Search

Copyright of Trans/Form/Ação is the property of Trans/Form/Acao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Alienation became a central but controversial concept in the reception and interpretation of Karl Marx's thought after the posthumous publication of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts in 1932. Numerous interlocutors debated the content and configuration of Marx's concept of alienation and its relationship to G.W.F. Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach, as well as his own subsequent critique of political economy. But these debates inadvertently ignored Marx's prior Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of State. This article aims to remedy this omission. Through close textual analysis and theoretical recontextualization I reconstruct and reinterpret Marx's elaborate critique of the modern sovereign state as an alienation of civil society rooted in the dynamics of the modern system of private property, which also sheds new light on Marx's concept of alienation, its relationship to prior political philosophy, (post-)Hegelian philosophy and his subsequent critique of political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marxist philosophical thought was deeply influenced by the philosophical thought of Ludwig Feuerbach, a German classical philosopher who lived at the same time as Marx. This was a period when Europe was undergoing dramatic changes, with the remarkable development of capitalism. This context has pushed the working class into a deadlock and dissatisfaction due to poor working conditions and increasing social inequality. With his theory of labor and religious discord, Feuerbach pointed out that religion is a product of people reflecting their aspirations and pain in the real world. He emphasized that people corrupt themselves through religion, turning human values into supernatural entities, thereby creating an estrangement between people and their true nature. Feuerbach also analyzed labor discord, arguing that the division of labor and exploitation were the sources of social conflict. Marx absorbed and developed Feuerbach's ideas through the materialist dialectical method. He rejected Feuerbach's metaphysical materialism and created dialectical materialism, a theoretical system that views the development of history and society as the result of class conflicts and struggles. Marx's historical materialism explains that all social forms are built on an economic basis and that the development of productive forces leads to changes in production relations, thereby changing the entire social structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though it is acknowledged that Nietzsche read Ludwig Feuerbach, little attention has been given to the significance of Feuerbach's anthropological re-imagination of religion for the trajectory of Nietzsche's own vision for liberated humanity, the Übermensch. For Feuerbach, the Christian religion represents a form of wish-fulfillment and subconscious worship of the human being as divine, where many of the presuppositions of orthodox Christianity (monotheism, human fallenness, other-worldliness, etc.) only impede human flourishing. The acknowledgement of the psychological damage wrought by the scheme and implications of Christian metaphysics is, for Feuerbach and Nietzsche alike, a necessary step in liberating humans from their own self-imposed shackles and enabling the human spirit to actualize its latent potentialities. This paper aims to identify Feuerbachian themes that Nietzsche appropriates for his own purposes in Thus Spake Zarathustra, attending to Nietzsche's early reading of Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1841) during a key period of his intellectual development (1861–1863), and arguing that Feuerbach's impact on Nietzsche is far more subtle and profound than commonly recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este trabajo analiza el aporte de Marx en el “Manuscrito de Kreuznach”. En primer lugar, se explicitan las continuidades y diferencias con Feuerbach respecto del filosofema de la inversión de sujeto y predicado. En relación a esa influencia, se estudian luego otros modos de la crítica de Marx a Hegel, como la crítica de la conversión de la empírea en metafísica. Finalmente se analiza cómo en la concepción de Marx de la soberanía estatal y monárquica como forma representada de la soberanía popular despunta una ruptura filosófica con los esquemas tanto de Feuerbach como de Hegel.

En este ensayo se reflexiona, en primer lugar, sobre el conflicto de interpretaciones que surge a partir de la obra de Marx. El conflicto se inicia con el significado que le da el propio Engels y continúa con la versión soviética del materialismo dialéctico; la teoría crítica de la sociedad y las diversas concepciones que se han realizado bajo el rubro de filosofía de la praxis, empezando con Gramsci. En esa dirección se destaca la propuesta de Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez que coincide, pero también difiere del gran pensador italiano. Sánchez Vázquez, filósofo español exiliado en México en 1939, a raíz de la derrota de la República, da a conocer una propuesta original y define sus tareas del futuro: crítica del capitalismo; explicación científica y estrategia política; proyecto de emancipación; autocrítica y debilidad teoría y práctica. El presente ensayo confronta estas tareas con los desafíos de la sociedad contemporánea.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the philosophies of the late Heidegger and the young Marx side by side to show how, while differing radically in some important aspects, both philosophies are motivated by similar concerns and are not so different as to preclude a productive dialogue between them. In so far as both thinkers can be said to have thought, taking the word in a Heideggerian sense, the "same", the way both philosophies diverge from each other can be especially illuminating when it comes to offering a clear interpretation of them (a task which is especially important to gain an understanding of Heidegger's philosophy which is often obscure). We'll see how Heidegger's notion of finitude implies a series of criticisms of Marx's philosophy. Finally, I'll pose a question regarding the limits of Heidegger's criticism of Marx, considering that this criticism goes as far as to criticize the idea that all human beings are equal and so implies a rejection of the idea of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay aims to scrutinize the concept of alienation from both a history of ideas and a philosophical-political perspective. On the one hand, I will focus on some pivotal modern thinkers who have addressed this topic. On the other hand, I will evaluate the progressive shift of the concept of alienation: from its original juridical dimension in Rousseau, to one of the dialectical driving forces of subjectivity throughout history in Hegel, to the collateral effect of the alienating relationship with religion and God in Feuerbach, and finally, in Marx, to its development as the symbolic-political mark of a society subservient to the monopolistic will of the bourgeois class, which he aimed to politically re-found to restore individual creative freedom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our previous work, „A Contribution to Interpretation of Feuerbach’s Suspicious Absence“, to which this text serves as a sort of continuation, we attempted to address the question of why, in our perspective, the most prominent practitioner of religious critique, Ludwig Feuerbach, is absent among Ricoeur’s “Masters of Suspicion”: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. In this current work, our intention is to employ Ricoeur’s hermeneutical framework, succinctly, to highlight the peculiarities of the religious interpretation within Feuerbach’s legacy. Feuerbach’s distinct hermeneutics permeated an entire generation in the mid-19th century, a generation that discovered, within his theory of religion, a mode of thought that called into question the legitimacy of all known earthly institutions and authorities. However, Feuerbach did not stop there: his exploration of the religious phenomena ultimately led him to a point where he believed that once demystified forms of religion reveal something diametrically opposed to alienation. In this manner, religion becomes a perpetual foundation for intellectual evolution and a detour through which humankind arrives at self-awareness of its true nature.

By contextualising the striking similarities in Feuerbach and Kierkegaard's conceptions of sin as infinite qualitative difference, and the related question of the individual and the species as a shared response to the Hegelian Entzweiung, this article seeks to offer a new framework for understanding Feuerbach's critique of Christian theology and of Kierkegaard's famous articulation of the infinite qualitative difference as simultaneously ontological, hamartiological, and soteriological. It argues that Kierkegaard offers a modification of the Feuerbachian account to argue against Feuerbach's conclusion that the Christian doctrine of sin negates qualitative differences between individual humans, and to conversely affirm that sin differentiates not just God and humans, but each single individual too. Kierkegaard might be said to at once uphold Feuerbach's critique of Hegelian theology, while inverting Feuerbach's anti-theological programme by harnessing the ambiguities that appear in Feuerbach's account of sin. It is thereby shown how both Feuerbach and Kierkegaard make use of Hegelian logic, both through their formal application of the concepts of quality and quantity, as well as their creative appropriation of the notion of Entzweiung. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The text presents the connection between (a) the scientific analyses of the composition of foods (including beer) and their effects on the human body that was carried out in the second half of the 19th century by the physician and physiologist Jacob Moleschott; and (b) the attempt to make these findings the empirical basis for the materialist version of philosophical anthropology put forward by the philosopher and anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Man is what he eats. From Feuerbachian gastrotheology to nutrigenomics The first part of the contribution will aim to briefly reconstruct the socio-historical context in which the relationship between Feuerbach's anthropology and Moleschott's physiology was consolidated, in order to analyse the meaning behind the famous slogan 'man is what he eats'. In the second part, it will be shown how Feuerbach's idea that our food choices testify important characteristics of our modus essendi has found further scientific validation in today's Nutrigenomics, which since the 2000s has emerged as an independent field of research that has brought about major changes in food production, processing and consumption. The idea I intend to develop is that the Feuerbachian analysis of food can be useful in framing the conceptual cornerstones of nutrigenomics and in providing tools for framing and understanding this discipline.

ABSTRACT: Marx’s conceptualization of alienation is influenced by his predecessors Hegel and Feuerbach. However, Marx neither accepts these conceptualizations as they are nor makes a synthesis of them. Instead, he builds his original theory of alienation on the criticism of his predecessors’ views on the subject. As a result, Marx’s theory of alienation becomes materialistic, historical and social. The historical and social conditions Marx was in pointed to the capitalist mode of production and the alienation of the working class caused by it as the causes of unfreedom. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he focuses on the wage worker’s alienation stemming from the labour process. The purpose of this article is to present Marx’s critique of his predecessors in grounding the concept of alienation and his original contribution. For this, first of all, Marx’s criticisms of Hegel’s and then Feuerbach’s alienation theories will be explained. In this context, three points of criticism will be identified for each of them. Then, Marx’s theory of alienated labour will be discussed and the four aspects of the alienation of the worker will be examined. Based on Marx’s definition of alienated labour as forced labour, it will be argued that what causes alienation to productive activity, which Marx attributes a principal role compared to other aspects, is not division of labour or unpleasant work—or working conditions—but rather forced labour, which is a characteristic of the modes of production based on private property. The question of whether the alienation is specific to capitalism, which arises with this determination, may be a precursor for future studies. ÖZ: Marx’ın yabancılaşma kavramsallaştırması, kendinden önce gelen Hegel ve Feuerbach’tan etkilenir. Ancak Marx ne bu kavramsallaştırmaları olduğu gibi kabul eder ne de onların bir sentezini yapar. Bunun yerine, kendi özgün yabancılaşma kuramını öncellerinin görüşlerinin eleştirileri üzerine inşa eder. Böylece Marx’ta yabancılaşma kuramı materyalist, tarihsel ve toplumsal bir içerik kazanır. İçinde bulunduğu tarihsel ve toplumsal koşullar, özgür olmama halinin nedeni olarak Marx’ın karşısına kapitalist üretim tarzı ve onun sebep olduğu işçi sınıfının yabancılaşmasını çıkartır. 1844 El Yazmaları’nda ücretli işçinin emek sürecinden kaynaklanan yabancılaşmasına odaklanır. Bu makalenin amacı, yabancılaşma kavramının temellendirilmesinde Marx’ın öncellerine eleştirisini ve kendi özgün katkısını ortaya koymaktır. Bunun için ilk önce Marx’ın Hegel’in, sonra da Feuerbach’ın yabancılaşma kuramlarına yönelik eleştirilerine odaklanılacaktır. Bu bağlamda öncellerin her birine yönelik üç eleştiri noktası tespit edilecektir. Ardından Marx’ın yabancılaşmış emek kuramı ele alınacak ve ücretli işçinin yabancılaşmasının dört veçhesi (dört ilişki) incelenecektir. Ayrıca Marx’ın yabancılaşmış emeği zorla çalışma olarak tanımlamasından hareketle, diğer veçhelere kıyasla temel bir önem atfettiği üretici etkinliğe yabancılaşmaya neden olan unsurun sıklıkla iddia edildiği gibi esasında iş bölümü ve hoş olmayan çalışma ya da çalışma koşulları değil, emeğin, özel mülkiyete dayalı üretim tarzlarında kazandığı zorla çalışma karakteri olduğu öne sürülecektir. Bu tespit ile birlikte ortaya çıkan, yabancılaşmanın kapitalizme özgü olup olmadığı sorusu gelecekteki çalışmalar için ön açıcı olabilir.

Copyright of Ideas y Valores is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article concerns the main lines of reception of the philosophical ideas of B. Spinoza. Estimates of the work of this thinker, his role and importance have undergone significant changes in the course of the development of Western European and Russian philosophical thought. It focuses on the study of the transformations occurred in the approach and nature of evaluations of the main philosophical ideas of Spinoza in the Western European philosophical space, primarily in Germany and France. At the same time, we can state that the peak of interest in the philosophy of Spinoza in these national traditions seriously diverges in time. Initially, we can talk about the predominance of interest in Spinoza’s philosophy on the part of German-speaking thinkers. For a long time, Spinoza’s philosophy was characterized as atheistic and, in connection with this, was subjected to fierce criticism. It is the German enlighteners who are credited with reviving interest in Spinoza’s philosophy at a new level. At the same time, the philosophical views of this thinker not only cease to be assessed as atheistic, but are sometimes perceived in the exact opposite way - as imbued with genuine religious faith. F. Schleiermacher can be considered here as a striking example of such an approach to Spinoza’s philosophy. In the future, interest in Spinoza’s philosophy was maintained in the German-speaking philosophical space due to the reception of his ideas by Hegel, Feuerbach, and Neo-Kantians. In French-language philosophy, interest in Spinoza wakes up much later - in the middle-second half of the 20th century, which is associated primarily with such name as Deleuze. However, this “French Renaissance” of Spinoza’s philosophy can be considered as no less significant than the Renaissance of the age of German Enlightenment. It was “French Spinozism” that brought the study of Spinoza’s philosophy to the international level, significantly expanding their conceptual framework.

The main goal of this paper is to consider the potential influence that Feuerbach had on Freud, primarily considering the similarity of their views on religion. The possibility of interpreting Freud’s hypotheses about the genesis and function of religion as a psychoanalytic elaboration of Feuerbach’s anthropological reconstruction of religion is pointed out. It turns out that it is not unfounded to claim that the basis of the criticism of religion by both thinkers is the same ultimate goal - not atheism as a mere denial of the existence of God, but a call for the return of man to himself and all his potential. What is less obvious when it comes to Feuerbach’s influence on Freud, and what is pointed out in this paper, is the possibility that some of Freud’s basic psychoanalytic concepts were also inspired by Feuerbach’s philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the possibility of thinking a place for the mysticism of Self within the constitutive requirements of the modern form of consciousness. It takes a common idea found in the works of three representative thinkers of Modernity - Feuerbach, Nietzsche and Jung -, and interprets it in the light of the mysticism of Self. Then the perspective thus established is used in order to interpret the mystical dimension present in a concrete fragment of contemporary psychological experience. The strengthening of the conexión between Mysticism of Self and psychological experience opens a fertile dialogical space in the borderland comprising Theology, Philosophy and Psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Humanism" is an intellectual tendency and a philosophical trend that has been imposed on the Western philosophical sphere since the Renaissance in Europe, as an intellectual revolution against religious doctrines that had made God the axis of all concerns, ignoring the human concern. Humanists thought they could take people away from the power of God and make them think they would not be in need of Him. They said that science and cognitive development would suffice, and people could build their worldview away from the light of divine revelation. This movement continued to exist in the West until our present time, when it collapsed into nihilism, absurdity, and the domination of relativity over everything. This trend also appeared remarkably in the Arab and Islamic culture, where it focused on the "humanizing" of religion with all its components. Its ultimate goal was to give a new understanding of religion, violating the constants by following humanistic approaches in the reading of religious texts, completely relying on human reason as a substitute for revelation. Therefore, this study gives two examples of the intellectual effects of humanism, one in the Western philosophical sphere, that is the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, and the other in the Arab philosophical sphere, that is the thinker Muhammad Arkoun. The study has followed the analytical, critical and comparative approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences is the property of Dokuz Eylul University Graduate School of Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Guillermo de Ockham is the property of Revista Cientifica Guillermo de Ockham, Universidad de San Buenaventura and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How subject and object relate is perceived differently. This has been identified and discussed by philosophers. Hegel built on Plato’s notion that true reality only exists in ideas and is, therefore, objectively true. Hegel argued that the world we encounter is the objectification of the divine mind. Empiricists argue that material things can be engaged through the senses and are, therefore, real. But how do we know that spiritual things are real since they cannot be engaged through the senses? Feuerbach reacted against the Enlightenment thoughts of his time by postulating that god is not real since it is a projection of human qualities. Feuerbach inverted Hegel’s theory by stating that the divine is an abstraction and reification of human thought. With this theory, Feuerbach stated that religion is human-made and redundant. Feuerbach’s theory of the non-existence of god was created during the 19th century and corresponds with post-theism. De Botton also denies the existence of god, but declared that religion has many valuable functions for society. Feuerbach, from a philosophical and De Botton, from a sociological perspective, both deny the existence of god, but differ on the role religion play in society. Feuerbach’s theories proves to have relevance to current studies of religion. Contribution: This contribution investigates the position of Ludwig Feuerbach and tries to indicate the influence his ideas had on current post-theistic theories, such as that by Allan de Botton.

La interrupción como elemento de transformación ha tenido distintos efectos a lo largo del tiempo. En la actualidad la interrupción de mayo del 68 no es solamente la más cercana en el tiempo, sino que es aquella que mejor revela sus efectos en el presente actual. La individualización que representó continúa siendo el elemento configurador del motor de institucionalización que las sociedades occidentales viven. De ahí que concepciones como la democracia emergente e institucional puedan ser revividas en la actualidad a partir de fenómenos como los indignados, las primaveras árabes, o los más recientes como los acontecido en Cataluña en 2017 y los actuales procesos en Colombia y Chile.

O presente artigo pretende destacar a tese de que a natureza, conforme Feuerbach, é um existente autônomo e independente e possui primazia ante o espírito. Para ele, a natureza material, que existe, em sua diferencialidade qualitativa, independente do pensar, é, diante do espírito, o original, o fundamento não deduzível, imediato, não criado de toda existência real, que existe e consiste por si mesmo. Feuerbach opõe a natureza ao espírito, pois ele a entende não como um puro outro, que só por meio do espírito foi posto como natureza, mas, como o primeiro, a realidade objetiva, material, a qual existe fora do entendimento e é dada ao homem por meio de seus sentidos como fundamento e essência de sua vida. Trata-se, portanto, primeiro daquela essência (luz, ar água, fogo, plantas, animais etc.), sem a qual o homem não pode nem ser pensado nem existir. A natureza é, para Feuerbach, a pluralidade de todos os objetos e essências que realmente são. Sob essa condição, é possível conceber a natureza como a garantia da exterioridade mesma, como que um existente fora de nós, que nada sabe de si e é em si e por si mesmo; por conseguinte, ela não deve ser vista como aquilo que ela não é, isto é, nem como divina, nem como humana. A natureza sempre existiu, quer dizer, ela existe por si e tem seu sentido apenas em si mesma; ela é ela mesma, ou seja, nenhuma essência mística, pois, por trás dela, não se esconde nenhum absoluto, nada humano, nada divino, transcendental ou ideal.

Copyright of Aufklärung: Revista de Filosofia is the property of Aufklarung: Revista de Filosofia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Religion in a post-secular age. The echoes of feuerbachian’s anthropotheism on Gianni Vattimo and Richard Rorty’s thought This paper questions the role and future of religion in a post-secular age by considering the philosophical perspective of Ludwig Feuerbach, one of the main opposer of Christian religion. The core idea is that a close relationship exists between Holy and Secular. Furthermore, I discuss the idea that religion, even purified from dogmatic stances and metaphysical backdrop, might be a reliable discourse in God’s Death era. The very analysis proposed by Feuerbach about the anthropological essence of Christian religion could be intended as a viaticum to the current debates dealing with the idea of an authentic religious experience in a post-metaphysical era. With regard to this, Gianni Vattimo and Richard Rorty’s contributions, despite the temporal distance to Feuerbach, are characterized from similarities. Indeed, they share with Feuerbach the view of religion as something deeper than mere faith in a transcendent Entity and as something whose essence stands in brotherhood, charity and openness to alterity. Vattimo himself, who is a believer, starts his reflection from a perspective different from Rorty’s, the latter being anticlerical. Nevertheless, religion once stripped away its metaphysical dogmas shows that anti-essentialism of XIX and XX centuries would lead to more tolerance between atheists and theists of different kind.

Objetiva-se apresentar as críticas que Marx dirige à questão da subjetividade nas filosofias de Hegel e Feuerbach. Para isso, é apresentada uma análise, a partir da leitura marxiana, da forma como esta questão se apresenta nos postulados feuerbachianos e hegelianos. Junto com as críticas são também apresentadas as categorias que Marx contrapõe às filosofias de Hegel e Feuerbach no que tange à problemática da subjetividade.

Whether or not there is a God has been a perennial question for philosophy. What may be said about God is a central concern of theology. That anything meaningful can be said about God has been challenged in the course of Western philosophical thought from different sides. Plato has his character, Timaeus, in his book of the same name assert that “to find the maker and father of this universe is hard enough, and . . . to declare him to everyone is impossible” (28c). In a famous passage from his Philosophical Investigations (§610), Ludwig Wittgenstein muses about the impossibility of describing the aroma of coffee. But if this already exceeds human capabilities, how much more the task of speaking about something or someone as unfathomable as God? As an outstanding and influential representative of Christianity in the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) had something to say about this problem. In this paper, I will explore his particular approach to the issue at hand. In five sections, I shall first briefly examine Lewis’s existential context and how it sets the stage for his giving primacy of the poetical over the analytical or abstract. Second, I will look at the central place metaphor takes in his overall understanding of language. In a third and fourth step, I shall look at his dealings with a central point of criticism as raised by the father of modern atheism, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). Finally, I will look at Lewis’s use of certain Christian tenets and how their appropriation rationally grounded his assuming a basic reliability of Christian God-talk.

This essay traces Marx's conceptualisation of 'feeling' from his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, to Capital of 1867, in order to identify its importance for a critique of political economy and theory of revolution. In doing so, I offer a corrective to the reading of Capital as a scientific textbook of historical materialism, and insist upon the text's poetics as essential to its truth. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx argues that, while all living things suffer, what differentiates humans is that they feel that they suffer. This feeling of suffering, for Marx, is essential for the critique of political economy and the subsequent destruction of capital. However, while the young Marx takes humanity's ability to feel this suffering for granted, the Marx of Capital suggests that they need to be made to feel it. This can be seen in his use of Hegel's concept of Selbstgefühl [self-feeling] – a concept which has been lost in the Anglophone reception of the text by being mistranslated as 'class-consciousness'. I will finish by arguing that the poetics of Marx's texts are not supplementary ornamentation, but essential to the critique itself, as the means by which his reader might feel their suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether or not there is a God has been a perennial question for philosophy. What may be said about God is a central concern of theology. That anything meaningful can be said about God has been challenged in the course of Western philosophical thought from different sides. Plato has his character, Timaeus, in his book of the same name assert that "to find the maker and father of this universe is hard enough, and . . . to declare him to everyone is impossible" (28c). In a famous passage from his Philosophical Investigations (§610), Ludwig Wittgenstein muses about the impossibility of describing the aroma of coffee. But if this already exceeds human capabilities, how much more the task of speaking about something or someone as unfathomable as God? As an outstanding and influential representative of Christianity in the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) had something to say about this problem. In this paper, I will explore his particular approach to the issue at hand. In five sections, I shall first briefly examine Lewis's existential context and how it sets the stage for his giving primacy of the poetical over the analytical or abstract. Second, I will look at the central place metaphor takes in his overall understanding of language. In a third and fourth step, I shall look at his dealings with a central point of criticism as raised by the father of modern atheism, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). Finally, I will look at Lewis's use of certain Christian tenets and how their appropriation rationally grounded his assuming a basic reliability of Christian God-talk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We ignore the history of philosophy at our peril. Engels, who typically conflates Marx and Marxism, points to the relation of Marxism to the tradition while also denying it. In his little book on Feuerbach, Engels depicts Feuerbach as leading Marx away from Hegel, away from classical German philosophy, away from philosophy and towards materialism and science. This view suggests that Marx is at best negatively related to Classical German philosophy, including Hegel. Yet Engels elsewhere suggests that Marx belongs to the classical German philosophical tradition. In the preface to Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Engels wrote: “We German socialists are proud that we trace our descent not only from Saint Simon, Fourier and Owen, but also from Kant, Fichte and Hegel” (Marx & Engels, Collected Works). In this paper I will focus on Marx’s relation to Fichte. This relation is rarely mentioned in the Marxist debate, but I will argue, it is crucial for the formulation of Marx’s position, and hence for assessing his contribution accurately. One of the results of this study will be to indicate that Marx, in reacting against Hegel, did not, as is often suggested, ‘leave’ philosophy, but in fact made a crucial philosophical contribution.

Copyright of Trans/Form/Ação is the property of Trans/Form/Acao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is based on Feuerbach's well-known ruling that "man is what he eats", to analyse its possible different meanings, even the most recondited ones. To do this the research winds through a long journey, which begins with a reflection on the role that food has in some Western religions, especially in Judaism and Christianity. Two processes which have deeply characterized the relationship of Western man with food are then examined: the process of industrialization and that of the medicalization of food. Finally, coming to the contemporary, the article goes into the merits of the relationship that different cultures have with food in a multicultural society and offers some indications for alternative models compared to those currently dominant. The conclusion, with Feuerbach and beyond Feuerbach, is that man is yes what he eats, but also what he does not eat and, above all, man eats what he is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

En el presente artículo nos proponemos analizar la filosofía de la religión y la crítica que se hace a esta, tomando como anclaje los planteamientos de Ludwig Feuerbach, como primer gran exponente del ateísmo moderno. Para ello, partiremos de una serie de pensadores que se pueden considerar como precedentes de las ideas del autor alemán, llegando después a los planteamientos feuerbachianos y acabando en una valoración de los filósofos que, tras él, han construido una filosofía crítica de la religión y la teología, poniendo en conexión las innovaciones que Feuerbach llevó a cabo en disciplinas como la filosofía, la teología o la antropología, con cuestiones de candente actualidad, defendiendo lo pertinente de este pensamiento, aun encontrándonos a un siglo y medio de distancia de la muerte de su autor.

El siguiente texto se circunscribe en el ámbito de la filosofía de la religión; tiene como objeto central analizar la alienación del hombre dentro del fenómeno religioso (particularmente en las religiones monoteístas) y cómo esta origina intolerancia social en las sociedad contemporáneas entre hombres que no comparten las mismas creencias; esta postura ha causado momentos de violencia extrema a lo largo de la historia humana y otra tanta en la actualidad como el conflicto en el Medio Oriente – Judíos y Musulmanes. Para tal empresa tomaremos como referencia la crítica a la religión expuesta por el pensador alemán del siglo XIX Ludwig Feuerbach en su obra principal: La esencia del cristianismo (Das Wesen des Christentums), complementándolo con otros críticos religiosos (Voltaire, Kirsch, Freud, etc.). Por último, expondremos el ateísmo humanista de Feuerbach como alternativa para la superación de la intolerancia social.

La antropología padece el dilema de hablar del hombre en general, aunque siempre se tiene que tratar, sin embargo, con el hombre particular. Ella surge de aquello que Nietzsche denomina la ‘muerte de Dios’: cuando Feuerbach sustituye la teología por la antropología, cuida la imagen del hombre de tal manera que éste se convierte en ideal y norma. De esto buscan apartarse Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, y también parte de la antropología filosófica del siglo 20: desde la perspectiva de la evolución, el animal humano es un constante experimento que a lo largo del tiempo trasciende todo intento de definición esencial e intemporal. Un siglo después de Nietzsche, Luhmann desidealiza y desnormativiza ‘al’ hombre: descompone la aparente unidad del hombre en tres sistemas –físico, psíquico y de comunicación de la sociedad, que sin determinarse uno al otro, se examinan y reaccionan mutuamente. Los márgenes que permanecen en la relación de los sistemas, que son entorno de uno para el otro, pueden ser concebidos de la mejor manera a través del concepto de ‘orientacion’: todo lo que se orienta, sea el cuerpo, la conciencia o la sociedad, es un sistema de observación que se orienta en su entorno y reacciona con él. Entre los hombres y los animales no existen diferencias de principio, sino solamente graduales y de modo. Las orientaciones se orientan con más fuerza en otras orientaciones. Son las más beneficiosas unas para otras, pero también las más peligrosas. Son individuales, tienen ya sus propios puntos de vista, horizontes, perspectivas, puntos de referencia, señales y mundos de orientación. En lugar de iniciar con antropologías generales y doctrinas acerca del hombre en cuanto tal, que aparentan validez general, se debe comenzar con las orientaciones de hombres particulares hacia otros hombres particulares, en las que siempre permanecen márgenes de decisión, también en contra de definiciones generales.

Copyright of Revista de Filosofía UIS is the property of Universidad Industrial de Santander and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuestiones de Filosofia is the property of Universidad Pedagogica y Tecnologica de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Escritos is the property of Escritos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the plane of a triangle ABC, every triangle center U = u : v : w (barycentric coordinates) is associated with a central triangle having A-vertex AU = -u : v + w : v + w. The triangle AU BU CU is a self-inverse Gemini triangle. Let mU(X) be the image of a point X under the collineation that maps A;B;C;G respectively onto AU;BU;CU;G, where G is the centroid of ABC. Then mU(mU(X)) = X: Properties of the self-inverse mapping mU are presented, with attention to associated conics (e.g., Jerabek, Kiepert, Feuerbach, Nagel, Steiner), as well as cubics of the types pK(Y, Y) and pK(U * Y, Y). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]