Thursday, October 4, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)