QUESTION

1.Write Comte， MarxandEngels， feuerbach for around 2 pages respectively, and 2 pages for the connection between the three philosophers and French positivism

                                                                   SAMPLE SOLUTION

Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and Ludwig Feuerbach happen to be among the prominent philosophers whose worldviews were dominant in the mid-19 century. This paper presents the interpretation of the moral worldview associated with the French positivism by focusing on the texts studied in Unit II. The philosophers whose worldviews are discussed in the paper are Marx and Engels, Feuerbach, and Comte. The paper commences by discussing the worldview of each of these philosophers about humanity, ethics, and human nature, and then concludes by presenting an interpretation of the moral worldview associated with French positivism. These areas are discussed in the subheadings below:

Marx and Engel

In The German Ideology, there is contradiction of Marx and Engels’ novel materialist technique with the idealism, which had characterized former German thought. The two philosopher take pain in establishing the premises associated with the materialist technique. They When it comes to the comprehension of human nature, the Marx and Engel commenced by arguing that real human beings are fundamentally productive, as they need to produce their subsistence means for them to gratify their material needs. As such, the gratification of needs engenders novel needs of both a social and material form, and societal forms arise in relation to the state or level of development associated with human productive forces. To some extent, material life determines social life. Therefore, social explanation is derived from material production to societal forms, and thus to consciousness forms (Wolff, 2017). As the development of material mechanism of production is achieved, economic structures or modes of cooperation rise and fall, and ultimately communism will transform into a real possibility after the plight of workers, as well as their consciousness of an alternative inspires them adequately to become revolutionaries.

Whereas Max and Engel provide an appropriate basis for comprehending the human nature account, as it is comprehended in French positivism and German materialism, Marx’s account of morality continues to pose a conundrum. Marx’s works are evidently dominated by undoubted authorization of the communist society’s future and immense disfavor of the bourgeois capitalist society (Wolff, 2017). However, the philosopher’s terms for this endorsement and antipathy remain unclear. Even though he is expected to consider capitalism unjust, Marx did not consider it as such. Marx does not also consider communism a just nature of society. While distancing himself from the discourse of justice, Marx makes a conscious effort to eliminate direct moral explanation in his works.  Therefore, the puzzle concerns the granting of weight of indirect moral illustration one finds.

Marx’s attitude towards communism and capitalism is associated with separate queries. Moreover, there are distinct queries associated with his attitude to notions of justice and notions of morality more widely concerned. These queries concern his thinking of capitalism to be unjust, his thinking of capitalism to morally condemned on other grounds, his thinking of communism to be just, and his thinking of communism to be morally authorized on other grounds. Marx’s argument that all capitalist gains or profit is eventually acquired from the worker’s exploitation seems to denote his consideration of capitalism as unjust. According to Marx, capitalism’s dirty furtive is that it does not constitute a realm of mutual benefit and harmony, but a system characterized by systematic extraction of profit from another by one class. Therefore, the puzzle that arises concerns the inability of such a system to be unjust. However, Marx fails to reach such a conclusion and in Capital, he proceeds to assert that such an exchange does not constitute injustice (Wolff, 2017). Much of his illustration of capitalism is associated with the employment of the words “exploitation,” “embezzlement,” and “robbery.” As such, it can be argued that Marx, like many people, did not possess perfect knowledge of his mind. While he managed to maintain his official viewpoint in his explicit reflections on the justice associated with capitalism, such a view slips out in less guarded times even if not in explicit language. Therefore, such an interpretation is exposed to controversy.