what is your opinion on this quote written by karl marx

discuss



[This message has been edited by TINYTANKER (edited 06-12-2005).]

generalization is the heroin of the self-absorbed.

eat shit.

WE'RE GOING TO THE GIGANTOUR!

sorry for the previous quip. actually, i think there's a buttload of truth to that quote, just dripping out the anus...

on the other hand, it pisses me off to see all religion generalized and dismissed as just a distraction for idiots. there is a lot of wisdom, spiritual insight, and joy to be derived from a myriad of different religiouns.

the ways in which religion contributes to the quality of lives is difficult to measure against the ways in which it may subdue and pacify. after all, some people enjoy politics and see involvement as vital, while others perceive IT as a sham of the highest order.

who's to say which preference is better?

edited for those nifty italics.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:



on the other hand, it pisses me off to see all religion generalized and dismissed as just a distraction for idiots. there is a lot of wisdom, spiritual insight, and joy to be derived from a myriad of different religiouns.

the ways in which religion contributes to the quality of lives is difficult to measure against the ways in which it may subdue and pacify. after all, some people enjoy politics and see involvement as vital, while others perceive IT as a sham of the highest order.

who's to say which preference is better?





Marx wasn't saying, "Only useless fucking morons agree with religion", nor "Religion doesn't serve as a form of acquiring/sharing wisdom, spiritual insight, and joy".

What he means with that quote, is the religion keeps people ignorant of their own exploitation and/or it prevents them from rebelling against it.

Whether it gives you wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure is not important in the scope of what Marx was saying.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-12-2005).]

What Marx was trying to get across is that religion is what keeps the ignorant people in bliss. Just replace 'soma' with 'religion' in Brave New World. That's the kind of idea Marx was trying to imply.

Rust, how many people who say that quote are saying it in the context that Marx originally used it?

That quote has been bastardized to all hell and as a result, has lost a lot of significance that it once had. Everyone uses that quote to just say that religion is for stupid people, not that it prevents people from seeing that tehy're being exploited. It has lost a lot meaning that it once had.

The original poster said, "what is your opinion on this quote written by karl marx" hence the original context is entirely relevant to the discussion.

As if I should give a shit what some moron(s) now take that phrase to signify. It's their ignorance, not mine.

My only preoccupation is that this new interpretation doesn't get attached, erroneously, to Marx.

Hence, why I replied to Eil, when he said, "it pisses me off to see all religion generalized and dismissed as just a distraction for idiots" [..] "there is a lot of wisdom, spiritual insight, and joy to be derived from a myriad of different religiouns""; which to me implies that Marx believed religion is to be dismissed as a distraction that doesn't provide any wisdom or joy.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-12-2005).]

OK, I see what you're saying now, though I think you're a bit late because most idiots nowadays attribute that quote to "religion is stupid and all religious people are stupid", even though that wasn't the intention.

Masses are the cocaine of religion.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

OK, I see what you're saying now, though I think you're a bit late because most idiots nowadays attribute that quote to "religion is stupid and all religious people are stupid", even though that wasn't the intention.

That's true, but like you said, *idiots* believe that's what the quote means. Morons that shouldn't even have the privilege of washing my car.

Snoopy: Touche...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



As if I should give a shit what some moron(s) now take that phrase to signify. It's their ignorance, not mine.



What do you mean by their ignorance its not their ignorance the quote was put up there for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Who are you to decide what was meant by Karl Marx who are you to speak for one of the most philosophical speakers of our time.

[This message has been edited by your_daemon (edited 06-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by your_daemon:



Who are you to decide what was meant by Karl Marx who are you to speak for one of the most philosophical speakers of our time.

'our time'?? exactly how old are you?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

'our time'?? exactly how old are you?

by our time i mean modern time this age

quote:Originally posted by your_daemon:

What do you mean by their ignorance its not their ignorance the quote was put up there for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Who are you to decide what was meant by Karl Marx who are you to speak for one of the most philosophical speakers of our time.



1. You actually refute yourself.

If I cannot "decide what was meant by Karl Marx" since I cannot speak for him", then I was correct in calling them "ignorant" since they too would not be able to speak for him, and therefore be lacking of a knowledge (what Marx truly meant) and thus ignorant.

You have thus justified my usage of "ignorant".

2. Two points before I provide the argument:

a. A person has a belief. That belief, is not up to interpretation by anyone else, correct? That is, if you believe that color black is nice, then whether or not you believe so, does not depend on what other people think.

b. We cannot know exactly what a Man believed, unless he states what he believes. That is, I cannot know you like the color black, unless you state "I like the color black" or any other such statements which indicates what you mean.

--

Given the above two points, any debate of what X (i.e. any person) person meant, will be purely speculative unless the author of the statement explains what he meant.

What Marx meant with the statement:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." [1]

Note what directly follows the quote, "It is the opium of the people":

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."

Marx clearly states what he believes: Religion serves as an illusion of the true conditions. What conditions? The material relations of the proletariat to the means of production (i.e. not controlling them or owning them).

Now, further evidence that he does not believe "religion is for ignorant idiots":

"

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. [2]

Clearly, I was correct, or as correct as anyone is ever going to be, since now Marx is long dead. So, who am I? Someone who knows more about the subject than you do.

Sources:

[1] Karl Marx. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1844.

[2] Ibid.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-13-2005).]

Honestly, who gives a shit what a communist thinks?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



What he means with that quote, is the religion keeps people ignorant of their own exploitation and/or it prevents them from rebelling against it.

Whether it gives you wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure is not important in the scope of what Marx was saying.



'religion keeps people ignorant of exploitation and/or prevents rebellion...' how exactly does it do that, and how does this distinguish it from any number of more or less effective systems of propaganda?

in the same way that religion can make docile the desire to revolt, so can it agitate and propel the masses against exploitation.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Hence, why I replied to Eil, when he said, "it pisses me off to see all religion generalized and dismissed as just a distraction for idiots" [..] "there is a lot of wisdom, spiritual insight, and joy to be derived from a myriad of different religiouns""; which to me implies that Marx believed religion is to be dismissed as a distraction that doesn't provide any wisdom or joy.

let me point out that i was, in fact, addressing the very people who would simplify the meaning and scope of what i believe marx intended, since it seems that this is how the quote is now tossed about. in hindsight, i should have been much clearer.

but cut me some slack, i did start by saying that i believe there's a buttload of truth to the quote. that said, let me be sure to be completely understood this time around:

i don't know with absolute certainty the extent of any disdain which marx may have felt for organized religion as a whole. please enlighten me if you can. if it turns out that he happened to categorically believe that religion causes more ill than good, then i can't say that i agree - nor that i disagree.

i don't pretend to know and am skeptical of those who claim one way or the other. i find the question silly; there's no subtlety to it. it demonstrates a simplistic grasp of the spheres of human emotion, ambition, and purpose, and i don't think marx would paint reality with such a broad stroke. his meaning was much more contextual and was designed to fluctuate.

eh, whatever. i'm probably wrong. marx probably believed atheism should be taught in schools. i don't really care.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Honestly, who gives a shit what a communist thinks?

Who the fuck are you?

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Honestly, who gives a shit what a communist thinks?

Being a communist doesn't automatically entail that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

But, better dead than red. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. You actually refute yourself.

If I cannot "decide what was meant by Karl Marx" since I cannot speak for him", then I was correct in calling them "ignorant" since they too would not be able to speak for him, and therefore be lacking of a knowledge (what Marx truly meant) and thus ignorant.

No i am saying dont call them ignorant because of their opinions im just saying dont refuse to consider others opinions.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

'religion keeps people ignorant of exploitation and/or prevents rebellion...' how exactly does it do that, and how does this distinguish it from any number of more or less effective systems of propaganda?

[This wouldn't debating what Marx meant, but if he was correct or not. Two very different things. I'll reply anyways, but this should be noted.]

It prevents them from rebelling, by making them oblivious of their exploitation, in many cases, justifying it, and preventing any cause for violence.

quote:

in the same way that religion can make docile the desire to revolt, so can it agitate and propel the masses against exploitation



No religion, at the time of Marx, called for bloody revolution, to overthrow the capitalist class. To my knowledge, the only "religion" which does so, and it came much after Marx, was "La Teologia de Liberacion".

I'm sure that if we were able to ask him directly if he thought there was a remote chance of a religion supporting the overthrow of establishment, he would have said 'yes'. The problem is he is not an idealist, he is a materialist. Given that one can achieve the same level of inspiration without any theistic implications, then he, I believe, would not support it.

quote:

but cut me some slack, i did start by saying that i believe there's a buttload of truth to the quote.

I saw that. The post was in reality aimed, not to you specifically, but anyone who might believe so.

quote:

i don't know with absolute certainty the extent of any disdain which marx may have felt for organized religion as a whole. please enlighten me if you can. if it turns out that he happened to categorically believe that religion causes more ill than good, then i can't say that i agree - nor that i disagree.

i don't pretend to know and am skeptical of those who claim one way or the other. i find the question silly; there's no subtlety to it. it demonstrates a simplistic grasp of the spheres of human emotion, ambition, and purpose, and i don't think marx would paint reality with such a broad stroke. his meaning was much more contextual and was designed to fluctuate.

eh, whatever. i'm probably wrong. marx probably believed atheism should be taught in schools. i don't really care.

The question of whether or not he believed religion as a whole caused more harm than good is impossible to answer in its entirety.

That being said, I think its safe to say that he believed the religions predominant in his time, did cause more harm than good. The religions of his time not only blinded the proletariat to their exploitation, something he believed so adamantly about; they also opposed a materialist outlook on life, something which again he was adamant about. They actually served as tools for the bourgeoisie.

quote:Originally posted by your_daemon:



No i am saying dont call them ignorant because of their opinions im just saying dont refuse to consider others opinions.

Fine. I considered them and I believe they are morons for holding them.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

generalization is the heroin of the self-absorbed.

eat shit.

nice

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

generalization is the heroin of the self-absorbed.

eat shit.

Brilliant!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Whether it gives you wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure is not important in the scope of what Marx was saying.

Marx was an idiot. If religion gives you all those things, exploitation is meaningless. These are examples of blessings which are of the upmost importance to humans.

If the Opium of the People makes you feel good, HIT IT.

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

Marx was an idiot. If religion gives you all those things, exploitation is meaningless. These are examples of blessings which are of the upmost importance to humans.

If the Opium of the People makes you feel good, HIT IT.

You're an idiot. If religion gives you all those things, yet allows for exploitation to exist, hell, supports it, then it is meaningless. These are examples of trivialities, not important to humans.

If the opium of the people makes you feel good, yet exploits you, stop.

[EDIT: To make it clear what I meant: I'm basically repeating the opposite to show how it is an opinion; on both sides.

You have the opinion that religion, if it brings forth those things, would make exploitation irrelevant; Marx has the opposite belief. He believes that if religion servs only to blind the proletariat to their exploitation, and/or to justify it, then religion becomes worse than irrelevant, it becomes harmful.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're an idiot. If religion gives you all those things, yet allows for exploitation to exist, hell, supports it, then it is meaningless. These are examples of trivialities, not important to humans.

If the opium of the people makes you feel good, yet exploits you, stop.

[EDIT: To make it clear what I meant: I'm basically repeating the opposite to show how it is an opinion; on both sides.

You have the opinion that religion, if it brings forth those things, would make exploitation irrelevant; Marx has the opposite belief. He believes that if religion servs only to blind the proletariat to their exploitation, and/or to justify it, then religion becomes worse than irrelevant, it becomes harmful.



You probably don't think I'm an idiot. Actually, this post would be considered by most as devoid of idiocy. In fact, I'd like to know what you found idiotic about what I suggested.

You're a fucking idiot! Wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure are all trivialites? What the fuck do you live for, if not those? Your writting is, again, unclear here, because you used a pronoun without directly specifying what you're discussing. If the "trivialites" are wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure, you have a very strange worldview. If you embrace the shit your spewing, you certainly contradict yourself.

If the opium of the people makes you feel good, yet exploits you, stop.

Why?

I understand that both are opinions. I believe that Marx's opinion is contradictory. He despises religion, even when it brings people utter happiness, because it allows them to be exploited. He probably dislikes exploitation because it makes people unhappy. Otherwise, why would exploitation be wrong? He completely contradicts himself. If people are happy, who cares about exploitation?

Marx's fight to end exploitation is, in the grand scheme of things, a fight to end unhappiness. If those who are being exploited are already satisfied and happy, the ultimate objective has been achieved, and we not declare war on exploitation.



[This message has been edited by Antiquarian (edited 06-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

You probably don't think I'm an idiot. Actually, this post would be considered by most as devoid of idiocy. In fact, I'd like to know what you found idiotic about what I suggested.

If you read, I said I was repeating your previous post to prove a point. You called Marx and idiot, so I called you one, for the sake of repeating the post.

As for you being an idiot, what the fuck do you know of what I think? You know nothing.

quote:

You're a fucking idiot! Wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure are all trivialites? What the fuck do you live for, if not those? Your writting is, again, unclear here, because you used a pronoun without directly specifying what you're discussing. If the "trivialites" are wisdom, insight, joy or sexual pleasure, you have a very strange worldview. If you embrace the shit your spewing, you certainly contradict yourself.

Sorry, but that's YOUR opinion, it is not fact, and it is as correct and as uncontradictory as mine.

Have you heard of "ignorance is bliss"? I'd rather not be ignorant, and live in painful agony be it mental or physical, than be ignorant and blissful. That's basically waht Marx believes. That is certainly not a contradictory belief.

quote:

Why?

I understand that both are opinions. I believe that Marx's opinion is contradictory. He despises religion, even when it brings people utter happiness, because it allows them to be exploited. He probably dislikes exploitation because it makes people unhappy. Otherwise, why would exploitation be wrong? He completely contradicts himself. If people are happy, who cares about exploitation?

Marx's fight to end exploitation is, in the grand scheme of things, a fight to end unhappiness. If those who are being exploited are already satisfied and happy, the ultimate objective has been achieved, and we not declare war on exploitation.



See above, it is certainly not contradictory because Marx would not believe religion is true joy, but the illusion of it.

He believes true joy would come from being unexploited, and thus, to end religion for the sake of what is, in his opinion, a greater joy, is certainly not contradictory.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you read, I said I was repeating your previous post to prove a point. You called Marx and idiot, so I called you one, for the sake of repeating the post.

As for you being an idiot, what the fuck do you know of what I think? You know nothing.

You have yet to show me any idiotic statement I have made in this thread. I said "probably" to signify a lack of completely understanding. I can guess what you think.

See above, it is certainly not contradictory because Marx would not believe religion is true joy, but the illusion of it.



What's wrong with illusion of true joy? I'd assert that joy itself is just an illusion created by our minds. Joy feels very real, and is real enough to crave.



He believes true joy would come from being unexploited

From where does he assert that? Does exploitation matter if one is utterly happy?



See above, it is certainly not contradictory because Marx would not believe religion is true joy, but the illusion of it.

He believes true joy would come from being unexploited, and thus, to end religion for the sake of what is, in his opinion, a greater joy, is certainly not contradictory.



So, you value knowledge more than happiness? Or perhaps freedom? Both? Fair enough.

[This message has been edited by Antiquarian (edited 06-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

You have yet to show me any idiotic statement I have made in this thread. I said "probably" to signify a lack of completely understanding. I can guess what you think.

Like I said, I called you an idiot, not because I may or may not think that you are one, but because you called Marx one, and in order to achieve the effect I desire, which is to mirror your post, I have to call someone else an idiot; someone who was in the other end of the debate -- you.

quote:

What's wrong with illusion of true joy? I'd assert that joy itself is just an illusion created by our minds. Joy feels very real, and is real enough to crave.



What's wrong is that by the very nature of being an illusion, it cannot be the same as having true joy.

quote:

From where does he assert that? Does exploitation matter if one is utterly happy?



He doesn't believe that one can reach the highest form of joy, while being exploited, and as such, exploitation, to him, certainly matters.

Joy = good?

Exploitation = bad?

Why?

What about a dog who catches a bird and eats it? Is that good or bad?

We make assertions on what is good and bad based on our experiences within this reality...

And within this reality nothing is good or bad, only our reactions to it...

Thus it is possible to see everything as good or everything as bad, or everything as one...it is a choice made consciously or unconsciously.

Whether this is an illusion or not is irrelevant...the chemicals released in your body as a reaction to an emotion are "real" enough.

Marx was merely pointing out something that he felt was wrong with the world in his experience. Do you think your reaction to an experience is real if you have not had that experience?

I understand now. It just seems strange to complain about something that brings people joy.

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

I understand now. It just seems strange to complain about something that brings people joy.



Bwahahahaha!!!!!

Religion does bring people joy, but a lot of stupid people in a large group is a very dangerous and powerful thing.

Religion is a leading cause of death throughout history, to quote the great George Carlin "More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason."

Sadly this is true. Religion is a personal choice, but acknowledging religion as fact is not a good way to invest my friend. In fact, being sure of anything is a bad idea. This is why I like science, because in science you can never be sure of anything.

For example in ancient times people were "sure" the world is flat. 'Turns out that's not so. When people begin to say that their religion is a fact that cannot be proven wrong, when a group of other people beleive the same it can lead to conflict.

It usually keeps people from killing eachother if one (or a group in mutual agreement) says "I beleive (insert theology here) and that's just my beleife."