karl marx doctoral thesis

PREVIEW READ ONLINE (BETA) Read this item online for free by registering for a MyJSTOR account. Register Already have an account? Login How does it work? Register for a MyJSTOR account. Add up to 3 free items to your shelf. Items added to your shelf can be removed after 14 days. Purchase a PDF Purchase this article for .00 USD. How does it work? Select the purchase option. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your MyJSTOR account. Page Thumbnails 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452.
The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature (German: Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie) is a book written by the German philosopher Karl Marx as his university thesis. Completed in 1841, it was on the basis of this work that he earned his Ph.D.[1] The thesis is a comparative study on atomism of Democritus and Epicurus on contingency. His thesis advisor was his fellow Young Hegelian and personal friend, Bruno Bauer.[2] References[edit] Footnotes ^ Wheen 2000. p. 32. ^ Levine, Norman, Marx's Discourse with Hegel, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, Chapter Three. Bibliography Wheen, Francis (1999). Karl Marx. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 978-1-85702-637-5.  External links[edit] The text at the Marxists Internet Archive (French mirror) Retrieved from Categories: EpicureanismBooks by Karl Marx1841 booksPhilosophy book stubs.
Karl Marx The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Part One: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in General The Subject of the Treatise Greek philosophy seems to have met with something with which a good tragedy is not supposed to meet, namely, a dull ending. The objective history of philosophy in Greece seems to come to an end with Aristotle, Greek philosophy's Alexander of Macedon, and even the manly-strong Stoics did not succeed in what the Spartans did accomplish in their temples, the chaining of Athena to Heracles so that she could not flee. Epicureans, Stoics and Sceptics are regarded as an almost improper addition bearing no relation to its powerful premises. Epicurean philosophy is taken as a syncretic combination of Democritean physics and Cyrenaic morality; Stoicism as a compound of Heraclitean speculation on nature and the Cynical-ethical view of the world, together with some Aristotelean logic; and finally Scepticism as the necessary evil confronting these dogmatisms. These philosophies are thus unconsciously linked to the Alexandrian philosophy by being made into a one-sided and tendentious eclecticism. The Alexandrian philosophy is finally regarded entirely as exaltation and derangement-a confusion in which at most the universality of the intention can be recognised. To be sure, it is a commonplace that birth, flowering and decline constitute the iron circle in which everything human is enclosed, through which it must pass. Thus it would not have been surprising if Greek philosophy, after having reached its zenith in Aristotle, should then have withered. But the death of the hero resembles the setting of the sun, not the bursting of an inflated frog. And then: birth, flowering and decline are very general, very vague notions under which, to be sure, everything can be arranged, but.
EPICURUS AND MARX The Garden of Afflictions, Chapter VI, §16-17 Translated by Pedro Sette Câmara §16. Epicurus and Marx Epicurus inverts, as seen on § 10, the logical relationship between practice and theory. If normally theory is the logical basis of practice and if the latter is the exemplification of the first in the level of facts, in Epicureanism practice is what produces the psychological conditions which will make the theory believable, and the theoretical discourse will be nothing but the discursive element of practice, the translation into speech of the belief produced by habit. The Epicurean theory does not describe the perceived world, but its practice alters, by way of exercises, the perception of the world so that it becomes similar to the theory. The point is not to understand the world, but to transform it. It is likely that the reader will have recognised the last sentence: it is Karl Marx's 11th Thesis on Feuerbach. Everything leads us to believe that the time Marx devoted to the study of the philosophy of Epicurus – the subject of his doctoral thesis – has left on the final version of Marxism much deeper traces than what is generally supposed by scholars and the mature Karl Marx would like to let show. The Marxist symbiosis of theory and practice does not come from Hegel – it is actually an Epicurean inheritance. However, what happens is that this symbiosis, abolishing the normal distance between the plane of action and that of speculation, suppresses, in both Marxist and Epicurean Philosophy, the difference between the actual and the possible, precipitating us into a hallucinatory crisis where the theoretical detachment which is the foundation of the very notion of objective truth1 disappears. The desire, the impetus, the ambition – either of the individual soul or of the revolutionary masses – becomes the sole foundation of a world vision in which.
The Marxism of Marx's Doctoral Dissertation In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: The Marxism of Marx's Doctoral Dissertation JOHN L. STANLEY ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF SCHOLARSHIP on Marx's doctoral dissertation is small in comparison to what has been done in regard to his later writings, interpreta- tion of this earliest systematic work is not inconsequential for our understand- ing of the controversies surrounding his later texts. Completed in 1841 , the dissertation, Diff erenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie, ~ is rele- vant, not only for studies of Democritus and Epicurus, but for the debate over the question of freedom versus determinism in Marx. Generally speaking, that debate is between commentators who are intent on seeing Marx as primarily a humanist thinker stressing the free self-constitution of man against the mate- rialism of the more old-fashioned Marxists who have stressed Marx's inevita- ble laws of development. 2 The present study will address the issue of freedom3 and attempt to show that the interpreters of the dissertation have generally underestimated the extent to which its author is already a materialist whose 1Marx-Engels Werke, Ergiinzungsband, First Part (Berlin: Dietz, 1973). Hereafter cited as MEWE. Dissertation, ~57-373; Heft., 13-~55. The English translation, which I shall generally follow, is Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, and is by Richard Dixon and Dirk and Sally Struik in: Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1 (New York: Interna- tional, 1975). Hereafter cited as CW x. Dissertation, a3-1o7; the 1839 Notebooks, 4o3-5o9. The work was planned as part of a larger study which was never completed. The original manuscript has been lost. The extant copy, by an unknown hand, lacks Parts 4 and 5 of the first part, most of the appendix and some notes. ' For.