración de su pensamiento filosófico: Marx, Nietzsche, y Wittgenstein. … Y encima, de tanto en tanto, te ríes con las reflexiones colaterales del autor: Terry Eagleton.
Si tienes algún interés en el tema, éste, tal vez, sea tu libro
July 8, 2020
Somewhere between 3 and 4 stars.
The author starts the book off by polemicizing postmodernist positions regarding the 'body' and early on brings in proponents of New Materialism, who are seeped in postmodernism, contrasting them with Materialists of the garden-variety. The author also provides a cursory overview of the different branches of materialism - from dialectical and historical to cultural, speculative, and so on. All of this happens in the first chapter, so the pace of presenting ideas is quick and the level of engagement with each type of materialism is brief.
In later chapters, I felt that the increasing focus on the philosophers, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Marx, and how and where they differed among one another, while very interesting and well done, shifted the focus from understanding materialism, the concept, into a comparative study and dialogue between the three philosophers with quite differing thoughts and positions. This is not a bad thing per se, it can be quite illuminating and interesting to see connections made between such different thinkers. But for those with less of an understanding and grasp, it can be somewhat disorienting and confusing. Nevertheless, it's still an interesting read and Eagleton's writing style is fresh, airy, and light which doesn't make this book a chore to read.
The author starts the book off by polemicizing postmodernist positions regarding the 'body' and early on brings in proponents of New Materialism, who are seeped in postmodernism, contrasting them with Materialists of the garden-variety. The author also provides a cursory overview of the different branches of materialism - from dialectical and historical to cultural, speculative, and so on. All of this happens in the first chapter, so the pace of presenting ideas is quick and the level of engagement with each type of materialism is brief.
In later chapters, I felt that the increasing focus on the philosophers, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Marx, and how and where they differed among one another, while very interesting and well done, shifted the focus from understanding materialism, the concept, into a comparative study and dialogue between the three philosophers with quite differing thoughts and positions. This is not a bad thing per se, it can be quite illuminating and interesting to see connections made between such different thinkers. But for those with less of an understanding and grasp, it can be somewhat disorienting and confusing. Nevertheless, it's still an interesting read and Eagleton's writing style is fresh, airy, and light which doesn't make this book a chore to read.
June 18, 2022
A great short work on materialism, with some focus on what he calls 'somatic or anthropological' materialism:
The text covers Marx the most, but also has an abbreviated history of the idea, and a chapter each for Nietzsche and Wittgenstein (both of whom I never thought of as materialists before). Eagleton is a lively, breezy writer, even on such a dense topic as this.
Reason Of knowledge may thus be modelled in part on the body, a mode of cognition which is taken to be more primitive and dependable than the mind. I can know where my elbow is any given moment without needing to use a compass. We have tacit knowledge of the life-world in much the same way that we are intimate with our own flesh. Neither can be totalised or fully objectified, whatever the rationalists may hubristially imagine. As Merleau-Ponty observes, our body 'provides us with a way of access to the world and the object . . . which has to be recognized as original and perhaps primary.' There is a type of somatic understanding which is not reducible to so-called mental representations.
The text covers Marx the most, but also has an abbreviated history of the idea, and a chapter each for Nietzsche and Wittgenstein (both of whom I never thought of as materialists before). Eagleton is a lively, breezy writer, even on such a dense topic as this.
October 27, 2025
This book was very interesting but I came away with a number more questions than answers. I also feel it lacks a satisfying conclusion instead choosing to mosey about with its chapter on Wittgenstein and end there. If I were Mr Eagleton’s editor I would’ve suggest to break up this chapter and write a more condensed conclusion to this book that (briefly) sums up the knowledge gained.
The actual content of this book is great though, I feel like I have a better understanding of the breadth of materialism even if I lack a simple definition for it. Mr Eagleton very much shows his bias as a Marxist but I found it more useful than distracting. I did think his overview of Marx was rife with isms and (to me) incomprehensible phrases whereas his overview of Nietzche was enlightening.
I would give this book a strong recommendation.
The actual content of this book is great though, I feel like I have a better understanding of the breadth of materialism even if I lack a simple definition for it. Mr Eagleton very much shows his bias as a Marxist but I found it more useful than distracting. I did think his overview of Marx was rife with isms and (to me) incomprehensible phrases whereas his overview of Nietzche was enlightening.
I would give this book a strong recommendation.
June 7, 2019
Smart book read by a guy with the potential to be smart if I ever stop being so dumb. Doy. Eagleton, as always, pops jokes in wherever he feels a break is needed. It helps. I need a lot of breaks. A pretty fascinating overview of materialism by way of breaking down Marx, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein, though I am most certainly a novice when it comes to philosophy. Still, a rousing read. And, coming from a Marxist, I can say that I will forever appreciate Terry and his heart which pumps blood only to the left side of his body.
Read
May 12, 2021Can’t make it past the first chapter; Eagleton is simultaneously too simplistic and too obtuse, too opinionated and too tempered. It makes for a kind of introductory text that is, for all its attempted accessibility, less stimulating than a paragraph of the postmodern scribbling it so despises. The subtly and intellectual curiosity of critical work on people like Deleuze and Spinoza is lost to Eagleton hitting you over the head with a hammer. I’d hate for this book to be some readers’ first introduction to some of these thinkers, who are far more nuanced than it allows.
October 20, 2017
Reading Terry Eagleton is like listening to Bad Religion. Both turn out works like clockwork every 18 months that are reliably powerful and entertaining. Both have a tendency to be somewhat predictable in their turns of phrase, but that is part of their charm. In Materialism Eagleton makes a case for historical materialism and pokes fun at wilder variants like dialectical materialism. A nice corrective to the reigning anti-universalistic bent of much of the academy nowadays.
October 30, 2017
what a fun little volume!
Eagleton is a delight to read here. He definitely surprised me by talking so much about the materialist St. Thomas Aquinas. A good antidote to knee-jerk reaction against the idea of materialism as Eagleton considers the good and bad conclusions the 3 individuals on the front cover came to whilst espousing this belief.
Eagleton is a delight to read here. He definitely surprised me by talking so much about the materialist St. Thomas Aquinas. A good antidote to knee-jerk reaction against the idea of materialism as Eagleton considers the good and bad conclusions the 3 individuals on the front cover came to whilst espousing this belief.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews