Ruge, Arnold (1802–80)

Author(s):  
Hans-Martin Sass

Arnold Ruge was the most influential liberal writer and activist of the radical wing of Young Hegelianism. For him philosophy was a challenge to translate the humanist ideals of emancipation and self-determination into the realities of moral, cultural and political practice. As editor of powerful intellectual journals such as Hallesche und Deutsche Jahrbuecher (1838–43) with Theodor Echtermeyer, ‘Anekdota zur neuesten deutschen Philosophie und Publizistik’ (1843), ‘Deutsch-Franzoesische Jahrbuecher’ (1844) with Karl Marx, and ‘Die Akademie’ (1850), he became the leading promotor of liberal philosophy and civic emancipation in Germany. Ruge represented the citizens of Breslau in the Frankfurt Paulskirche parliament in 1848–9 and worked briefly with Alexandre Ledru-Rollin and Guizeppe Mazzini in establishing a short-lived ‘European Democratic Committee’ in London in 1849. Ruge understood his critical educational, cultural and political activities as a direct calling from the heritage of European enlightenment and German idealism, thus transforming idealistic theory and vision into the realities of political practice and agitation. In this manner he promoted such radical figures as Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner, David Friedrich Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbach.

Author(s):  
Renato A. De Oliveira

O presente artigo pretende apresentar as filosofias de Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner e Ludwig Feuerbach, em especial suas ideias acerca do homem e da religião. Entendemos que tais pensadores foram, durante muito tempo, na história do pensamento ocidental, relegados ao esquecimento, especialmente devido à crítica de Marx aos mesmos. A maior dificuldade em desenvolver esta pesquisa foi o acesso à bibliografia dos autores em questão. Porém, procuramos realizar uma leitura imanente das obras que tivemos acesso, bem como de pesquisadores renomados sobre o movimento neohegeliano.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tijana Müller-Sladakovic

Max Stirner ist im Vergleich mit den Zeitgenossen seines intellektuellen Umfelds – zu denen Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach und Moses Hess zählen – ein wenig rezipierter Autor. In diesem Buch wird dieser unkonventionelle Denker zum ersten Mal als unzeitgemäßer Reformpädagoge und Bildungsphilosoph verstanden. Gerade im Hinblick auf seine bildungsphilosophische und kommunikationstheoretische Orientierung kann eine Auseinandersetzung mit Stirner sehr gewinnbringend sein, da seine ideologiekritischen und reformpädagogischen Ansätze eine bislang nicht ausgeschöpfte Ressource für heutige pädagogische und bildungsphilosophische Fragen bilden. Die in diesem Buch vorgeschlagene Neulektüre Stirners zeigt unter anderem, dass seine sprach- und bildungsphilosophische Ideologiekritik zentrale Gemeinsamkeiten mit der aktuellen Framingforschung aufweist.


Philosophy ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 66 (257) ◽  
pp. 269-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony Flew

‘Karl Marx was a German philosopher.’ It is with this seminal sentence that Leszek Kolakowski begins his great work on The Main Currents of Marxism: its Rise, Growth and Dissolution (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978). Both the two terms in the predicate expression are crucial. It is most illuminating to think of Marx as originally a philosopher, even though nothing in his vastly voluminous works makes any significant contribution to philosophy in any academic understanding of that term. It is also essential to recognize that for both Marx and Engels philosophy was always primarily, indeed almost exclusively, what they and their successors called classical German philosophy. This was a tradition seen as achieving its climactic fulfilment in the work of Hegel, and one which they themselves identified as a main stimulus to their own thinking. Thus Engels, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, claimed that ‘The German working-class movement is the inheritor of German classical philosophy’.


Author(s):  
Robert Stern ◽  
Nicholas Walker

As an intellectual tradition, the history of Hegelianism is the history of the reception and influence of the thought of G.W.F. Hegel. This tradition is notoriously complex and many-sided, because while some Hegelians have seen themselves as merely defending and developing his ideas along what they took to be orthodox lines, others have sought to ‘reform’ his system, or to appropriate individual aspects and overturn others, or to offer consciously revisionary readings of his work. This makes it very hard to identify any body of doctrine common to members of this tradition, and a wide range of divergent philosophical views can be found among those who (despite this) can none the less claim to be Hegelians. There are both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ reasons for this: on one hand, Hegel’s position itself brings together many different tendencies (idealism and objectivism, historicism and absolutism, rationalism and empiricism, Christianity and humanism, classicism and modernism, a liberal view of civil society with an organicist view of the state); any balance between them is hermeneutically very unstable, enabling existing readings to be challenged and old orthodoxies to be overturned. On the other hand, the critical response to Hegel’s thought and the many attempts to undermine it have meant that Hegelians have continually needed to reconstruct his ideas and even to turn Hegel against himself, while each new intellectual development, such as Marxism, pragmatism, phenomenology or existential philosophy, has brought about some reassessment of his position. This feature of the Hegelian tradition has been heightened by the fact that Hegel’s work has had an impact at different times over a long period and in a wide range of countries, so that divergent intellectual, social and historical pressures have influenced its distinct appropriations. At the hermeneutic level, these appropriations have contributed greatly to keeping the philosophical understanding of Hegel alive and open-ended, so that our present-day conception of his thought cannot properly be separated from them. Moreover, because questions of Hegel interpretation have so often revolved around the main philosophical, political and religious issues of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Hegelianism has also had a significant impact on the development of modern Western thought in its own right. As a result of its complex evolution, Hegelianism is best understood historically, by showing how the changing representation of Hegel’s ideas have come about, shaped by the different critical concerns, sociopolitical conditions and intellectual movements that dominated his reception in different countries at different times. Initially, Hegel’s influence was naturally most strongly felt in Germany as a comprehensive, integrative philosophy that seemed to do justice to all realms of experience and promised to preserve the Christian heritage in a modern and progressive form within a speculative framework. However, this position was quickly challenged, both from other philosophical standpoints (such as F.W.J. Schelling’s ‘positive philosophy’ and F.A. Trendelenburg’s neo-Aristotelian empiricism), and by the celebrated generation of younger thinkers (the so-called ‘Young’ or ‘Left’ Hegelians, such as Ludwig Feuerbach, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Arnold Ruge and the early Karl Marx), who insisted that to discover what made Hegel a truly significant thinker (his dialectical method, his view of alienation, his ‘sublation’ of Christianity), this orthodoxy must be overturned. None the less, both among these radicals and in academic circles, Hegel’s influence was considerably weakened in Germany by the 1860s and 1870s, while by this time developments in Hegelian thought had begun to take place elsewhere. Hegel’s work was known outside Germany from the 1820s onwards, and Hegelian schools developed in northern Europe, Italy, France, Eastern Europe, America and (somewhat later) Britain, each with their own distinctive line of interpretation, but all fairly uncritical in their attempts to assimilate his ideas. However, in each of these countries challenges to the Hegelian position were quick to arise, partly because the influence of Hegel’s German critics soon spread abroad, and partly because of the growing impact of other philosophical positions (such as Neo-Kantianism, materialism and pragmatism). Nevertheless, Hegelianism outside Germany proved more durable in the face of these attacks, as new readings and approaches emerged to counter them, and ways were found to reinterpret Hegel’s work to show that it could accommodate these other positions, once the earlier accounts of Hegel’s metaphysics, political philosophy and philosophy of religion (in particular) were rejected as too crude. This pattern has continued into the twentieth century, as many of the movements that began by defining themselves against Hegel (such as Neo-Kantianism, Marxism, existentialism, pragmatism, post-structuralism and even ‘analytic’ philosophy) have then come to find unexpected common ground, giving a new impetus and depth to Hegelianism as it began to be assimilated within and influenced by these diverse approaches. Such efforts at rapprochement began in the early part of the century with Wilhelm Dilthey’s attempt to link Hegel with his own historicism, and although they were more ambivalent, this connection was reinforced in Italy by Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile. The realignment continued in France in the 1930s, as Jean Wahl brought out the more existentialist themes in Hegel’s thought, followed in the 1940s by Alexander Kojève’s influential Marxist readings. Hegelianism has also had an impact on Western Marxism through the writings of the Hungarian Georg Lukács, and this influence has continued in the critical reinterpretations offered by members of the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and others. More recently, most of the major schools of philosophical thought (from French post-structuralism to Anglo-American ‘analytic’ philosophy) have emphasized the need to take account of Hegel, and as a result Hegelian thought (both exegetical and constructive) is continually finding new directions.


2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Stepan

AbstractSome polities have strong cultural diversity, some of which is territorially based and politically articulated by significant groups that, in the name of nationalism, and self-determination, advance claims for independence. In this article such polities are defined as ‘politically robustly multinational’. If the goal is peace and democracy in one state in such a polity, this article advances theoretical and empirical arguments to show that ideal typical ‘nation-state’ making policies are less appropriate than policies associated with new ideal type I construct called ‘state-nation’. Countries discussed are Spain, Belgium, and Canada and the ‘matched pair’ of successful Tamil political integration via state nation policies in India, and failed Tamil political integration due to nation-state policies in Sri Lanka.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Thomas

The objective of this articleis to connect Matthew Arnold, that statesman of culture, with a tin of Tate and Lyle's Golden Syrup, a by-product of industrial sugar refining that has been named Britain's “oldest brand.” Bringing the lofty to the low, the sage to the sweetener, is an exercise in willful materialism. Reading Arnold's “sweetness and light” literally, as comestibles, and “culture” as a term that engages the culinary, puts Arnold into conversation with revolutionary nineteenth-century materialist theorists, in particular the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. Although not commonly read now, Feuerbach's work was translated by George Eliot and influential on that of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: it is his materialism and his atheism that we see, modified, in their work. In his own time, he was also known for theories about diet and this article will, in part, show how these theories are inseparable from both his materialism and his atheism. True to its viscous, tacky nature, Golden Syrup arrives slowly and emerges late in my argument, but it will adhere Arnold to Feuerbach, and to an intellectual tradition that holds that what we eat, and whether and how we can eat, is as world-making as what we read. Sitting Feuerbach's self-avowed extreme materialism down at the table with Arnold's self-avowed extreme anti-materialism, I will show that they grapple with the same gods – the gods of Christianity, capitalism, and cultural immortality – and that they both conclude that we make and remake our world by digesting it.


1978 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence S. Stepelevich
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 39-52
Author(s):  
Maria Socorro Ramos Militão ◽  
Oziel Rocha

O objetivo principal do estudo é explorar a relação existente entre a religião e a política nos escritos de Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), investigando a religião a partir da atuação da Igreja Católica no contexto histórico-político italiano. A pesquisa também retoma esta discussão no pensamento de Nicolau Maquiavel (1469-1527), em Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), explorando nesse, especialmente, o conceito de alienação, e ainda em Karl Marx (1818-1883) e Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), até chegar à questão em Gramsci. Esse percurso é necessário porque a investigação do político italiano remonta ao papel exercido pela Igreja no contexto da Idade Média, que tem a religião como ideologia oficial e a gênese dos movimentos populares que se distanciaram de tal ideologia. Somente após a compreensão do papel da religião ao longo da história é possível dar sustentação teórica solida à questão da religião como instrumento político em inúmeros períodos da história da Civilização Ocidental. Porém, o presente artigo não visa esgotar a discussão sobre a temática, mas apenas trazer à baila este, que é um tema muito recorrente na atualidade.


Author(s):  
Caio Bugiato

A polêmica tese de Louis Althusser sobre a ruptura epistemológina na obra de Karl Marx gerou uma série de divergências entre os marxistas nas últimas décadas do século XX. Sua ideia central é a divisão do pensamento de Marx em dois momentos: o jovem Marx, momento no qual o pensamento de Marx estaria inserido na problemática ideológica do humanismo teórico do filósofo Ludwig Feuerbach; e o Marx da maturidade, momento no qual Marx teria fundado a ciência da história e cunhado teses e conceitos para uma nova problemática, o materialismo histórico e dialético. Ideia esta que está em oposição à interpretação sobre uma evolução linear do pensamento marxiano, como se vê em György Lukács. Dessa forma, o objetivo deste texto é, mediante uma análise bibliográfica,  resgatar a tese de Althusser sobre a ruptura epistemológica no pensamenteo de Marx e, à luz desta, interpretar o pensamento de Ernesto “Che” Guevara, um dos líderes da Revolução Cubana de 1959. O pensamento de Che sobre o homem novo de moral socialista desencadeou debates sobre as condições materiais para a transição ao socialismo e fomentou práticas teóricas e concretas no curso inicial da revolução. Assim sendo, tal interpretação sobre as ideias e as práticas de Che nos indica que o seu pensamento está alicerçado no humanismo teórico que envolve o pensamento do jovem Marx.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document