It seems that "human nature" is always in a state of flux for Marx, depending on the dominant or ruling party. Since what we would commonly call "human nature" changes or is elusive (depending on the society in which human nature exists), it seems to me that Marx would argue that there is either no such thing as "human nature" or that questions about such metaphysical concerns are not relevant. What do you think?
2007-05-21 16:09:16 · 7 answers · asked by sokrates 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Marx does not find a metaphysic of an individual human nature to be important, identity is collective and a result of historical circumstance.
2007-05-22 01:27:35 · answer #1 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why question Marx for not having a "Theory of Human Nature?" Would you rather he'd been like Freud?
Instead applaud him for his restraint. Humans are vastly complex,
varied, and unpredictable beings. Every grand "theory of human nature" has been shown by time to be wishful nonsense.
here's an examples of the general form of some of these fallacies:
"Man is a social animal; no man is an island unto himself." -- wrong, there are plenty of loners in the world and always have been. The American frontier was and is full of them.
"People are generally motivated by greed and the desire to get ahead." -- a silly idea, there are generous people too.
"All you need is love." -- sorry, John Lennon, I need success, fun and a bunch of other things too.
Any attempt to describe "human nature" is hopeless overgeneralization. Only the basic fundamentals apply to all or almost all humans, such as desire to eat, reproduce, sleep, etc.
2007-05-21 18:05:16 · answer #2 · answered by kozzm0 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Karl Marx is great. It is difficult to catch or match his mental power. Human nature is exactly equal to universal nature. And it cannot be changed. If we move with nature, we can enjoy life. There is a correlation in every aspect of human life and that of universe. If any one finds such a change, it is his own illusion.
2016-04-01 01:41:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that Karl Marx come closest to the understanding of human nature in the context of collective society, although the solutions provided may not be the most appropriate.
2007-05-21 17:43:17 · answer #4 · answered by devotee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To my understanding, Marx did have a theory of human nature. For instance, did he not agree with socialism. Did he not agree with Lenin that religion was the opiate of the masses..Did he not believe that there should be a classless society; that everyone should be recieving the same amount of wealth, regardless of their class. Isn't that human nature in his view. His particular view of human nature was labeled a Marxism.
2007-05-21 16:31:41 · answer #5 · answered by cowboybabeeup 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yea I think you are right, he is the father of communism he believes that people are no more then a commodity themselves to be bought and sold, isn't that a little like slavery? I don't think he believed in a classless society just that once you were born into a class you were to stay there and recieve certain benefits of being in that position. I think that is my understanding of this we have one who claims to be a great one that maybe could explain this better, but it is not me.
2007-05-21 16:36:23 · answer #6 · answered by Friend 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think about it most people have a theory of human life but they arent as blunt as karl marx...and if there is, just a few.
2007-05-21 16:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by Yassy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋