MARX, MARXISM AND THEOLOGY BY CHRISTOPHER BRITTAIN
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimeline.org/
Worth noting that it’s often misunderstood what Hegel meant by ‘rational’ when he talked about the progress of history towards reason. Rationality for Hegel is primarily taken over from Kant, and in particular an attention to Kant’s ‘antimonies of pure reason’ - the paradoxes which occur when one tries to extend reason to a totality and think about wether time has a beginning, wether space has a limit, and so on. Hegel’s ‘reason’ is the motion of this paradox, contradiction, and his claim is that this paradoxical negating force is becoming more and more actual through the process of aufhebung - that we are approaching not purity and simplicity but contradiction and paradox
For more about this, check out Prof. Todd McGowan’s ‘Emancipation After Hegel’, which offers a Hegelian critique of Marx - turning Marx on his head
Fascinating talk, much new views and thoughts.....
This was incredibly interesting!!
Thanks for including the audio this time! Much appreciated.
.
Confused by the quote near the beginning: "Money is the zelus God of Israel, before who no other god can stand." Is that accurately quoted? The context refers to Marx knowing well the Christian bible and making frequent references to theological concepts. Because of that context it would be unexpected if "zelus" here refers to the Greek god Zelos (Zelus). Or is it just a misspelling of "zealous?" Hope to be enlightened...
.
The Feuerbach ideas mentioned in this video will sit uncomfortably with those who have a simplistic view of divine revelation. But they can be made compatible with those who will view god as *always* beyond human understanding...
Immediately I assume the quote was meant metophorically, rather than literally. Within bourgeois society, Money is the ruling god (Mammon, aka Capital). The ruling god in the same way as if the *jealous God of Israel. The spirit of the God of the Bible is zeal for justice, but the more normal characterisation is as the _jealous_ God of Israel, in that he tolerates no rival deities to be worshipped among his people.
@patrickholt2270 all I heard was blahblah gnostic bs.
what is so repellent with the idea of the analgesic idea of opiate of Religions?Pain should be repellent unless of course Pain become associated with Patience Perseverance Hope or blur into a pain pleasure masochistic domain.Just a Thought.Anyway I enjoyed this explication.
Pain lets us know we're alive. We would literally die quickly without it, because we wouldn't notice when we are damaged. It is the same nerve system through which we feel physical pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, as well. So it would be a much blander life without the ability to feel pain.
Excellent.
The idea that ideas are rooted in material conditions presents no challenge to the concept of divine revelation, it seems to me, because it is just a subset of God creating and interacting with His creation through physical processes, through natural laws and evolution and so on, not only because His invisibility is necessary for Free Will, and freely willed faith and relationship with Himself, but also because that is his character, in keeping with quantum uncertainty, the limits of mathematical logic and so on. To be fully perfect, the Creation has to be real, rather than arbitrary, solidly built on consistent laws, intelligible to human intellect (itself a clue pointing to original design). Likewise, we are created to be sapient and self-aware, capable of abstract reasoning and visualisation, such as to be capable of intuiting that there could be a creator out there to interact with, and that sapience having come about via random genetic mutation and natural selection in higher mammals, themselves results of evolution so as to be more intelligent. So there's no contradiction between ideas in human life being rooted in material conditions and ways of life, and yet there being an ultimate source of true theology. The writer writes the words that go on the pages, even though when we read, the words emerge from the pages in which they are rooted. And we have intellect and critical awareness so as to be able to interrogate and choose between the ideas emerging from social realities, and to test them against an ideal standard of absolute and universal truth, even if we are epistemologically limited in our ability to ascertain and retain truth in our minds.
The only problem with the sentence beginning "religious pain is at once the expression of real pain..." is the term "religious pain". That's not a category I recognise. Fellow Christians have caused me great pain, but that isn't something created by the faith, still less by the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. So that's a form of words which doesn't quite gel, unlike so many of Marx's other deeply satifying equations-made-of-words.
no
@@gda295 yes
This is ingenious. I’m an orthodox christian and I’ve been contemplating this and you just put into words what I’ve been thinking about for a long time.
You talk about “a creator out there” and an external world existing that is to be understood by our faculties. This is not the only way to think about the world, e.g. in Buddhism, everything is mind or consciousness. In fact, it is easier to explain the world as being comprehensible because our consciousness is fundamentally a part of it, not because our consciousness has been specially formed so that we can perceive an otherwise alien universe. We are co-created with the universe, not “cast into it”. This way of thinking is also more appealing to our common sense, e.g. our consciousness changes if we are on drugs, or if we have a brain injury. Point being, the mind/matter dualism is not necessary, our consciousness and what we perceive in it (the world) is in fact unitary, not separate. I’m not sure if this undermines God or other parts of your argument in any way, nor does it support Marx, but I think a lot of the things that you seem to argue as being obvious or axiomatic are not really so.
To elaborate, the laws of the natural world are in fact to some extent arbitrary. For instance, if God wanted a universe without light, he would simply create that universe and adjust humans accordingly. An atheist would probably express this differently, e.g. the laws of a given universe are arbitrary, but the consciousness that arises in that universe will to some extent be reflective of those laws.
Zelus??
we know what he means - so that is all that matters.
The problem was i think that they didnt realize enough about the power of Tribalism and the difference between Faith and Religion. This is why people were driven into those wars and destruction.
Chicken or egg? It can easily be argued that many religions caused such tribalism; rather than it being the case that tribes used religions as a weapon against other tribes.
@@paulaustinmurphy I think religion is tribalism tbh at least historically very connected to it. These two are deeply connected that they are virtually one and the same..because both are about identity. But faith is not the same as religion. And faith has always existed..before the modern patriarchal religions even.
@@paultokjian7915 I took your position to be that tribes *used* religions in a negative manner. That implies the total innocence of religion. So you saying that tribes and religion are "deeply connected" doesn't really help in this respect.... Your distinction between "faith and religion" is also very hard to maintain historically. Is it based on particular theoretical and political positions; such as those defended by Christopher Brittain himself? And since you mention "patriarchal religions", that implies that you exclude certain religions from your criticisms. How does the faith-vs.-religion idea hold up for *non*-patriarchal religions? Finally, do you distinguish politically-acceptable religions from politically-unacceptable religions?. It seems that you, like Brittain, have a very political position on this. Not only that, a political position of a very specific political flavour.... Is it right to judge ancient religions from the perspective of 21st century politics and then to either morally/politically condemn them; or, alternatively, neatly shoehorn them into contemporary political positions?
@@paulaustinmurphy religion is the expression of faith in symbols. Every faith has a language. Faith is simply the belief based on a feeling that there is something bigger then ourselves. In primitive times, people used to bury their dead instead of disposing of the bodies bec they believed in a soul. The rituals and prayers for example is what religion is. Faith is in this case the belief that there is a soul and therefore life after death.
What I mean by tribalism and religion being one is that ones identity is mixed with the practices based on those beliefs. Every religious group is essentially..its always us vs them. The individual is dominated by group thinking. Ones race, ethnicity, nationality etc becomes quickly connected. Why is that?
I cant be sure but I think bec the moment we project ourselves and create this personal God, this superhuman which is just our superego imo..we project our entire identity on him. It's just psychological. If religion caused tribalism then how would an individual belief in a supreme being cause anyone to behave in a primitive tribal way? Not every religious person is tribal.
What I meant by patriarchy are the modern religions. As far as we know there are so many religions but the most popular and damaging ones are patriarchal ones.
You don' t need religion for tribalism. The separation between religion and the secular is artificial. Tribalism or nationalism does not require religion. Humans are social animals and are predisposed to such things. That is why it is so dominant. You believe that nationalism or tribalism aberrant because you live in Western civilization where it tries to nullify the differences of different people.
Lots of Teal deers 🦌 in the comment area..
The early Christians were communists. From the Second Chapter of Acts:
44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds[a] to all, as any had need.
Communists indeed
And re-iterated in Acts 4, just so readers can't ignore it as an isolated episode. And not that it happens, it begins immediately after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, literally in the next verse - so readers should understand that this was being done as the direct result of the Spirit's action. And when it isn't read out and taught like that in church, they're getting it wrong on purpose.
Having things in common and sharing your worldly goods with others is not a correct definition of communism. I may share with my wife and children my worldly goods that I have earned, but that does not make my family communists. The people here in Acts out of the goodness of their hearts and a true need, for now their brethren of a family of God, voluntarily gave of their accord. Communism carries with it the germ of politics with the force to back up their laws and removes property ownership from it's citizens. This was certainly not the case in Acts nor with any of the early Christians. Case in point: In Acts 5 as people were sharing their goods with their new family, Ananias and Sapphira brought their contribution and were struck dead by God because they lied to the Holy Spirit about how they characterized their gift - which was a lie. Here is a little of what Peter said to Ananias when he conceived this deed in his heart, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?" (Acts 5:4 NASB) Peter speaking by the inspiration of God is far different than how the communists would speak concerning property ownership.
@@patrickholt2270 The Spirit of Marxism is very different.
Reverend Christopher Brittain (a Professor Political Theology) artfully selects quotes from Marx (some of which are simply paraphrases) which back up his own "political theology". That is, he has much sympathy for the Marxist project (especially of the Frankfurt School). He therefore has to severely reinterpret what Marx said and thought. But there are copious passages from Marx where his disgust and hatred of religion was explicit and vitriolic. Sure, Marx believed that suffering, alienation, etc. were the cause of religious feelings and beliefs. But that doesn't mean that he recognised something good about religion itself. It meant that Marx recognised what cause belief in religion. That is something else entirely. So it's very ironic that (in a couple of places) Brittain has a go at the "new atheists" and says that they are crude and cruel ("silly", "ignorant" and "childlike" - to use his own words) when it comes to religion. Yet Marxists and Marx himself were always far cruder and crueler towards religion and religious people than any New Atheist has ever been. In fact some of the New Atheists are much more subtle about religion than Marxists have ever been. It has been only recently that Marxists - at least as a whole - have toned down their views on religion and that was largely because of demographics. That is, they realised that many religious people had brown and black skin. Thus attacking religion was deemed - by such Marxists - to have racist undertones. From then on, Marxists were more "sophisticated" (or so they believed) about religion. In actual fact, however, they were more sophisticated about the *political impact* of their attacks on religion. That is very different.
Brittain also splits off the religious claims of religions from the religious acknowledgement of suffering, etc. Yet religions are also about the virgin birth, that Jesus was the son of God, that God created the universe, the Muhammed flew to the sun/moon, etc. Brittain can't extract what is useful for his own politics from all that and then ignore the all rest. If you see religions as simply a means of expressing suffering and alienation (or, as with the Marxist theologians of South America, as a means to bring about purely political changes), then you're essentially taking the religion out of religion and leaving yourself with a purely political remainder. This means that both Marx and religion itself have become political tools for Brittain; which he then uses to advance his leftwing and highley-political theology.
When you misspelt 'zealous' as 'zelus' I switched off.
Perhaps a hasty judgement on a minor typo - you missed a great lecture
Andrew Martin When he said “which is a different situation than we ourselves find ourselves in” I stopped. You must have been more lenient.😂
@@jorgejohnson451 I literally read your comment at the same time he was saying the exact lines you quoted 😂😂😂
It fascinates me the lengths that Marxists will go in order to justify their idolatry.
What do marxists idolize?
@@andyhao4357 Marx
@@conscientiousdefector You putting yourself in a pedestal like you have no idols. And marxists read way more authors than Just Marx, no space for idolatry son
Surely Marxists want to abolish idolatry? Monotheistic religions (or religions in general) worship and idolise God (or Gods) which Marx sees as the “opiate of the people” i.e. religion is bad for us and used as a social tool of control to mitigate blame away from the bourgeoisie’s toxicity. So i don’t understand what you mean when you say Marxists treat Marx as an idol.
i couldn't give a toss about Marx as a person. His analysis is just correct.@@conscientiousdefector
Dr. Brittain's talks completely omit characteristics of religion, its assumptions, doctrines, and practices in its name--slavery, war, violence, torture, rape, and economic exploitation. Brittain injects subtle praise for religion, Christianity, specifically. In his analysis Brittain asserts that religion has indispensable virtues that were recognized by Marx, and subsequently by Marxists and Habermas. Listen in vain for mention of religion's logical flaws, for example, that God exists because the Bible, allegedly God's words, says so. After listening to Brittain's elucidation of what's wrong with. the views of Marx, Marxists, and Habermas on religion, consult Christopher Hitchens' debates.
+Paul Hill
Your first question presents an assumption--the idea of "flawed mankind in general" as some kind of foregone conclusion, or fact. You then ask if this assumption does not explain a series of actions and policies. Perhaps you should show how you reasoned your way to the assumption that mankind is flawed. Could it be that not mankind but flawed reasoning led to the actions noted, as well as the creation of a god, God?
+Paul Hill
You write: . . . would be that we human beings are flawed in the sense that our reasoning, our moral sensibilities and our concern for each other fall far short of what they should be." This is the standard Biblical or Abrahamic conception of "human nature" that you call a "sad fact." If human beings are flawed, then, you yourself are flawed and your reasoning deficient. On your own terms, your claim about human beings is defective. Second, you offer no support or evidence for this claim. How did you arrive at the conclusion that human beings are flawed? Did you carry out a survey of all of human history? Religion's advocates offer a self-fulfilling claim about human beings, telling human beings that they are flawed, indeed, informing them that a god made them that way, and that this explains their actions, and pointing to the practical consequences of this indoctrination proof of flaws. Recall that religion's advocates controlled educational institutions for millennia. It is their reasoning that is flawed, not human beings..
+critink The point of this video was to show the philosophical underpinnings of Marx as it relates to theology. I don't think it was meant to be a critique of religion. The issues you address, while important, are more suited to a debate about the truth of religion, or possible the existence of God.
@Jordan V. Nowhere did I claim that the video "was meant to be a critique of religion." Hence your remark is misplaced. Second, saying where the issues I address belong does not amount to an evaluation of my observations. Evaluate these observations, or
+critink Really? That's quite interesting, because your original post suggests otherwise, in your words : "Dr. Brittain's talks completely omit characteristics of religion, its assumptions, doctrines, and practices in its name--slavery, war, violence, torture, rape, and economic exploitation. Brittain injects subtle praise for religion, Christianity, specifically". You clearly expected a repudiation of religion to some degree. As to your second objection, it is prima facie incorrect since your original remarks don't bear upon the stated purpose of the video. That is, your objections are, indeed, better suited to a video which actually purports to deal with the issues you raise. You're observations, however valid do not, speak to the intention of this video.
You need to reread Marx. There is a reason his philosophy is called Historical Materialism, and it has nothing to do with religion or theology. kkkkkkkkkk
just watch the video, don't be a reactionary
Dimension of the text is important. Lukacians often don't get this
Marx came from a Christian milieu. The idea that the poor have a special stake is bizarre as much as Jesus, the son of the most high god, creator of the heavens, and the earth, who can make mountains melt down like wax died a contemptible death.
Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther.
Marx was baptised a Lutheran as an infant.
LMAO and that implies what exactly?
Not enough data to form any conclusion whatsoever. Two datums does not a theory make.
looks like you believe in Annunakis
For Marx religion is an ilusion. As simple as that! Dont try to sugercoat.
But also ethically correct in its implied and its specfic programme of liberation and kindly-making transformation of human life on earth.
@Dante The Great Yep. Kindly can be used as an adjective or an adverb. "Kind" in relation to "human life" could be interpreted as implying a replacement species, which isn't correct. That's an important point to me, that the Sermon on the Mount is doable for ordinary people in this life, not something which should be treated as only available in heaven or at the end of time.
The bourgeouis turned religion into a tool for pacifying the people. Don't confuse that with real actual religion
start with a lie....
The opening introduction tells you that you will not get the truth of Marx and Marxism. This man is obviously a more humane sympathizer for the political system devised by Marx and one who clearly repudiates the totalitarianism of Marxist practitioners such as Stalin etc. But to say that Marx and his ideas could be successful without the kind of attitudes that typically characterize his devotees? I would be cautious about how Marx is interpreted by Mr. Brittain. The only way to enforce Marx's communist doctrine is by deceit, lies and violence as history proves! As Edmund Burke said, no one gives up their liberty except under some delusion". I would add by violent revolution which he called for!
+Alys Falsia What political system did he devise? Point me to the work in which he devised it, because I'm pretty certain that literally everything Marx wrote was about his theory of historical change. In other words, he was attempting to explain how things already were, not tell us how they should be. There was no alternate political or economic system which he devised. Nor would there need to have been, since his argument was that it was the full development of capitalism which would create socialism. There is no communist doctrine to enforce. There's no design to apply correctly or incorrectly so what the hell are you even talking about? There are plenty of criticisms you could make of Marx, but wouldn't you need to know what he was actually arguing in order to make them?
It is a case of:
pics.onsizzle.com/i-dont-know-what-marxism-is-but-letmetella-you-why-2633374.png
If I got it correctly. (Read this from reddit.) He and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto which clearly mentions that state should be in-control, etc. *However*,
Marx wrote this material when he was 30yrs old. He wrote "Das Kapital" 19 yrs after. I think it would be unfair to say that all persons can't make mistakes in their 20's or 30's. Understanding his life and the context is very important as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Selected_bibliography
the end goal according to marx is a stateless society. to reach this goal state is only a phase in his mind.
What you've written can be easily translated like: "The devil deludes those who think he does not exist, therefore we need to be wary and punish those who try to make us think he does not exist by purging them" - in other words, you would be one of those zealots who were burning women while preaching Bible.
You’re an imbecile. Please read the work you are pontificating about. You just sound silly when you don’t.