Marx has been misunderstood many times and for various reasons. Often he is shown as an exponent of the magnification of the economy in thought and as a champion of atheism, but nothing is further from the truth. To begin, we often "forget" that Marx voluntarily attended a course, the only one who was not mandatory in their curriculum on the prophet Isaiah. Not only that, because many years later, he told his wife the interest lectures was a parish priest. The truth is that Marx had a wide knowledge of the human essence of religion and this was one of the focuses of his doctrine.
The axis of the deviations in the interpretation of Marx's work part of the misunderstanding of his doctrine as a purely economic, when really only postulated that economic changes are only required to get to human development. The economy for Marx is thus a means to an end. The real objective of the economic revolution was really a social revolution.
The Marx's notion of progress is distorted by the perception that capitalism presumes that increased consumption means greater happiness. In the distortion of Communism (remember that Marx was only saying what communism was not and never defined it) was done in the Soviet Union and countries of its orbit was repeated fantasy of unrestrained consumption unless you want to associate these material advantages to increased consumption of the worker opportunities, the result is the same. This happened, for example, during the rule of Leonid Brezhnev, who argued that the needs of workers should be met without questioning the validity of those needs. By contrast Marx that emphasized it limit what is unnecessary for the man because the more your needs grow more dependent (and therefore less free) is: "Forget that the production of too many useful things results in too many useless people [ ...] "(K. Marx:" Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts ").
As for the famous phrase "religion is the opium of the people", this is not just a shifting out of a passage in which he did not mean what it expresses the sentence separately. The whole passage is in his 1844 "Critique of Hegel's philosophy of law" and is as follows:
"Religious suffering is an expression of real suffering and at the time, the protest against it. Religion is the sigh of the afflicted creature, the feeling of a world insensitive and tasteless as grace. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people demand their real happiness. The call to abandon the delusions about the state itself is the call to abandon a condition which needs the deception. The criticism of religion is, therefore, originally the valley of tears criticism whose halo is religion. Critics have evicted the imaginary flowers from the chain, not for man to take the chain without fantasy or consolation, but to throw the chain and take the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusioned man to think, act and order his reality as a man disillusioned, returned to reason, to turn itself around, that is, its true role. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around the man while it is he who turns on itself. "
What Marx actually expresses in this passage is that it has placed on religion as a tranquilizer that responds to the anxieties of a sick society. This society is sick he did use a distorted view of religion (and no human values that conveys the true understanding of religion) to appease problems caused by twisted dynamics of society. In reality the "religious conception of Marx roots in negative theology, as to not to project anything to God, which ends using values that are preached also in religion.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
We understand "nature" as the pattern of a given individual. Thus is the way that human energy is channeled into the processes of assimilation and socialization. Having accepted that the first distinction is made regarding the ability of the character to fulfill ourselves, so that the first division will be between the orientations of unproductive and productive nature. Within the unproductive can distinguish the following types:
RECEPTIVE ORIENTATION:
In the receptive orientation the person feels that the "source of all good" is abroad and believes the only way to get what you want is received from an external source. If love is the question of the problem lies not in being loved and loving, so you generally expect to find someone to give them the necessary information rather than make the effort themselves. For this reason people tend to be overly susceptible to rejection or rebuff the person who is dear.
When you need to make decisions or take responsibility can not have enough confidence in themselves and are common in everyday for advice to any trivial detail, also tend to have great fondness for food and drink that often serves to calm her anxiety. So the mouth is the prevailing party in the individuals in this direction.
This type of character tends to be found more abundantly in those societies where the right of one group to exploit other is firmly established and the "expert" is where we find one of their symbols, by the attitude shown towards him by public opinion and that is stimulated by advertising and propaganda. Only he knows about the subject and the rest can only hear your opinion, what places necessarily to others in an attitude of "receptive" to an authority figure. Before the expert people and abide submits its opinion as valid without question for several reasons, but usually part of the scheme that reality is too complex for ordinary citizens, leaving them subject to the person who is asserted as capable of having achieved knowledge on the subject.
OPERATOR ORIENTATION:
In common with the receptive perception that the source of all good is abroad and that by itself can produce nothing, the difference is that in this orientation the individual does not expect to receive what you need as a gift, but that achieved through violence or cunning. Therefore only attracted to people that they can steal something. They also tend to think that what they can steal is better than anything they can produce themselves. If it's ideas, these people instead of producing them, the steal. An extreme example of this approach would be the kleptomaniac.
This approach dates back to feudal ancestors and pirates. He was subsequently pursued by men looking to buy low and sell high, tirelessly pursuing power and wealth, even as a character trait that became established as a general rule.
The mouth, as in the receptive orientation, is the part that symbolizes the body but, unlike the other direction, the attitude now is more aggressive and aimed at the action of biting.
CUMULATIVE ORIENTATION:
In this orientation the person usually has little faith in anything he can get from the outside world since their security is based on the accumulation and savings and, therefore, any expenditure is interpreted as a threat. These people are surrounded by a protective wall and seek to defend at all costs its fortified position. Some of them express their fear of external threat to the compulsion to wash and often show an exaggerated loyalty to people and to the memories as they usually do their sentimentality to believe that all the past was better. Alongside compulsion usually by cleaning often gives the thoroughness, although the method is at the bottom rigid and sterile.
Historically this figure has represented the conservative. The property was consolidated for him a symbol of himself and his protection was established in a supreme value, goods and family in their redoubt.
COMMERCIAL ORIENTATION:
In this orientation success depends to the person's ability to "sell" to others in the "existing market." The aim is to provide a personality that is demanded in the background and let the development of their personality. This kind of personality is most in demand communicating society by various means: cinema, education, etc ...
Once the person is experienced as a commodity itself implicitly reach the second part, which does not depend on self-esteem of himself but of external devices. The individual then fight so that others will recognize the success and, therefore, lose the sense of dignity and pride. Its value is the market price and individuality will be worthless. These features make this approach has spread massively in the modern era, in parallel with the rise of market economy.
If we have to see it in practice in this important knowledge guidance whenever they can find a projection on the market and, therefore, impractical thought that only seeks the truth is relegated. Also, although not the most representative example of this approach is worth emphasizing that most intelligence tests are specific to this thought, his aim is not to measure both the capacity for reasoning and understanding, as measured degree of mental adjustment to a given situation. If the reason was only a logical problem solving ability paranoid logical conclusions could be reached even absurd, on the contrary the aim of reason is to understand the essence of things.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
The inflection between the explanation of the myths and the birth of Greek philosophy is given to finding an underlying order within the apparent chaos of impersonal forces. By then the gods took care of both the fate of all mankind as the personal circumstances of the particular individuals. Even humans could most senior kinship with the gods, but these ties to humanity had been unable to avoid mythological explanations causes broad dissatisfaction in important social groups that were replacing the place of mythology of reason.
Miletus was a thriving Greek city on the coast of Ionia (Asia Minor) that highlighted by the trade (especially woolens). The boom and the flexibility of the current theocratic society where neither helped inescapable identification with the traditional gods.
In the context of Ionia was Miletus which was ruled by the Lydian king Alyattes (610-560 BC), who had conquered Smyrna and that after fighting the Milesians made a treaty with them. His son, Croesus, ending the conquest of the coast of Ionia and after defeating it became part of the Persian Empire. Still Miletus continued to maintain its economic and cultural independence.
Egypt and Mesopotamia were two civilizations coexisted with the Greek but, although they were parallels between them, only if Greek philosophy and was developed which had to prevail against the hegemony of thought to the religious imposition. They shared that Egypt and Mesopotamia had also made great advances in the field of science, such as Herodotus and Aristotle tell us referring to geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, etc.. The issue is that development of these sciences in Egypt and Babylon was primarily motivated by practical needs. While the Greeks was interested in science itself, as abstractions, the Egyptians were more concerned about advancing science to know how to raise taxes or distribute plots of land.
There was another similarity between the Egyptians and Greeks, however, did not lead to the same conclusion, and was to have a social stratum with the material needs largely met. As Aristotle tells us in the case of the Egyptians was the priestly caste which had that ability, in the Greek case were noble and wealthy classes. But again only in Greece this might be a starting point for philosophical thought which existed in Egypt until the wealthy continued to hold firm beliefs in religion.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
"The mission of intellectual appeal is somewhat opposite to the political. The intellectual work aspires, often vainly, to clarify things a bit, while the politician is usually, however, involve more confused than they were. Being on the left is, like being on the right, one of the countless ways that man can choose to be a jerk. Moreover, the persistence of these adjectives contributes greatly to further falsify reality, then, false in itself, because he has curly lock of political experiences to respond, as evidenced by the fact that right now the promise proposed leftist revolutions and tyrannies. When someone asks us why we are in politics or in anticipation with the insolence that belongs to the style of our time, we ascribed to one, instead of answering, we must ask the impertinent what he thinks is the man and the nature and history what is society and the individual, the community, the State, use the right. The policy is quick to turn off the lights so that all these cats have been brown. It is necessary that the European thinking on these issues provide new clarity."
Ortega y Gasset. "The Revolt of the Masses", 1937
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
Do not forget that the metaphysical or desires of a more worldly philosophers have often stem from different psychological problems. It also happens in reverse, is an intellectual problem derives psychological delusions. This is because a true philosopher working on himself, so that concern disorders I tend to be most common among this guild. We found a few varieties evident.
Melancholy is the first. Reflecting on death, the human condition or similar topics is something that easily leads to a state of sadness, which can be temporary or chronic. Heraclitus could be the first afflicted. At the end of his life, disgusted by the vice of his fellow citizens of Ephesus, became a misanthrope. The incomplete or chaotic state of some of his works is blamed by Theophrastus to this feeling that dominated. Hanna Arendt is more direct and clear. It literally says "As I am a melancholy, than just thinking I can fight.". Walter Benjamin is betrayed quickly and often appears in photos with downcast eyes and melancholy.
The manic-depressive swing refers to the passing from strong phases of exaltation to the deepest depression. Auguste Comte is a good representative of this condition, after being deceived by his wife, scaring exalted. He sticks a fork in the cheek of a servant and, months later, living in a near-vegetative state.
The anxiety is historically confused and melancholy that has been used for cases of anxiety and melancholy itself. We describe a number of philosophers who fall into state clearly anxious. Kierkegaard sees in such a state of anxiety and melancholy that supports the need for a psychiatric view. Is described thus: "From very young I was under the influence of an immense melancholy depth of which finds its only true expression in the faculty, who has been granted degree equally immense, hidden under the appearance and enjoyment of life." Hegel confesses: "I am an anxious man. Schopenhauer neurotic since the death of his father is a misanthropic, misogynist, Depressed, ... says, "I inherited my father's curse and anguish that I fight with all my strength. This anxiety comes over me, sometimes for a trifle, with such brutality that I see as something done, a catastrophe merely possible, even just unthinkable. "Hobbes, who sleeps with two loaded pistols for fear of attacks, confesses that" the Fear and I were born twins "in reference to his premature birth motivated by the Spanish army troops.
Among social phobics have to Thomas Aquinas on the run from his peers. To say mass at the church comes before everyone and retire quickly for fear of being seen by others. Descartes makes no effort to find him, such as constantly changing domicile.
In hypochondriasis could see a list that would include Erasmus, Voltaire and Kant. The latter describes the phenomenon: "The imagined hypochondriac who suffers from all the diseases that have heard of."
With dissociative disorders, we refer to the altered states of consciousness, depersonalization, etc ... In the example of Plato, which personalized philosopher Socrates only, we could have a case.
In personality disorders the patient remains the same, but with much suffering. Megalomania is usually a simple case for this section. The philosopher in turn is thought to be more than it is. Between talking to God and speak as if God were no great distance. Giordano Bruno and Abelardo are examples of this case. The latter said: "I believed that was the only philosopher in the world.." Rousseau belongs to another variant, is a paranoid lost. Famous in 1761 when the Jesuits imagine going to stand in his Emile. For him there is a plot "The judges hate me (...) The philosophers to whom I have exposed, they want to lose at any price and will get it (...) the priests, philosophers sold to harass me (...) The authors plagiarize me and I censor. "Schelling has neuroses of all kinds. It is extremely likely, he fights with teachers, with peers, with students ... a cyclothymic temperament coupled with noise phobia.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
Freud was the instigator of this fad that lasted (and still lasting many years), the patient lay on a couch and the psychoanalyst to bring her back. According to Freud the origin that the term was spent to sustain the gaze of his patients for hours. Then he argued otherwise, that the patient and better focused on what he had to say that lowered the analyst's influence on patient feedback, etc ... Of course this is the official version, if we think we can draw some other conclusions.
The founder of psychoanalysis was to show some justification for this procedure, but the reason he would not reveal is that he wanted to "go down to hell" of the patient, preferring to adopt an attitude comfortable distance that allows only involved to the extent that he agreed . Its aim was to use patients as clinical data that would allow him to delve into his theories, not as people who need human communication to solve their problems.
To begin placing a patient on a couch it produces a contempt, it is treated like a guinea pig that is supposed to function by mechanical stimuli. Furthermore it is in a position of inferiority to the analyzer, which, moreover, and as a result of this situation easily tends to be idolized and with increased transfer. René Spitz recognized unequivocally that the main function of the patient couch is puerilizar to get more data from his childhood. The problem is that with this device transfer intensity tends to increase and with it increases the difficulty for psychoanalysis of the patient.
Although communication of the patient's thoughts toward the analyst may make it difficult at first instance, postmarked after this first initial barrier involves the patient in front of an adult (and not talking to an entity that responds poorly) that can understand what happens and you can establish a human bond. The transfer is smaller and the patient gets feedback frontal fruit of dialogue helps to improve the expression of their thoughts and feelings.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
Thrasymachus of Chalcedon in Bithynia (459 BC-400 BC) is known for his meeting with Socrates, which is narrated in Book I of Plato's Republic, but in Athens and was well known as a speaker and teacher of rhetoric, even before the arrival of Gorgias. Despite this there is little information about his life except that made long journeys for which he won fame and money. As for his work is recorded with certainty only speech "In Defense of lariseos".
Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us in Iseo 20.: "[...] Dealt exclusively covered epideictic rhetoric and speeches, but has not judicial speeches." Thrasymachus's contribution to rhetoric was, above all, every idea in a joint unit period or several periods closely linked together. It was also the first to introduce the colon. (Previous rhythmic prose equivalent to syntactic units consisting composed by other children, Kola, capable of being delivered in a single issue. Usually the term period contains the notions of rhythm and unity of thought. Colon also corresponds to the terminology rhythm.). Cicero tells us in, 13.40 Speaker: "[...] was the first who established the principle of expressing the thought of a more comprehensive and complete sentences with soft rhythms." Suda also mentions resources and oratories which were possibly sketches or general schemes suitable for different subjects of oratory.
Which is perhaps his most famous quote is contained in the book of Plato's "Republic" R 336B ff. Thrasymachus cited: "[Thrasymachus] I argue that the fairest thing is the convenience of the fittest" and soon after he himself explains: "Every form of government creates laws according to their convenience: democracy, democratic laws; tyranny tyrannical laws, and also other forms of government. And once they have established laws, generally show their subjects that right is what is desirable and that it transgresses the convenience punished as a violator of the law and deserving of justice. ". Hermias (Commentary on Plato's Phaedrus, p.239, 21 written uncertain) shows the character of Thrasymachus to distrustful an element of power at that time, religion: "[Thrasymachus] in a speech of his wrote something similar, namely that the gods are not human actions. Otherwise, they would not have neglected the greater human good: Justice. "
For Thrasymachus justice is folly and ignorance and, instead, injustice is the true virtue, because it is following its mandate as the man gets arete and eudaimonia. It also shows the weaknesses with this logic obtained from the definition of justice, for example, the search for the good of others. If the ruling for seeking the good of the governed, they should seek the good of the rulers, which would give us a confirmation of the right of the stronger. However, justice does not raise you to dead ends this logical and rulers and seek their own good.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
The Nazi system constitutes an extreme form of the "authoritarian" and Hitler's autobiography is a good example of this attitude. Sadism is the momentum, with strong connotations destructive, directed the exercise of unlimited power over another person. Hitler showed a clear desire sadistic power, as constantly shown in "Mein Kapfe. He speaks of the satisfaction of the masses to feel dominated: "What they want is the victory of the strongest and the annihilation or the unconditional surrender of the weakest.".
Describes how to break the will of the public through the work of the superior force of the speaker, which is the essential role of propaganda: "At night, however, succumb more easily to the dominating force of a superior," and how should impel people to adopt the new ideology: "The mass meeting is necessary, at least for the individual, who join a new movement is lonely and can be easy prey to the fear of being isolated , first acquires the vision of a larger community [...] and I sat surrounded by thousands of people with the same convictions ... he should succumb to the magic influence of what we call mass suggestion. "
Although they were the leaders who enjoyed power, the Nazi system to the masses also provided its share of sadistic satisfaction, so that by following the Roman pattern, if they had too much "bread" at least would be guaranteed the "circus" that would ensure satisfaction. The racial and political minorities, who were described as weak and decadent, were the main focus of it. Hitler says sarcastically: "In truth, the idea is perhaps pacifist humanitarian quite good provided the most valuable man has previously conquered and held the world to the point of being transformed into the sole owner of the balloon.".
Hitler usually want to rationalize their lust for power. Their main justifications are that domination over other peoples heads at the same well and is made in favor of world culture and that their attempts at domination are only acts of defense against foreign attempts to dominate him and the people German. He only wants peace and freedom, though of course under his rule and its own concepts of "peace" and "freedom." As he himself says "peace and not supported in the olive branches of weeping women pacifists, but based on the victorious sword of Lords, which puts the world in the service of a higher culture.". His justification of the domain as a defense against outside attacks him and introduces him to the German people as "innocent" and the enemies are others, sadistic brutes then, paradoxically, accuses the Jews, Communists and the French says the same things that are the legitimate objects of their actions. Hitler must have noticed this contradiction and so try to fix it stating that Jews lack the instinct for self-preservation of the ideals that may be in the drive to mastery of the Aryans.
In a second rationalize their desire to have it based on the laws of nature and arises, as is common in the sadistic character in its desire to merge with an alien power. Darwinism has its own interpretation of Hitler and serves to explain and justify his sadism. An anecdote from the time he lived in Munich, when the time was a complete stranger, illustrates this. He had "made a habit of throwing bits of bread to mice that were in a small room, and watch these graceful animals hopped and fought over the few foods.". In this game represented small-scale interpretation of the struggle for life in Darwin. In addition to the treacherous interpretation is striking that Hitler was positioning this game as the supreme God, for it was he who initiated and controlled.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
In many cases the emphasis has been on the origins of Nazism in the Treaty that the victorious powers granted to Germany, the Treaty of Versailles. Most Germans felt deeply unhappy and unfairly treated by the treaty, but while the middle class reacted with bitterness, the working class showed much less resentment towards this. The "nationalist resentment, used especially for the middle class, then became the engine of rationalization that it planned to lower its national social inferiority. This projection is well evidenced in the personal development of Hitler because he was the typical representative of the lower middle class, a nobody who had no prospects and made in streamlining their own national symbols.
By then the owners were facing a parliament in the forty percent of the deputies was a socialist and communist. A parliament in which most advocated ideas contrary to the economic interests of the middle class was a threat and, therefore, asserted that parliament was not working, when what really happened is that since it worked perfectly represented the interests of different social classes.
The efficiency of Hitler was due to combining the characteristics of the petit bourgeois resentful and full of hatred, with the opportunist willing to serve the interests of big industrialists. Thousands of small-bourgeoisie, which as things were being given little chance of making money, now get as members of the Nazi bureaucracy, a large increase in power and prestige that the upper classes were forced to share with them. They got many jobs that were taken to the Jews and other political enemies. Those who failed to "pan" if they obtained at least the circus. The emotional satisfaction derived sadistic spectacles and an ideology that gave the feeling of superiority over the rest of humanity was satisfied enough to keep the lives of those who were culturally and economically impoverished.
After the arrival of Hitler to power was another motivation for maintaining loyalty to the Nazi regime and the government is identified with Hitler's Germany for opposing Nazism meant that at that time to oppose the same homeland. We already know that the idea of feeling abandoned by the group is one of the strongest when we talk about fears of an individual in society. So, then, as this was a closure in order to minimize the divergent paths of thinking.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
Nazism is a psychological problem shaped by socio-economic causes and, therefore, to understand that we must understand the context in which it emerged. There was a group of people, many of them from the working class, to show that without very strong and passionate without being too was left in to the situation. Moreover, among them the small middle class, she was very attracted by this new ideology and established a union with their fanatic leaders.
Psychologically the modern individual living in a state of apathy and fatigue that prevents the firm before becoming of what happens. In the Germany of that time also had other conditions that are linked to this, was that the working class had suffered successive defeats after the victories of the revolution of 1918. For the beginning of the thirties had already lost the fruits of victory and the first mass working class was under the sign of resignation to the distrust of leaders, or interest on any political activity.
Contrary to the skepticism or distaste of the working class, the lower middle class (petty traders, artisans and employees) warmly welcomed the arrival of the Nazi regime. There are features of this class that defines the course of history and now love the strong, the weak hatred, pettiness, greed (with the money and feelings), their asceticism, narrow view of life and suspicion against the foreigner. These features would be one of the pillars that rise to the subsequent roll-social.
Previously the authority of the monarchy was undisputed and revered the lower middle class got a sense of pride and a narcissist. In the post-war period this changed. The decline of the middle class became more acute and the arrival of inflation, which reached its greatest intensity in 1923, ended with the savings that this social layer had amassed over many years of work. While between 1924 and 1928 the economic situation was improving, and thus economic hopes of the new middle class, that ended the 1929 crisis that squandered many of the gains made in previous years.
In addition to face economic issues had increased psychological problems and that came mainly from the defeat suffered in the war and the fall of the monarchy. Before the war, the middle class might be in a position superior to that of the worker but the differences were shortened or canceled, largely because the social prestige of the proletariat had been increasing and this implied that, consequently, the class half diminished. Had not eliminated the gap whom despise. In addition, the middle class saw the family, another stronghold, collapsed. Economic and social conditions of the war had undermined parental authority and thus the morality of this social class. In this way the new generation did not have a clear horizon and doing whatever they wanted for their own future regardless of what their parents had done. The economic crisis depriving parents of the support material that could have given their children in other circumstances and the new generation should be sought on their own to succeed. Coupled with the excess population to get a job was the large group of former soldiers who had not successfully adapted to their new situation after years of civil accustomed to exercising power. Now you did not know simple to remain as employees.
Continue reading...
See only the beginning of the entry...
Posts
