Marx presents an ignorant point of view while criticizing religion. He truly has no evidence to support his theory and he avoids proving his point by not providing definitions to what he believes is the answer if religion is not. Given the way our brains, and thoughts have developed over the thousands of years we have existed, given Marx’s theories, we most likely would have realized that “man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.” Marx fails to see the spiritual aspect and how people benefit from it in their every day life. He describes religion as the “opium of the people” expressing that religion has beneficial yet false manifestation for the sensation is merely just a temporary “high” that people try to obtain in order to give them purpose for living.
He says, “Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.” This is, indeed, a negative sentence in the eyes of Marx, and to me, a very ignorant one. If a man is trying to win through himself or once lost, trying to find himself again, what is he to do, Marx? A soulless man may not find issue with such a situation; however, humans are spiritual beings for they have thoughts and emotions. This, in turn, promotes them to seek refuge in times of need. If “man makes religion” and benefits from that, so that they can attempt to get something out of this dead-end of a life, is that wrong? Marx thinks so. I feel that he is wrong to fail to see what exactly it is that fuels this highly important topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Sarah;
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused by sections of this, but first, I think that Marx does see the value of religion in society. He says that:
"Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification."
To me, Marx here is saying that he understands how much of society and personal happiness is fueled by religion. You have everything there from explanations, to comfort (moral sanction consolation), to joie de vivre (enthusiasm), and law. Religion is not merely a way to get 'high' and has some concrete benefits.
Can you explain what you meant by "given Marx’s theories, we most likely would have realized that 'man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.'"?
Also, what do you think fuels this highly important topic?
Your post provides a very interesting interpretation of Marx's view on Religion. However, I think that when you wrote, "If “man makes religion” and benefits from that, so that they can attempt to get something out of this dead-end of a life" you may have misinterpreted Marx's view. He believed that for man to get something out of life he must free himself of religion to find what is good and true in the material world, not that man should suffer through life without the comfort of religion.
ReplyDeleteInteresting conversation, ladies. I think it might help to put Marx in some context. His stance on religion is connected directly to his larger goal: to stir up a revolution of the proletariat against what he understood to be the oppressive upper class. Christianity (which is what Marx really means when he says 'religion') was an impediment to his revolution in many ways; from an emphasis on humility and obedience, to the idea of the poor being blessed in the eyes of God. The way Christianity was practiced at the time did not include an exhortation to 'take up arms against your oppressor.' I think Lei is right that Marx recognizes the positive side of religious practice but chooses to focus on the negative in order to achieve his goal. It is a little ironic that Christianity was, at its origins, a social revolution of the poor and that it will become an important part of social change in many parts of the developing world in the 20th century with a movement called 'Liberation Theology.' Marx failed to see the part of Christianity that could have helped him promote revolution and instead chose to view religion as part of the repressive structures of society, alienating many people along the way.
ReplyDelete