Feuerbach is the first reading which I actually enjoyed which thus entailed somewhat of an understanding of the reading. Feuerbach weaves his way through a few ideas; ideas which range from the contradiction of Theists to a concept which I will be discussing; reason and its equivalence to god, and god’s equivalence to man.
The first 15 pages are so seem to be devoted to picking away at religion; Feuerbach first seems to acknowledge a god-a theological god-and this god’s relation to reason. Section 6 of the Principles of the Philosophy of the Future is where Feuerbach launches this slow attack on religion. This quote shows Feuerbach’s take on god and its relation to reason: “…is nothing but the essence of reason itself” (Feuerbach Section 6) here we can evidently see Feuerbach’s idea of god and what, in actuality god is. Throughout section 6 Feuerbach seems to create a relationship between god and reason, and it seemed at first-to me of course-that Feuerbach seems to accept a notion of god but that his god is not the theological one which Christianity poses but rather one that seems to encompass reason. Later Feuerbach seems to say that if you limit reason you limit god, meaning that, if we conceive of reason as being limited by sensation then god is limited by sensation, here he seems to begin to demean the theological definition of god (Here also began my question of whether Feuerbach believed in a god of some sort). In Section 7 of the reading Feuerbach seems to attack the theist directly, in what seems to me as a logical fallacy in the theist’s claims and it is this which I feel Feuerbach is exploiting. “He conceives god as a being; namely, according to his imagination, god is a spiritual and unsensuous being, but, in accordance with actuality, that is, with the truth, he is a sensuous being…” (Feuerbach Section 7).
It is in section 7 which Feuerbach seems to make the transition from god being equivalent to reason to god being a creation of man (This is where I was convinced Feuerbach does not believe in god). “God is an object of man, and only of man;” further down he says “If, now, god is an object of man-and indeed inasmuch as he really is a necessary and essential object-what is expressed in the being of this object is merely the peculiar essence of man.” (Feuerbach Section 7). I believe what Feuerbach is saying is that god is only what we have created it to be, an image of ourselves into this metaphysical being. Feuerbach continues his attack on the theological god in Section 8 where he states contradictions in both the idea of religion and religion’s idea of god. “In short, man transforms his thoughts and even his emotions into thoughts and emotions of god” a few lines down he says: “…god is self-contradictory, for he is supposed to be a non-human and superhuman being;” (Feuerbach Section 8). At this point I was not only intrigued by Feuerbach’s remarks but fully convinced on Feuerbach’s perspective on god, and its relation to man; the thinking thing.
Later in the reading Feuerbach says some interesting things which have by then deviated slightly to my concept of discussion; if a being on a comet was to encounter the religious scriptures of theology, also another very bold statement in which Mankind as a whole, as a species has achieved a divine knowledge. It is this last statement which I feel is directly related to the title Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, Feuerbach’s analysis of mankind as a species and it’s knowledge being that of divine nature is only further supported by later scientists’ discoveries like Alan Turing, Benoit Mandelbrot and many others.
Reading Feuerbach was much more pleasant. His principles are clearer, and more to the point than Kant and Schleiermacher. Having to not distinguish between terms like nature, freedom, moral law, etc., and their various meanings and interpretations was a relief, only in that the terms used do not get in their own way, as I felt such terms did in Kant’s and Schleiermacher’s writings. Asserting reason as religion rather than incorporating the existing institution of religion into the theory of reason was refreshing and more readily understandable.
ReplyDelete“Reason, ‘however, does not stop at sensuous and finite objects; it satisfies itself only in the infinite being’” (pg. 7). Does this mean that reason came before God? I think it means reason created God. “God is, however, only an object of man” (pg.10). This seems to fit the definition of reason much more than anything we’ve read up to this point; the construct of historical religion is a result of reason.
Although I agree that Feuerbach's points are more concise and clear then either Kant or Schleiermacher I think that Schleiermacher understands the essence and importance of religion more then either Kant nor Feuerbach.
ReplyDeleteBoth Kant and Feuerbach do not, in my opinion, provide the same strong incentive Schleiermacher's argument does.
I think Schleirmacher really got at the heart of religion by describing it as a personal experience. It is this emotional connection with the infinite instead of cold reason that I think makes people want to pursue religion so fervently.
Hypothetical reconciliation for Kant, Schleiermacher, and Feuerbach:
ReplyDeleteWhat if (monotheistic) religion is a feeling of unconditional dependence on the infinite, whereby the infinite is an anthropomorphic projection known as God, which is given attributes by reason in order to be defined/ understood and therefore "exist"; and because it (the infinite) exists we are obligated to each other morally? Kierkegaard dissolves this hypothesis, but it may still be food for thought.
you blew my mind. I like it!
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't that then make religion necessary for morality; the obligation coming from the infinite, which Kant would oppose?