Yukiko Nagata Ms.Snyder
Religions of Asia: Karl Marx on Religion 9/18/2007
Marx’s point of view toward religion is very negative and critical. He believes that when men are given a divine figure to look up to, they loose touch with reality. In other words, religions make people accept a bad life situation instead of trying to change it. However, it is not correct to call religion the “opiate of the people” because people find religions personal, significant and reliable in order to overcome many difficulties that they face during their lives.
Marx said that religions take away from who you really are and teach humans to deal with the situation instead of attempting to change it. This is true in some situations in the history. For instance, when people from Europe came to and colonized America needed slaves, they used Christianity as a tool and an excuse. They said that coming to America to work and starting to believe in Christianity would help them, the African Americans, overcome their struggles and bring better futures. However, this is not true in the real life. When encountering a challenging situation, people often times reflect back on their own beliefs based on their religions and try their best to change the situation instead of attempting to just deal with the situations.
Marx also said that a happiness which people get from religion is a fake happiness; thus if they gave up religion, then they can struggle against the bad condition that makes them need religion. However, this idea is incorrect because people depend on their religions to make significant decisions, to think about things that they don’t know or aren’t scientifically proven, and to deal with death. Believing in and contemplating on one’s own make the person feel very tranquil and sincere.
In short, although Marx point of made much more sense in the past history, it is hard to apply his beliefs to the lives in the modern life. People see religions as something that they can always rely on to seek who they really are.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Marx on Religion
Religion is a very personal belief for most people. People have different views on their God or Gods and how or why people and the earth are here. During certain time periods, in many places, religion has been the “opium of the people”. It is incorrect, however, for Marx to apply his theory on the purpose and use of religion to all of mankind.
When Marx first spoke of his theory on religion, his argument held more validity than it does today. Marx was not solely attacking religion, but also the then current use of religion by the upper class to suppress the lower class. Marxism or communism, in theory actually resembles many religions. In an ideal communist society (which has yet to be created) all people would be more or less equal. In many religions, all people are equal in God’s eyes. Marx was criticizing his own theory when he called religion “the opium of the people” and ironically foreshadowing how communism would actually turn out.
Marx seems to be especially concerned about the way in which people are dependent on religion, either for answer as to their inability to succeed or their continual failure. When Marx calls religion “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions” and “the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality” he is implying that religion does not exist the way in which most people think it does. Marx is saying that religion is not the source of answers or salvation, but that it is the face of social deceptions. While again, in some cases this is true, Marx has neglected to recognize the fact that for many people religion doesn’t need to be answers or salvation; it just needs to be hope.
When Marx first spoke of his theory on religion, his argument held more validity than it does today. Marx was not solely attacking religion, but also the then current use of religion by the upper class to suppress the lower class. Marxism or communism, in theory actually resembles many religions. In an ideal communist society (which has yet to be created) all people would be more or less equal. In many religions, all people are equal in God’s eyes. Marx was criticizing his own theory when he called religion “the opium of the people” and ironically foreshadowing how communism would actually turn out.
Marx seems to be especially concerned about the way in which people are dependent on religion, either for answer as to their inability to succeed or their continual failure. When Marx calls religion “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions” and “the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality” he is implying that religion does not exist the way in which most people think it does. Marx is saying that religion is not the source of answers or salvation, but that it is the face of social deceptions. While again, in some cases this is true, Marx has neglected to recognize the fact that for many people religion doesn’t need to be answers or salvation; it just needs to be hope.
Flaws in Marx's view towards religion
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” –Karl Marx
Marx expresses his critical view towards the role of religion in Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. He opens with a statement saying that “criticism of religion is the prerequisite for all criticism”. However, I personally do not agree completely with Marx’s view on religion— while it is true that man made religion, he is wrong in his generalization that religions is the “opium” of the people for religion leads people to the right path.
Marx persists his opinion, which is influenced by Feuerbach, that people see themselves as helpless and depend upon a highly powerful figure. By being religious, people are not aware of the world they are living it, but are secured in a false way which leads them to accept their current unworthy status. Moreover, Marx insists that since religion is a creation based on human needs, it is the “general theory of this world … and [the world’s] general basis of consolation and justification”. Following his logic leads to “criticism of religion as the prerequisite of all criticism” and the destruction of religion as a crucial step in freeing oneself from all of social evils.
Despite Marx’s seemingly persuasive argument against religion, his ideas are generalized and overlook the benefits of religions. While it is true that people depend on religion for security matters, Marx is wrong in his claim that “struggle against the religion is indirectly the struggle against the world”. He viewed economy as the source of social evils and church as an institution dependent upon the materialistic gains in order to smoothly run the organization. Marx’s opinion of religion and church is too simplified as he tries to find an answer to the problem of the society— why do some prosper while others suffer in poverty and why aren’t workers enraged by their current status?
Religion also has more to offer to people than have harmful effects. As mentioned above, people depend on religion for security reasons— people need something to rely on to alleviate concerns and anger. Marx views this as the opiate aspect of religion, but religion gives people hopes and importance of everyday life.
Marx’s pessimistic view on religion as the “opium” of people is invalid. He failed to see the benefits people can get from having a religion and over simplified the religion as a tool of manipulating the poor.
Marx expresses his critical view towards the role of religion in Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. He opens with a statement saying that “criticism of religion is the prerequisite for all criticism”. However, I personally do not agree completely with Marx’s view on religion— while it is true that man made religion, he is wrong in his generalization that religions is the “opium” of the people for religion leads people to the right path.
Marx persists his opinion, which is influenced by Feuerbach, that people see themselves as helpless and depend upon a highly powerful figure. By being religious, people are not aware of the world they are living it, but are secured in a false way which leads them to accept their current unworthy status. Moreover, Marx insists that since religion is a creation based on human needs, it is the “general theory of this world … and [the world’s] general basis of consolation and justification”. Following his logic leads to “criticism of religion as the prerequisite of all criticism” and the destruction of religion as a crucial step in freeing oneself from all of social evils.
Despite Marx’s seemingly persuasive argument against religion, his ideas are generalized and overlook the benefits of religions. While it is true that people depend on religion for security matters, Marx is wrong in his claim that “struggle against the religion is indirectly the struggle against the world”. He viewed economy as the source of social evils and church as an institution dependent upon the materialistic gains in order to smoothly run the organization. Marx’s opinion of religion and church is too simplified as he tries to find an answer to the problem of the society— why do some prosper while others suffer in poverty and why aren’t workers enraged by their current status?
Religion also has more to offer to people than have harmful effects. As mentioned above, people depend on religion for security reasons— people need something to rely on to alleviate concerns and anger. Marx views this as the opiate aspect of religion, but religion gives people hopes and importance of everyday life.
Marx’s pessimistic view on religion as the “opium” of people is invalid. He failed to see the benefits people can get from having a religion and over simplified the religion as a tool of manipulating the poor.
Thoughts on Karl Marx on Religion
Karl Marx’s views on religion are very negative. He finds that religion is used to suppress the way people really feel about the state of society and the world. Religion acts as a mask to hide and subtly express what the people of a society as a whole are truly thinking. On some accounts Marx seems to make valid points about what religion represents in a society, but he takes these theories to a negative extreme while omitting the beneficial impacts religion may have on a society.
In some cases religion can reflect what the masses are truly thinking. Marx states that “man is the world of man--state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world”. However, in Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Marx only acknowledges the negative aspects of this theory. If religion is going to truly show what the entire state feels it will not only show the true suffering of the people but also the true happiness as well as any other emotion.
Religion can be used as a tool to suppress members of a community, but it doesn't have to be used as such. For the time and place Marx was writing, religion most likely was being used to control the lower classes. This could also be said of medieval times when the lower class strictly followed what was said by the clergy. In the present day people tend to be more aware of when others are attempting to manipulate them, and social class lines are not drawn as sharply as they were in past times. Also, more religions seem to be acceptable to practice instead of one religion that everyone in the country follows. Because people have access now to so many different religions it is more difficult to manipulate an entire country through one faith.
While the very basics of Marx's thoughts on religion could be accurate, many of his theories one sided and outdated. He does not acknowledge the benefits religion could bring to a society or the hope it brings to many people.
Karl Marx, Religion
Man makes happiness. Man makes sadness. Man makes religion. Over the centuries or even back at the primitive era, the religion has always played an important part in human’s life. Humans celebrate happiness and mourn sadness through religion.
Karl Marx‘s idea that humans with immaturity depend on religion is true, but he does not give any solution to “pluck the living flower.” (1)
People depend on religion because they find difficulty living their lives by themselves. Marx’s point that religion is the “self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again” (1) might seem to restrict the religion into certain area. However, it is actually illustrating the human nature very well. Not many humans or no one fully understands themselves. Humans are always around the questions of the universe, existence and life and never get accurate answers from anyone but the religion. Therefore, it is correct to say that the religion one of the kinds of opiate of the people.
Even though Marx plucks the imaginary flowers, the religion, on the chain, he does not teach humans the way to pluck the living flower. He only helps humans realize the disillusion role of religion, but leave humans in the place where they don’t know where to go. Thus, it leads them into the religion again with many inquiries left.
Source: Marx, Karl. "Introuction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." (1844)
Karl Marx‘s idea that humans with immaturity depend on religion is true, but he does not give any solution to “pluck the living flower.” (1)
People depend on religion because they find difficulty living their lives by themselves. Marx’s point that religion is the “self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again” (1) might seem to restrict the religion into certain area. However, it is actually illustrating the human nature very well. Not many humans or no one fully understands themselves. Humans are always around the questions of the universe, existence and life and never get accurate answers from anyone but the religion. Therefore, it is correct to say that the religion one of the kinds of opiate of the people.
Even though Marx plucks the imaginary flowers, the religion, on the chain, he does not teach humans the way to pluck the living flower. He only helps humans realize the disillusion role of religion, but leave humans in the place where they don’t know where to go. Thus, it leads them into the religion again with many inquiries left.
Source: Marx, Karl. "Introuction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." (1844)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Karl Marx's Religious Criticism
How can one man’s “[truths]” and “illusions” be the same for the whole world? Karl Marx maintains that the “illusionary” world man creates to live in through religion separates man from his “true happiness” and “any true reality”. However, Marx’s argument does not include the faith that numerous peoples draw on in religion to find joy and peace. Although religious theories may contradict and overlap each other, Marx denies “true [realities]” of all religions- the strength of a people to trust one truth together, and the “real happiness” a religious life can in fact cause in its people.
Faith is the backbone of most religions, and an attribute that cannot exist in a world that, according to Marx, “requires illusion”. Without faith in a common idea or “[truth]”, a group of people cannot successfully agree and form a set religion or following. Without a common faith or goal, what “society” could “produce religion” and last? Religion requires the blind trust of its followers in order to survive as a religion. Perhaps the “real happiness” Marx believes is denied from man is not estranged by religion, but whatever “suffering” religion causes is the struggle to maintain faith as a people.
A unified people that follow a religion do not, therefore, seem to be a group of individuals who have “lost [themselves]”, but a collective confident enough to establish their own societies, and therefore forge their own “true [realities]” as a people. Marx decides a religious life to be lived in a “fantastic reality”; an “illusory” world fashioned to be “superhuman.” However, Marx’s favored “state” and “society” that the “disillusioned” man lives in are also functioning on an idyllic design. It cannot be said that any “state” or “society” in the world runs perfectly, but that systems are constantly being improved and modified to reach an ideal state. In this same way is a religious life practiced everyday for improvement toward an ideal state of being. Religion can in turn bring some “suffering“ and “happiness“ to people, just as “society“ “state“ are capable of doing. Therefore, religion, as well as “state” and “society”, can establish circumstances and “realities” for a group of people.
Although Marx presents a well-supported opinion on religion, it cannot be ignored that so many positive effects of religious life on the daily people- the real “man” that Marx speaks of. Surely the art, literature, philosophy and very “real happiness” religion can instill in an individual cannot all be denied as “[illusions].” Marx scoffs that religions is the “illusory happiness of the people”, but seems to be outnumbered thousands to one, as religious groups, cultures, ideas and “truths” continue to endure the ages.
Faith is the backbone of most religions, and an attribute that cannot exist in a world that, according to Marx, “requires illusion”. Without faith in a common idea or “[truth]”, a group of people cannot successfully agree and form a set religion or following. Without a common faith or goal, what “society” could “produce religion” and last? Religion requires the blind trust of its followers in order to survive as a religion. Perhaps the “real happiness” Marx believes is denied from man is not estranged by religion, but whatever “suffering” religion causes is the struggle to maintain faith as a people.
A unified people that follow a religion do not, therefore, seem to be a group of individuals who have “lost [themselves]”, but a collective confident enough to establish their own societies, and therefore forge their own “true [realities]” as a people. Marx decides a religious life to be lived in a “fantastic reality”; an “illusory” world fashioned to be “superhuman.” However, Marx’s favored “state” and “society” that the “disillusioned” man lives in are also functioning on an idyllic design. It cannot be said that any “state” or “society” in the world runs perfectly, but that systems are constantly being improved and modified to reach an ideal state. In this same way is a religious life practiced everyday for improvement toward an ideal state of being. Religion can in turn bring some “suffering“ and “happiness“ to people, just as “society“ “state“ are capable of doing. Therefore, religion, as well as “state” and “society”, can establish circumstances and “realities” for a group of people.
Although Marx presents a well-supported opinion on religion, it cannot be ignored that so many positive effects of religious life on the daily people- the real “man” that Marx speaks of. Surely the art, literature, philosophy and very “real happiness” religion can instill in an individual cannot all be denied as “[illusions].” Marx scoffs that religions is the “illusory happiness of the people”, but seems to be outnumbered thousands to one, as religious groups, cultures, ideas and “truths” continue to endure the ages.
Accepted Weakness
...........Karl Marx was a philosopher from the 19th century who had strong feelings about his criticism on religion and the human race. He believed that religion was an illusion that humans made up and depended on. Marx wrote, “religion was the opium of the people.” Religion is portrayed to be negative and that it was not in mans best interest. Marx felt that religion was a sign of weakness. The contention of this paper is that in some sense Marx was correct, in that religion is a false concept, containing many illusions, myths and stories. Nonetheless, this weakness is a reality for humans, and religion is needed to help out with issues of life, death, misery, and the unknown.
...........Marx was correct to a certain extent in many ways. It is true that religion is this man made concept. For a person to have faith in religion it requires them to give up reality. Humans need to accept the myths and illusions, in order to have faith in religion. Marx feels as if “religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real, suffering.” People may indeed turn to religion as an escape from the sufferings of real life. Marx states that religion is created “as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Men and women often want to perceive themselves as happy and safe, so they created religion as a “halo,” something that would always be there for protection.
...........Marx’s ideas were in many ways accurate, but his negative connotation is incorrect. Although religion requires a human to have faith in something and give up some concepts of reality, there are social, educational, behavioral, moral and ethical benefits. Religion also gives the human race allusions and myths to explain the unknown. In this sense religion may help people not as an “opiate” but as a “medicine.” Religion can be a crutch for the ones that need it, and whether a person is seeking out help or not, religion remains a constant in peoples lives. It brings families together in one place (house of worship) allowing for a sense of security. Religion helps form relationships within the community. Religion can be a place for people if they have nowhere else to turn. Education of ethics, morals, and appropriate behaviors are often taught in religious school. Religious teachings often help people to live each day with a better understanding of their purpose in life.
...........Marx was correct to a certain extent in many ways. It is true that religion is this man made concept. For a person to have faith in religion it requires them to give up reality. Humans need to accept the myths and illusions, in order to have faith in religion. Marx feels as if “religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real, suffering.” People may indeed turn to religion as an escape from the sufferings of real life. Marx states that religion is created “as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Men and women often want to perceive themselves as happy and safe, so they created religion as a “halo,” something that would always be there for protection.
...........Marx’s ideas were in many ways accurate, but his negative connotation is incorrect. Although religion requires a human to have faith in something and give up some concepts of reality, there are social, educational, behavioral, moral and ethical benefits. Religion also gives the human race allusions and myths to explain the unknown. In this sense religion may help people not as an “opiate” but as a “medicine.” Religion can be a crutch for the ones that need it, and whether a person is seeking out help or not, religion remains a constant in peoples lives. It brings families together in one place (house of worship) allowing for a sense of security. Religion helps form relationships within the community. Religion can be a place for people if they have nowhere else to turn. Education of ethics, morals, and appropriate behaviors are often taught in religious school. Religious teachings often help people to live each day with a better understanding of their purpose in life.
...........Therefore one might conclude that, yes, Marx was right about religion being a sign of weakness, but that it is okay. Religion is widely accepted around the world and is often used to help patch the imperfections that exist in all of us.
In the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx expresses his opinion of religion as the “opiate of the people”. He refers that religions are just illusions made by man’s self-esteem and self-consciousness and they disturb people from living in real life. This is an extremely exaggerated, insensitive statement overall, but I think he made an agreeable point. If a person just practices religion to go to heaven when he dies, which it is totally fine considering the fact that no one wants to go to hell, it suggests that the person is living for the after life with lots of expectation, but not in the life progressing right now. He may be well prepared for the heaven that he sees someday, but the question is; is he missing something in his real life? Is he doing his best to live each day? People have been, still are, suffering from poverty, especially around the time of Marx. The people at the time died from hunger and thirst because they had no money to buy them. But the people still spent hours for praying and made donations to the God, who was not even saving their miserable situations. Therefore, Karl’s intention of criticizing religions may have come from his hope for the people not to waste their time on the God anymore and to work for their families to live. Since we were given lives, we have rights and responsibilities to fulfill them with our bests. That is the main point of the passage in my interpretation. I believe, however, his observation was not persuasive to everyone at the time because the people might have desperately needed something that they can relay on such as doctrine of Christianity or Judah. In short, Religion can be a guide that people follow and a belief that gives people hopes, but depending on the time and perspectives, it sometimes distract people from what they have to do in this moment.
Karl Marx and Religion
Marx was incorrect to call religion the “opiate of the people.” Many people are taken over by their religion, but at the same time people are not off in their own worlds. Religion gives a foundation for the world in which people live. While people may have their particular religion that they belief in, it does not mean that they ignore others ideas. He does not recognize the positive benefits of religion; instead in this article he focuses on the negative and the weakness of religion. Although some of his points are valid and true, he is being overly harsh in his criticism of religion.
Marx first makes the argument that “[m] an makes religion, religion does not make man,” this statement is completely true. Even though most religions are based on the belief of a higher power, it is up to the people to develop certain beliefs and myths. However, he then goes on to say that a country and the people of the country have formed a religion because they do now know what is real in the world and religion is their excuse. This view is stretched and is a very general statement. Marx is assuming that everyone associated with a religion does not understand the world and what is real, but he cannot simply make this statement without any actual proof. He may be alluding to the fact that religion is based on a higher power and myths, which he does not believe exist, so therefore others view of the world would not be real.
In Marx’s view, he believes that religion was made for those people who do not have anything in the world and for those whose lives are unbearable. As he says, “[r] eligion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless conditions….The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Marx believes that religious people have horrible lives, and thus they turn to religion to mask their unhappiness. By removing religion, people can see how truly intolerable their lives are, and ‘demand their real happiness.’
Throughout the article Marx does make a few legitimate points, however most of them are of negative nature. Marx believes that religion is an explanation for those who do not know their purpose in life and for those whose lives are suffering. The world is today was then a world “whose spiritual aroma is religion,” whether or not it plays a big part in every ones life and whether or not one believes in religion. He does not see the positive aspects of religion and therefore is very critical of those who are religious.
Marx first makes the argument that “[m] an makes religion, religion does not make man,” this statement is completely true. Even though most religions are based on the belief of a higher power, it is up to the people to develop certain beliefs and myths. However, he then goes on to say that a country and the people of the country have formed a religion because they do now know what is real in the world and religion is their excuse. This view is stretched and is a very general statement. Marx is assuming that everyone associated with a religion does not understand the world and what is real, but he cannot simply make this statement without any actual proof. He may be alluding to the fact that religion is based on a higher power and myths, which he does not believe exist, so therefore others view of the world would not be real.
In Marx’s view, he believes that religion was made for those people who do not have anything in the world and for those whose lives are unbearable. As he says, “[r] eligion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless conditions….The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Marx believes that religious people have horrible lives, and thus they turn to religion to mask their unhappiness. By removing religion, people can see how truly intolerable their lives are, and ‘demand their real happiness.’
Throughout the article Marx does make a few legitimate points, however most of them are of negative nature. Marx believes that religion is an explanation for those who do not know their purpose in life and for those whose lives are suffering. The world is today was then a world “whose spiritual aroma is religion,” whether or not it plays a big part in every ones life and whether or not one believes in religion. He does not see the positive aspects of religion and therefore is very critical of those who are religious.
Response to Karl Marx article
Karl Marx was a man who sparked fury and anger in his time period, and still continues to aggravate our present world. In 1844, there was no questioning the ways of the church. If you disagreed or didn't believe, you were immediately seen as unstable and immoral. These condemned individuals, of which Karl Marx was associated with, were the cause of trouble and doubts that seemingly became instilled in some religious people's thoughts, and this made everyone, even the religious people with doubts, "bad". Karl Marx's main argument however, truly does trigger worry in some people's hearts who are religious. He spoke of things that in his time, nobody thought of, and once they were spoken, "doubt" entered the world. For his time period, Karl Marx was a genuinely intelligent man and he does raise important points that shouldn't be ignored by the church and by all the people who practice a religion. Karl Marx may not have been completely opposed to the main idea of a religion, rather, he may have thought that it would make someone even stronger if they could detect the flaws and the wonders of their religion and existence.
"Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man, where he seeks and must seek his true reality". In this statement, Karl Marx is expressing his belief of the importance in finding one's inner self. Marx believes that people involved deeply in religion, fail to recognize their true self because they are too consumed in their idea of what the Church says to be the truth, and how the Church tells them to act. Karl Marx believes that religion blinds a person's vision and perception of the world and alters his or her reality. It is true that Marx's ideas are important during the time they were written because he lived in a period where the people were inevitably being oppressed and controlled in unfair and manipulative ways by the Holy Church, and the basic government and society.
Nowadays, people can freely disagree and oppose certain religious practices and beliefs, and that is something that Karl Marx dreamed of. "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion". In Marx's time period, this statement was undeniably true. During his time, it was impossible for anyone with his own personal beliefs to live comfortably. He was deemed an "evil dissenter", and one who none should associate with. It is not fair that Marx couldn't express his ideas freely, and that he was oppressed by the entire society that he lived in. It is prominently better now that people of our present time don't feel that they must conform to society's and government's ways.
Although Karl Marx does speak powerfully and sometimes too critically about religion, he is only trying to create a world where it is okay for people to disagree with the way things are being run in either their country or society. "Religion is the opiate of the people". Marx's words are harsh, but they do maintain some truth. Religion during Marx's time period was used more as a weapon and a controlling device by higher officials and authority, and wasn't really the true choice of the people. Marx's intention was to upstart a movement where people could control their own ideas and actions, and not those assigned to them by their "religion".
"Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man, where he seeks and must seek his true reality". In this statement, Karl Marx is expressing his belief of the importance in finding one's inner self. Marx believes that people involved deeply in religion, fail to recognize their true self because they are too consumed in their idea of what the Church says to be the truth, and how the Church tells them to act. Karl Marx believes that religion blinds a person's vision and perception of the world and alters his or her reality. It is true that Marx's ideas are important during the time they were written because he lived in a period where the people were inevitably being oppressed and controlled in unfair and manipulative ways by the Holy Church, and the basic government and society.
Nowadays, people can freely disagree and oppose certain religious practices and beliefs, and that is something that Karl Marx dreamed of. "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion". In Marx's time period, this statement was undeniably true. During his time, it was impossible for anyone with his own personal beliefs to live comfortably. He was deemed an "evil dissenter", and one who none should associate with. It is not fair that Marx couldn't express his ideas freely, and that he was oppressed by the entire society that he lived in. It is prominently better now that people of our present time don't feel that they must conform to society's and government's ways.
Although Karl Marx does speak powerfully and sometimes too critically about religion, he is only trying to create a world where it is okay for people to disagree with the way things are being run in either their country or society. "Religion is the opiate of the people". Marx's words are harsh, but they do maintain some truth. Religion during Marx's time period was used more as a weapon and a controlling device by higher officials and authority, and wasn't really the true choice of the people. Marx's intention was to upstart a movement where people could control their own ideas and actions, and not those assigned to them by their "religion".
Karl Marx on Religion
Although Karl Marx makes a valid point that religion acts in the place in which people cannot explain their origin or purpose, he does not point out the positive benefits of religion and tends to say religion both is and is not “the opium of the people.”
Marx has a negative outlook on religion, and in having such, he emphasizes how it is a device people use to explain and understand themselves and their existence. Marx believes religion is like a crutch people use because they cannot understand their own reality. “Man...has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven,” he insists. When men “no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of [themselves],” they will then be able to “seek [their] true reality.” Marx believes religion holds the place of a higher understanding until men realize that there is more to understanding than believing in a higher power, according to Marx, shaped in their image. “Man makes religion, religion does not make man,” he claims; according to Marx, men shape what they believe to be the power which controls or guides their existence. The power did not exist before they created it, and will not exist once men are aware that religion is simply the “universal basis of consolation and justification.”
Religion is not only the “universal basis of consolation,” it is much more than Marx credits it for in both a positive and negative sense. Through religion, one can discover what they truly value or define their ethics. An influence of religion can bring many different types of people together who otherwise do not have many similar interests. Conversely, religion can turn people, groups, or countries against each other. Religion is both a positive and negative concept, which Marx sees as contradictory. Referring to “religion as the illusory happiness of the people,” he notes, “to call on [people] to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusion.” Giving up an illusion, but using an illusion to do so is contradictory, just as struggling against religion is struggling against a “world whose spiritual aroma is religion,” you can’t fight it.
Religion supports a person, but to say that it is “the opium of the people” is to say it makes individuals numb to other concepts or ideas. Not all who are religious have a deaf ear to other ideas. However, simultaneously, Marx believes they are numb to the idea that they must move past religion. “It is...the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world,” he insists. Marx bestows the power of seeking reality on history once people do not believe in “other-world of truth,” the higher power. The belief in something causes people to become numb to the concept that they “must seek [their] true reality.”
Marx’s ideas of religion are all reasonable, though he does fail to address the positive qualities of religion and how they can benefit a person or society. However, he is right to say that religion will not cease, because the world now and in many centuries before is one “whose spiritual aroma is religion.”
Marx has a negative outlook on religion, and in having such, he emphasizes how it is a device people use to explain and understand themselves and their existence. Marx believes religion is like a crutch people use because they cannot understand their own reality. “Man...has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven,” he insists. When men “no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of [themselves],” they will then be able to “seek [their] true reality.” Marx believes religion holds the place of a higher understanding until men realize that there is more to understanding than believing in a higher power, according to Marx, shaped in their image. “Man makes religion, religion does not make man,” he claims; according to Marx, men shape what they believe to be the power which controls or guides their existence. The power did not exist before they created it, and will not exist once men are aware that religion is simply the “universal basis of consolation and justification.”
Religion is not only the “universal basis of consolation,” it is much more than Marx credits it for in both a positive and negative sense. Through religion, one can discover what they truly value or define their ethics. An influence of religion can bring many different types of people together who otherwise do not have many similar interests. Conversely, religion can turn people, groups, or countries against each other. Religion is both a positive and negative concept, which Marx sees as contradictory. Referring to “religion as the illusory happiness of the people,” he notes, “to call on [people] to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusion.” Giving up an illusion, but using an illusion to do so is contradictory, just as struggling against religion is struggling against a “world whose spiritual aroma is religion,” you can’t fight it.
Religion supports a person, but to say that it is “the opium of the people” is to say it makes individuals numb to other concepts or ideas. Not all who are religious have a deaf ear to other ideas. However, simultaneously, Marx believes they are numb to the idea that they must move past religion. “It is...the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world,” he insists. Marx bestows the power of seeking reality on history once people do not believe in “other-world of truth,” the higher power. The belief in something causes people to become numb to the concept that they “must seek [their] true reality.”
Marx’s ideas of religion are all reasonable, though he does fail to address the positive qualities of religion and how they can benefit a person or society. However, he is right to say that religion will not cease, because the world now and in many centuries before is one “whose spiritual aroma is religion.”
Is Opium Really Bad?
Marx's theory on religion is generally that it is something that man created to make his world more bearable, that man created religion to function as an escape from a daily life filled with hardships. Marx believed that if man became strong enough to see the world for what it was he would be able to throw away the crutch of religion and "fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses". Marx also argues that men have become so dependent on religion and the illusions it provides that without it they become weak. It seems that Marx also believes that if man were to throw of the burden of religion he would be able to change the world that had been the cause of the need for religion. What Marx fails to see is that even if people begin to change the world and fight for a time when all of the fundamental questions of life may be answered without religion; there will still be sorrow, pain, death, and things that could not possibly be explained. Though Marx has a point in saying religion is the "heart of a heartless world" he assumes that having a "heart" in that "heartless world" is a distraction from reality. What Marx fails to see is that people may be just as likely if not more likely to want to better their world if they have faith that their actions are contributing to a higher purpose.
When a baby is crying there are typically two schools of thought on what to do either A- leave the baby to calm itself down or B- comfort the baby, remind it that you are there and then leave it to fall back asleep. Both sides have their good and bad points; with theory A the baby will learn very quickly to calm itself down and that no one is coming but may become distrusting and emotionally withdrawn; in theory B the baby will know it has someone to care for it and keep it safe yet may not always develop the best coping skills. Marx's theory on religion is very much like theory A when calming a baby; in this case the baby represents the people and religion the caretaker of the child, if people are left completely to them selves and never have something they can rely on they may become self-centered and negative. The next question would then be is a world that is negative and has people that view all the raw reality of life without comfort better than one that sees that reality of life yet chooses to be comforted by a higher power ?
According to Marx the only time the world will see real change is when people "throw of the chain and pluck the living flower" or in other words throw religion away and live in the present world with its flaws. This idea would seem wonderful if people saw what was wrong fixed it and made the world a joyful place again, yet this would only be fixing the short term need for revolution and not the long term need humans have for faith in difficult times which will never completely go away.
Marx's view of religion would be amazing if people could all take charge and make their lives exactly what they wanted them to be without need for any support; but humans are not robots humans do need support. They need to feel taken care of, they need something to believe in to make the world better and if they loose that, many will not be able to move ahead. If religion gives humans the strength and faith they need to make it through life why not keep it?so that leads to the final question is a little opium such a bad thing?
When a baby is crying there are typically two schools of thought on what to do either A- leave the baby to calm itself down or B- comfort the baby, remind it that you are there and then leave it to fall back asleep. Both sides have their good and bad points; with theory A the baby will learn very quickly to calm itself down and that no one is coming but may become distrusting and emotionally withdrawn; in theory B the baby will know it has someone to care for it and keep it safe yet may not always develop the best coping skills. Marx's theory on religion is very much like theory A when calming a baby; in this case the baby represents the people and religion the caretaker of the child, if people are left completely to them selves and never have something they can rely on they may become self-centered and negative. The next question would then be is a world that is negative and has people that view all the raw reality of life without comfort better than one that sees that reality of life yet chooses to be comforted by a higher power ?
According to Marx the only time the world will see real change is when people "throw of the chain and pluck the living flower" or in other words throw religion away and live in the present world with its flaws. This idea would seem wonderful if people saw what was wrong fixed it and made the world a joyful place again, yet this would only be fixing the short term need for revolution and not the long term need humans have for faith in difficult times which will never completely go away.
Marx's view of religion would be amazing if people could all take charge and make their lives exactly what they wanted them to be without need for any support; but humans are not robots humans do need support. They need to feel taken care of, they need something to believe in to make the world better and if they loose that, many will not be able to move ahead. If religion gives humans the strength and faith they need to make it through life why not keep it?so that leads to the final question is a little opium such a bad thing?
Response paper on Marxism
“Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.” –Karl Marx. (1844)
Every argument has a counter argument. It is likely that many religious believers strongly refuted the words and teachings of Karl Marx. However, the arguments that he has made seem to ask those questions that were prevalent in the minds of even the most religious. While Marx is literally playing devil’s advocate with the teachings of organized religion, his bold judgments of religion seem to be, at the very least, legitimate opinions.
One of the most difficult questions for any follower of religion is “Why must I suffer while others prosper?” It is true that many people in positions of power have used religion as an excuse to keep their subordinates down. This tactic was used by slave owners in America to make their slaves comply. Marx makes a good observation when he states “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature”. Slaves did not comply with their masters because they loved them; they complied because they thought that if God made their life that way, then it was supposed to be that way. Though some religions have recreated this way of thinking to make rising from your low status a strength as opposed to a revolt, Marx was only poking the same holes in unified religion that already existed.
Karl Marx is often deemed malignant and as a disturber of the peace for criticizing religion, though all he ever did was ask those questions and point out those flaws in religion that already existed. His arguments were countered many times, and were deemed ignorant and untruthful by many who strictly followed a religion. So why is it that Marx is still seen today as so controversial? Could it be because those questions that he dared to ask are questions that many religions still struggle with today?
Every argument has a counter argument. It is likely that many religious believers strongly refuted the words and teachings of Karl Marx. However, the arguments that he has made seem to ask those questions that were prevalent in the minds of even the most religious. While Marx is literally playing devil’s advocate with the teachings of organized religion, his bold judgments of religion seem to be, at the very least, legitimate opinions.
One of the most difficult questions for any follower of religion is “Why must I suffer while others prosper?” It is true that many people in positions of power have used religion as an excuse to keep their subordinates down. This tactic was used by slave owners in America to make their slaves comply. Marx makes a good observation when he states “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature”. Slaves did not comply with their masters because they loved them; they complied because they thought that if God made their life that way, then it was supposed to be that way. Though some religions have recreated this way of thinking to make rising from your low status a strength as opposed to a revolt, Marx was only poking the same holes in unified religion that already existed.
Karl Marx is often deemed malignant and as a disturber of the peace for criticizing religion, though all he ever did was ask those questions and point out those flaws in religion that already existed. His arguments were countered many times, and were deemed ignorant and untruthful by many who strictly followed a religion. So why is it that Marx is still seen today as so controversial? Could it be because those questions that he dared to ask are questions that many religions still struggle with today?
Marx's Religious Theories
Karl Marx’s view of religion is clearly trying to make an undiluted point about the practice’s flaws, which it certainly has, but glosses over a few details that, if noted, make his case seem far too harsh. His opening argument is true enough, specifically that “Man makes religion, religion does not make man”. Whether there is some form of higher power or not in this world, it was up to human kind to organize belief systems, mythologies, and rituals around it.
He is also correct, to, a degree, in that, while preoccupied with notions of salvation through piety, oppressed people will never bother going through the trouble of revolution in their real world, revolution that Marx so desired. But that degree is what has not been addressed. Marx says that “To call on [the people] to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions” in other words, when their “heartless world” is stripped bare of religion, or, all the beliefs that make it bearable, their eyes will be opened to how terrible their lives really are, and how necessary change is.
Losing faith in such comforts as divine retribution and the promise of an afterlife can prompt one to take justice into their own hands, and enjoy their time living rather than count on an eternity after they’ve died. These ideas play to the numerous people who call themselves religious simply out of convenience. Believing in and praying to a God is, in most cases, far easier than starting a revolution. This subgroup of more casual worshippers, if relieved of their “illusions”, are far more likely to wallow in depression, bereft even of hope, than to get up and do something, and this group, especially in today’s society, is far larger than many would expect.
Overall, though, saying that someone has religion is an incredibly over-generalized statement. There are many ways in which a person can express or not express their beliefs in a specific religion, and therefore, there is a whole spectrum composed of different people’s levels of dedication, and these all will react differently to Marx’s suggested abolition. There are those who have no religion, therefore no “illusions”, and are still content with their reality. Also, in direct opposition with Marx’s claim that religion keeps mankind complacent, unwilling to start fighting or induce change, there are those who fight and revolt for their religion, as seen most clearly in the Muslim world.
In this sense, though calling religion “the opium of the people” is, a strong and vivid metaphor, it’s only about half-right, and the following assumption that a world without the stagnation of religion means a world of change is a very big stretch to make. True, a good half of the religious population are blinded by their devotion, but when that is removed, those same people are very unlikely to have the will left to incite change, without something to believe in, which shoots holes in Marx’ result theory already. More gaps appear in this idea when one examines those violent and revolutionary religious cultures, which may have what he calls “illusions”, but are not lulled into pacifism by them. Lastly, a great majority of those people already lacking in religion find, without it, still no reason for fighting.
Marx’s intention with this essay was to bring about a time of reformation, and he used the imperfections of religion as his medium to reach as many as he could, yet the two are hardly related, because when change is truly necessary, it will happen with or without an affiliation to any God.
He is also correct, to, a degree, in that, while preoccupied with notions of salvation through piety, oppressed people will never bother going through the trouble of revolution in their real world, revolution that Marx so desired. But that degree is what has not been addressed. Marx says that “To call on [the people] to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions” in other words, when their “heartless world” is stripped bare of religion, or, all the beliefs that make it bearable, their eyes will be opened to how terrible their lives really are, and how necessary change is.
Losing faith in such comforts as divine retribution and the promise of an afterlife can prompt one to take justice into their own hands, and enjoy their time living rather than count on an eternity after they’ve died. These ideas play to the numerous people who call themselves religious simply out of convenience. Believing in and praying to a God is, in most cases, far easier than starting a revolution. This subgroup of more casual worshippers, if relieved of their “illusions”, are far more likely to wallow in depression, bereft even of hope, than to get up and do something, and this group, especially in today’s society, is far larger than many would expect.
Overall, though, saying that someone has religion is an incredibly over-generalized statement. There are many ways in which a person can express or not express their beliefs in a specific religion, and therefore, there is a whole spectrum composed of different people’s levels of dedication, and these all will react differently to Marx’s suggested abolition. There are those who have no religion, therefore no “illusions”, and are still content with their reality. Also, in direct opposition with Marx’s claim that religion keeps mankind complacent, unwilling to start fighting or induce change, there are those who fight and revolt for their religion, as seen most clearly in the Muslim world.
In this sense, though calling religion “the opium of the people” is, a strong and vivid metaphor, it’s only about half-right, and the following assumption that a world without the stagnation of religion means a world of change is a very big stretch to make. True, a good half of the religious population are blinded by their devotion, but when that is removed, those same people are very unlikely to have the will left to incite change, without something to believe in, which shoots holes in Marx’ result theory already. More gaps appear in this idea when one examines those violent and revolutionary religious cultures, which may have what he calls “illusions”, but are not lulled into pacifism by them. Lastly, a great majority of those people already lacking in religion find, without it, still no reason for fighting.
Marx’s intention with this essay was to bring about a time of reformation, and he used the imperfections of religion as his medium to reach as many as he could, yet the two are hardly related, because when change is truly necessary, it will happen with or without an affiliation to any God.
Orientalism
This is what I found in google image by typing "Orientalism Asia".
The image is an advertisement of a movie. There is an old tower which is similar to "Kin-Kakuji", the one we have in Kyoto, and an Asian woman dancing in "yukata", which is a Japanese traditional clothes (kind of like "kimono"), in the back of the half naked woman. This means that this movie is somehow related to Japan. The misapprehension here is that we did not have any houses made by bamboo around the time that people started possesing guns. Maybe this poster was the result of old people's stereotipical idea that Asian countries were still uncivilized and did not have great technology unlike Westerns.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Westernized
These images display disregard for the spiritual importance of the zen gardens and yoga to eastern oriented religions. Rock gardens are strongly tied to Zen meditation and this picture changes something holy into a litter box. Also, while yoga is often seen solely as a form of exercise, it's going a bit far to use something that has religous meaning to many as a vodka ad.
"Primitive" Religions
Here are images of two important sources of information about the religion of early man, the cave paintings of Lascaux, France and the Venus of Willendorf.
more orientalism
I think that is picture portrays a lot of peoples views of the Middle East. Today when someone mentions the Middle East, societies general response is to think of the War in Iraq and all of the other conflicts happening in Israel and Palestine. Usually only negative conotations are associated with the Middle East. I searched "Orientalism in the media," and this picture clearly depicts how the media has control over society and what people think. In this photo a native is being pulled away from his by an officer, most likely an American officer. This is an importantFriday, September 14, 2007
Orientalism
I found this image while searching in google images for samurai. Like others have already said, I think it shows the idea that women are exotic as well wear very little clothing. The woman in the picture is also very mysterious looking, as she is alone in nature on a mountain carrying only her two swords.
Orientalism as a Plot Device... again
This is a scan of the cover of an old comic book series, The Shadow, which began in the 1940's when tension between West and East was high. Though the timeframe is not recent, the stereotypes portrayed still apply. In the story, the main character is an American socialite who travels to China to get rich by involving himself in the Opium trade. While he's there, he comes across a hidden temple where a poweful monk teaches him esoteric skills and abilities that he can use to make himself invisible, or control people's minds. This follows right along with the common misconception of Asian people's heightened sense of spirituality, and plays to old beliefs of almost magical abilities certain religious figures or warriors were believed to have achieved after years of instruction and discipline. Here are some screenshots from the movie portraying the temple and the monk that The Shadow was said to have learned from: 
Orientalism and Indiana Jones
The well known movie, Indiana Jones, is the great example of the orientalism. The backgrounds of the movie are all in "Orient", east side. (South America, Tibet and Egypt) Jones is representing the west side. He is healthy, strong, and has a lot of knowledge of east culture. To preserve their long-historical treasures, the east countries depend on and beg to Jones for the help. In the movie, the east countries are mystified and gives the sense that those are the things that the west has to explore.
Indiana Jones : The Temple Of the Doom illustrates orientalism very well. The natives of Tibet do not have power to preserve their long history of civilization. They cannot even speak and they only depend on Jones. They are explained and comprehended only by Jones, not by themselves.
Indiana Jones : The Temple Of the Doom illustrates orientalism very well. The natives of Tibet do not have power to preserve their long history of civilization. They cannot even speak and they only depend on Jones. They are explained and comprehended only by Jones, not by themselves.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Orientalism
This image is actually on the cover of Edward Said's "Orientalism." This image embodies many stereotypes about the East. As you can see, a snake is wrapped around the boy, and next to him is a man meant to represent a snake charmer. There is also the element of mystery shown by the floating object in the background. Said here is simply displaying many images that come to mind when a Westerner thinks of the East. Even the clothes of the men in the background are ones which are associated with the East.
As Erin noted in her entry, Europeans loved to romanticize the idea of an exotic East. This picture is a perfect example of the way Europeans (especially men) viewed the women of the "mysterious Orient." While this woman is fully clothed, her attire is not typical of a European woman, and so is seen as exotic, like the area she is intended to be representing. The way women were viewed in the East only contributes to the lack of respect that the West had for the countries they so blindly grouped together. The idea that all of these Eastern countries are alike is simply ridiculous , as we know they each have very different cultures. This image represents for me that lack of respect and knowledge about things unknown or things categorized as "the other."
As i was researching, i have to agree with sun in saying that they portray and stereotype the "orientals" to be more sexual or exotic. I searched the word "oriental ism" and got pictures of belly dancers and naked women. These women were wearing very little clothing and lots of eye catching jewelery, makeup, and clothing. The picture on the right, she is dressed up in an exotic "bikini" like, belly dancer outfit decorated with diamonds. People in the east do not go around wearing belly dancer outfits and shaking their hips, no, that's not what happens. These pictures kinda remind me of Jasmine in the Disney movie Aladdin. The movie takes place in Arabia and Jasmin is wearing a belly dancer outfit and has long dark hair. This not only stereotypes the eastern countries in general but all of American children are watching Aladdin and are believing that this is how Arabia is, and this his how they dress, when that is not really thecase.
I found this cartoon by searching "stereotypical cartoons of the east" on google. This cartoon was intended to be humorous, but it failed miserably. It makes me angry to know that this is how the 'West' views the 'East'. The two men in the cartoon are wearing the sterotypical garment of a turban and long robes. They are both practicing their faith by praising their God, but then they pull our their guns and start shooting each other. I think the cartoon is playing with the fact that the common stereotype of Middle Easterners is that they are all super religious. The cartoon is trying to make a joke out of the fact that the men are praying one moment, and then commiting the "sin of murder". I don't think that it is funny AT ALL that there are some people out there drawing cartoons like this that make fun of the internal conflicts in the Middle East.
Oriental = Sexual?
From class today, I remember Mrs. Snyder saying that "a room full of women was very appealing to European men!"
well I thought more about that and found a painting from 1892 by a French artist J.A.D Ingres.
this is a typical or very classical(?) example of how the Europeans romanticized the so-called
"Orient". The room is filled with naked women, who I guess are considered as beautiful in the eyes of the French back in the 1800s, with alluring eyes and postures.
Another example where Orientalism is associated with eroticism can be seen in pornography as Edward Said mentioned in his book. Many people understand of "orientaism" as being "exotic".
I don't believe that "Orient" people associate themselves with being sexual. It is rather the foreigners (Westerners) who defined Orientalism with eroticism and probably the "basic instinct and desires............"
Orientalism
These are stills from the Miramax film "The Thief and the Cobbler." Set in Arabia, the story revolves around a young cobbler who must save the kingdom from an army of one-eyed men when the three golden balls protceting the kingdom are stolen off their minaret by a thief working for an evil sorcerer. The stylization of the animation and the choice of characters he meets along the way, including an exotic and disproportionate princess named 'YumYum', are not examplary choices, let alone appropriate subjects of a children's film.'
PS I also found a website which follows the "use of Buddhist imagery and ideas" in pop culture and merchandising. They have a few pages of images to see, if you'd like to check it out- The Worst Horse: Dharma-Burger
Examples of an Orientalist attitude
Classic example of humor that pokes fun of American's often casual attitude towards following or practicing Asian religions, but refusing to give up the things about American culture that are in conflict with the religions they claim to practice.
On a similar note, some Americans remain uncomfortable with the Hindu spiritual and religious elements of yoga practice while appreciating the physical and mental benefits yoga can bring for some. This takes this idea to a new level and makes yoga into a vehicle for Christian prayer.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Welcome!
Welcome to Religions of Asia: Mystics, Monks, and Scholars! This blog is the work of a class of high school juniors and seniors at Emma Willard School in Troy, NY. It is a place for my students to share their work, comment on each other's ideas, and continue conversations begun in class. It's a little experimental, so bear with us as we figure out how best to organize our thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)