Philosophy
Introduction
One of the most important reasons behind study of literature or the literary works of authors is that they contain a philosophical or hypothetical perspective on different matters, which are yet again brought to the forefront of analysis through comparison with those of other authors. What makes study of these perspectives all the more interesting is that one cannot simply declare one to be the most acceptable and the other invalid. It is because that in literature, there is no right or wrong – instead, there is only greater agreement to the perspectives of one that the other .One of such perspectives on which this presentation aims to shed light is that of history of political philosophy.
A very important work in this regard has been that of Karl Marx – rather his criticism to be precise on the ideologies highlighted by Hegel on the development of society and history. The focus of this presentation is primarily on the analysis of Marx’s critical piece which criticizes Hegel’s point of view as far as his own perspectives are concerned with respect to philosophy of history and development of society in general. The reason for application of this methodology is to highlight the points of contention of Marx and thereafter adjudge how Marx’s arguments are matched to today’s scenario.
Hegel highlighted the specifics about the different forms which could be taken by the state – kingdoms, monarchs, dictatorship , democratic and other forms – which suited best the needs and requirements for the people and society . From a philosophical point of view, many experts are of the opinion that Hegel exhibited the ideology which seems to suggest that it is not that imposing philosophies works for the society, but selection of an already existent one makes society and the lives of people better. Hegel suggested that for society to progress, men needed to be able to accept the fact that they were subjects of the present form of state which prevailed in their respective places of residence. Accordingly, the role of philosophy should be to highlight the importance of acceptance and adherence to specific forms of state and governance, which should ideally lay the foundations for the development of society in the future .
Marx’s new critical method and Hegel’s conception of historical progress
One of the key aspects that had been observed in the criticism of Hegel by Marx is that the philosophical focus of Marx was on removing discrepancies and doubts which surrounded the establishment of states and societies during the 1800-1850s. Many experts are of the opinion that the ideologies of Marx have led to the formation of what is known today as modern day states, forms of government and societies. Marx’s ideologies suggested development of a philosophical thought process that reflected analytical and a rational approach to the formation of states and society in the first place . It needs to be highlighted that during the period of Hegel and Marx, there was a lack of clarity and transparency when it came to the formation of administrative entities and states .
Power and might were the most common methods of control of large sections of the masses to which the rules and regulations of society were almost imposed upon. Clearly there was lack of education and subsequent lack of ideologies as to what are the foundations of formation of a society or state in the first place. As a result, people were more likely to automatically accept the regulations and stipulations imposed upon. The people were also less likely to focus on identification of limitations or advantages of the prevalent form of administration of society, mainly due to the lack of ideologies. It is suggested that the lack of ideologies on the perspective was contributed by the fact that fewer intellectuals either had the will or the capability to criticize a prevalent ideology or philosophy.
What was being suggested to them, which was mainly reflective of a top-down approach of society and formation of administration, was the most common source of ideas. However, Marx strongly suggested that the base of any society or governance for that matter rested on the common masses or the people who made up the society . Marx’s belief was that the ideas and perspectives towards society and state was heavily influenced by pacifists of formation of society and state which prevailed more than few centuries ago, whereby the so called guardians of society or state – rulers and dynasties – gave priority to the sustenance and continuation of their legacies and more importantly, the benefits which they received from exercising control on a less demanding or educated mass of people.
Marx clearly questioned on the very basics of establishment of society and states. He strongly stated that society and state were dependent on the welfare of the majority of the people. The pillars for the foundation of society and state should be the benefit and sustenance of the common people and Marx further suggested that it is the people of the society who should be able to define the nature of state and governance to be exercised, rather than the other way round whereby state or society would determine the way people were supposed to exist . An important point to be highlighted in this perspective of Marx’s is that there is strong reference of cause and effect observed in his critique of Hegel’s ideology. Marx clearly stated that it is highly important for the society to be able to understand the influence of a cause to the development or progress of history and the subsequent effect on the same.
In this regard, he has suggested that Hegel’s perspective lacks the very basic arguments which need to be taken into consideration when it came to formation of a state. In his critique, Marx has highlighted that the need for the establishment for an administrative authority over the sections of the people is for the benefit of the people rather than the authoritarian entity. In simple terms, whereas Hegel advocates the establishment of state on the basis of available ideologies and thereafter amending societal structure, Marx opposes his ideology and states that the establishment of authoritarian entity or state should be based on the needs and betterment of the people of the society and not the other way round. Hence, it is important to establish the state and authority from a bottoms-up approach rather than from a top-down perspective .
Inclination to Marx’s or Hegel’s ideology
As has been mentioned in the introductory section of the presentation, philosophical polarities are what differentiates the perspectives of experts and it is not possible to state either perspective to be the ultimate and the other irrelevant. The perspective of one expert might be different from that of the other, and the sole essence is to highlight inclination, if any to the perspectives of either school of thought. This section presents the author’s inclination to one of the above perspectives – Hegel’s ideology, or Marx’s critique on the same. However, before the inclination is highlighted here, it is important to recapitulate a very important fact which has been mentioned in the critique and study – both the perspectives of Hegel and Marx seem to be based on the prevailing forms of state and society more than 150-160 years ago.
Clearly, the ease with which it is possible to gain access to information and even expert opinion today was not the case during the time period of Hegel and Marx. Also, the conceptual framework which is more to likely to exist among people regarding the nature of their states today was not present among the general masses during the stated time. As a result of which, it is always more acceptable the philosophical ideologies of Marx’s which is often termed as one of the pillar to the development of the modern society . In view of the same, it also needs to be highlighted here that this presentation is more inclined to accept the point of view of Marx over Hegel, and the underlining reasons for the inclination have been highlighted in the section to follow.
Reasons for inclination
The sole purpose behind the establishment of a state and the subsequent mechanism ensuring the sustenance of the state is to be able to take care of all people, irrespective of their social status or any other prejudice . This perspective might have been not so evident and prevalent in Hegel, but was very much present in the perspective of Marx. He made society to think upon the fact that consideration for the benefits of all sections of the masses is what makes a state effective or efficient. Hegel’s views that the state should reflect persistence of the prevalent school of thoughts and philosophies cannot be agreed upon, especially taking into consideration the situation of today – well 150 to 160 years after the critique by Marx.
For example, if society continued to be based on the ideology that it is the prevalent philosophical perspective which should shape the development of a state, aspects such as racism and apartheid could have never been abolished. It is presumably safe to state that the abolishment of such concepts have indeed helped mankind in general. On the same context, if the question is raised – in accordance to the philosophical views of Hegel, what if state never really progressed from the perceptions and ideologies that prevailed 150-160 years ago or more? What if in today’s world something like slavery still existed? Yes, definitely it would have benefitted people – those belonging to the rich and powerful section of society only.
For the rest, the situation would continue to be dire. It is in this case that reference needs to be made to a democratic or republican form of government whereby the general people has the power to choose for themselves which is better for them – considering the case for many nations which were under colonial rule for hundreds of years – states devoid of the riches of their own natural resources, many brought to the brink of poverty and death because society yielded to and accepted the philosophical ideologies of the foreign rulers who ruled the land.
Or in the present day, the political and religious perspectives of ISIS – if according to Hegel, the state has the right to impose ideologies on the masses, why is the world angered at the genocides, atrocities and slaughtering of unarmed people by the self professed dictators of the Caliphate? It is because of the reason that in today’s times, there are hardly any states in the world which imposes ideologies on the entire nation propagated by a small section of the society just because of the power or resources they possess. In simple terms, Hegel’s philosophical ideologies regarding civilization is obsolete in today’s world, hence the inclination to that suggested by Marx. The difference clearly arises out of the methodology, and that suggested by Marx is clearly the more rationally acceptable.
Works Cited
Blunden, A. & Baggins, B. “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.” 3 August 2010. Works of Karl Marx 1843. 29 May 2016 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/>.
Hegel, G. W. F. Lectures on the philosophy of world history: introduction, reason in history (translated from the German edition of Johannes Hoffmeister from Hegel papers assembled by H. B. Nisbet). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Heidegger, M. Off the Beaten Track. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Marx-Engles Reader. Ed. R.C. Tucker. London: W.W.Norton & Company Ltd., 1978.
Marx, K. “Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 .” 23 October 2009. Marxist Internet Archive. 1 June 2016 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf>.
—. The German Ideology - Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
