Some people ask, "how does marx judge religion?"
The hearsayer will say, “did he not say that religion is the opium of the people?”
It's like it's meant to be. Religion is a “venom”, paralysing people, poisoning ideas, which must be criticized and firmly rejected
But in fact, marx's sentence, you probably got it wrong, and you're wrong。
Max's words, which you understand daily, and what you think in your head, are about 18,000 miles away. What the hell does that mean
Today, we come to talk about this. A few days ago, i wrote a little piece on what religion is, which can be seen in conjunction and perhaps more clearly. Interested friends, can look around。
The next part is divided into two main parts, the first part (1-5) is about the five truths to be clarified and the second part is about how to understand the marx phrase。
Truth one: max didn't invent that
Let's start with the first fact: “religion is people's opium”, which was already in germany for decades before marx。
As early as 1828, the german grand mangold criticized a sermon as an “aesthetic pamphlet”. In 1840, the german poet heine wrote in a letter: “a religion that uses sweet anaesthesia, a psychoactive opium, a few drops of faith, hope and love into the cup of suffering people.”
In a book in 1838, philosophy verbaha said a similar thing: “someone seduces with eternal joy, threatens with eternal hell, gives opium to him, and hides his vision from the strong feelings of fear and hope”
See? Max wasn't the inventor of that。
It was already a common metaphor in the circle of german intellectuals in the early nineteenth century。
It was only around 1844 that marx quoted this readily available statement when he wrote the introduction to the hegel law philosophy critics. He was using the metaphor of the former, not creating a completely new definition。
For example, when you say "time is money", you say "time is money," but not "time is money."
It was therefore a misunderstanding from the outset to consider “religious is people's opium” as marx's classic definition of the essence of religion. Max had no intention of using that phrase to define religion。
Truth ii: the whole context of marx's original words. A lot of people didn't read it. Pass
The second fact: when marx said this, there were two more words ahead, many of which did not read。
That's right
Religious suffering is both an expression of and a protest against the suffering of reality. Religion is the sighs of the oppressed living beings, the heart of the ruthless world, just as it is the spirit of a system without spiritual vitality. Religion is the opium of the people。
The three sentences are a whole, not an isolated one. The phrase “opium” was taken out of context。
What does mark have in mind? Three words:
First, religion is a reflection of real and real suffering, and that is true。
Secondly, religion is a “sniffing” and “protest” of this suffering, which, while illusory and ineffective, means that people know that they are suffering and do not want to continue to do so。
Thirdly, religion is the opium of the people, and in this “cruel world” people cannot find a way out and rely on religion for their pain. Just as the patient is in pain, the doctor gives him a shot of morphine, which, while untreated, makes the patient less painful for a while。
Moreover, the “opium” here is not the “drugs” we understand today, but the “earthics” in europe in the nineteenth century. At that time, “opium” was used as a drug, and doctors used it to alleviate suffering for patients without effective treatment。
Professor cohen, the american philosopher, had specifically explained that when max wrote this sentence, “opium” was a precious painkiller that the poor could not afford and the poor turned to religion when they suffered. There is an age gap between this and what later turned it into a drug。
Truth iii: leninga has a word that makes it hard
When lenin quoted this sentence, he added the word “aesthesia”, which made it more acute。
In 1909, lenin quoted the words of marx in the article " attitude of the workers ' party towards religion " , and then said:
“marxism has always believed that all modern religions and churches, and all kinds of religious groups, are institutions used by bourgeois reactionaries to defend the system of exploitation and anaesthesia of the working class.”
When the chinese version of lenin selected translated this sentence, the word “aesthesia” was added to marx's quotation, turning it into “religious is the opium of the anesthesia people”。
As a result, many people thought that max's words were “religious is the opium of the anesthesia people”。
But the term leninga is his age。
In russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, the orthodox church was an “accompaniment” to the tsar's authoritarian system, and the church was not only singing praises to the tsar, but was also directly involved in the suppression of the revolution and even publicly supporting the tsar's government in shooting unarmed workers during the 1905 revolution。
In this context, lenin emphasizes the “aesthesia” of religion in order to meet the needs of the revolutionary struggle. He has highlighted the negative side of religion under certain historical conditions。
But lenin himself did not say “religion is only opium”, and he only emphasized one side at that time, in accordance with the needs of the revolution. But many often do so, preferring to be taken out of context, and thus consider lenin's “emphasis” as the “full” of marxist religious views。
Truth iv: max has other ideas
Now that the phrase "opium" is a little out of context, how exactly does max define religion
Max has another sentence that may be closer to the definition of religion:
“religion is the self-consciousness and self-perception of those who have not acquired themselves or have again lost themselves.”
What does that mean
“have not acquired” means those who have not yet taken control of their own destiny. For example, in the face of the power of nature, the primitive feel powerless and have to worship god。
“again again lost” refers to those who would have taken control of their own destiny and later lost it. For example, workers in capitalist societies, who were human beings, became slaves of capital。
These people have one thing in common: they feel that they cannot control their own destiny。
As a result, they have developed some kind of “self-consciousness and self-perception” that they are unable to do so and that they need to rely on a stronger force to feel that their lives have some meaning beyond that。
This “self-consciousness and self-perception” becomes religion if it is distortedly expressed。
So max is saying that religion is a feeling that people cannot control their own destiny。
It is not in heaven, but in man, itself。
This explanation is clearly much deeper than “opium”。
As long as there is a struggle between “who controls” and “who does not”, religion has its place。
Truth five: religion is not all "bad things" in history
If religion is truly “venom”, it should have only a bad effect in history. But that is not the case with history. Historically, religion has many functions, and we have a few priorities。
First, for example, religion is the earliest cultural system of humankind。
In primitive societies, there is no science, no philosophy, no literature and no art, and religion is “everything”. It explains the world, organizes production, maintains order and conveys knowledge. Without religion, it is impossible for primitives to move from animal to civilization。
Imagine, in the absence of a primitive religion and the sacrosanctization of the order of social life, what else could bring the savages who have just come from the animal world into the orbit of order in a primitive society without class and law
Secondly, religion is a “dress” of historical resistance by oppressed classes。
Engus studied early christianity and found it to be a “movement of the oppressed”. Early christianity opposed private ownership and advocated public ownership of property; condemned social inequality and the equality of all before god. These ideas, in the slave society at the time, were revolutionary。
Later, the bourgeois revolution was dressed in religious appearances, such as calvinism, which provided a weapon of thought for the nederland revolution; purchasing, which provided an ideology for the british bourgeois revolution; and engus, who even said that early christianity was “one of the most revolutionary elements in the history of the human spirit”。
Thirdly, religion contributes to the development of culture, art and science。
You may not believe it, but the medieval philosophy (the “difficult philosophy” that has been criticized by many) has been evaluated by felbah as saying that the philosophy of the medieval school “replaces objects of faith into objects of thought, drawing people from the realm of absolute belief into the realm of suspicion, research and understanding”。
In other words, philosophic philosophy, while at the service of theology, nurtures human rational thinking. Without philosophies, there is no subsequent renaissance and enlightenment movement。
Art, let alone art. Da vinci's last supper, michelangelo's genesis, bach's marta trail... Which is not religious? Without religion, the history of western art will collapse in half。
Fourthly, religious morality has a positive binding effect on believers。
Religious ethics make believers not dependent on coercion from outside, but to themselves. Such self-restraint is even more effective under certain conditions than the law。
For example, bishop tutu of south africa, in his struggle against apartheid, is not afraid of jail or assassination; father torres of latin america, for the sake of his people, joins the guerrillas until they are sacrificed ... Does it make sense to use only the word “aesthetic”? I don't think so. It's too partial。
A simple summary
We need to know first that marx does not reject religion, but only research objectively。
He believes that religion is one of the four ways in which human beings control the world (theory, art, religion, practice-spirit). It is an interpretation system, a world view, a philosophy of life。
Although it has superstitious elements, it is also trying to answer fundamental questions that human beings cannot avoid: where does the world come from? Why are people alive? What does pain mean? What happens when you die
The answer to these questions is not complete in science, nor in philosophy. Religion gives its answer. Whether the answer is scientific or not, it does satisfy the spiritual needs of some people。
Religion exists as long as people are unable to control their own destiny。
The complexity of religion cannot be understood simply as an “aesthetic”。
So, since the “opium theory” cannot and cannot summarize the essence of religion, what is the social role of religion
We are also going back to the methodological approach of marxist philosophy, which is: concrete analysis, not abstract judgement。
In section 05, we also outlined four positive aspects of its history
Together with the other analyses above, we can draw a few small conclusions of certainty。
First, “religion is the opium of the people” is a metaphorical description of the political function of class religions by marx, not a complete definition of the nature of religion; second, the metaphor has its own historical background and cultural differences, which were subsequently amplified; third, lenin has emphasized the anaesthesia of religion in a particular historical context, but cannot therefore be considered “opiumism” as the whole of marxist religious views; fourth, the historical role of religion is multifaceted and cannot be summed up in terms of “aesthesia”; and fifth, in contemporary society, there has been a qualitative change in religion, which can no longer be understood in the “opiumism” — for example, the billion religious followers in our country are positive forces for building socialism, which are described as “aestheticized people” and which are neither in keeping with reality nor with unity。
7. How should this be understood
After that clarification, how can we go back to the very beginning and understand the marx phrase “religious is the opium of the people” properly
I think it's better to go back to what marx meant and go beyond the “opium theory”。
What do you mean
Returning to marx's original intent was to know that when marx said this, he was not defining religion, not the essence of religion, but the role of religion in class society. He said it was painkillers, not drugs. Marx is filled with compassion, not contempt, for the working people of the faith。
Beyond the “opium theory” is the recognition that its effects are far more complex than anaesthesia. It has both negative and positive aspects; it is exploited and it is resisted. A simple metaphor cannot sum up thousands of years of complex history。
And, you know, in today's society, there are millions of believers. But they are all active forces in building the homeland! It is worth recognizing and working, working people, united。
In turn, we have won the hearts of tens of millions of people if we understand the roots of religion, the inner world of believers and respect them in faith. It's good for the state, for society, for everyone
In conclusion, i would like to say a few words。
Religion is one of the oldest, most complex and far-reaching social phenomena in human history. For thousands of years, it has interpreted the world, regulated behaviour, comforted hearts and inherited culture。
It is too simple, too rough and inappropriate to summarize it in terms of “opium”。
Moreover, marx himself never simply classified religion as “opium”. In his critical introduction to political economics, he identified religion as one of the four ways in which human beings control the world, alongside theory, art, practice and spirit. What a high evaluation
We are re-awakening today the phrase “religious is the opium of the people” not to “turn the case” for religion, but to better understand marxism and better unite the masses and build our country together。
Like, marxism is science, not superstition. The attitude of science is to face facts, study them and respect them. The same applies to religion. What do you think
