No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
An immediate and important insight into the significance of Greek political philosophy may be gained by examining an observation made upon it by Karl Marx. The fact that Marx's observation is fundamentally erroneous does not prevent it from being profoundly suggestive. Marx observed, in the course of his doctoral dissertation, On the Differences between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus, that the character of the philosophical world after the death of Aristotle in the Fourth Century B.C. was similar to that of the philosophical world after the death of Hegel in the Nineteenth Century. What was this similarity of which Marx speaks? We may best understand it if we know that Marx had considered that his own achievement had been to break through the “completed, total world” of Hegel's “pure theory, theology, philosophy, ethics etc.,” and to have resolved the “absolute metaphysical spirit into the real man standing on the foundation of nature.”
1 It has been pointed out that Marx expressly mentions the fact that the subject for his doctoral dissertation was suggested by his awareness of the parallel between the post-Aristotelian philosophy and the post-Hegelian philosophy. See Voegelin, Eric, “The Formation of the Marxian Revolutionary Idea,” Review of Politics, Vol. 12, pp. 275–302 (July, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Marx's observation may be found in Über die Differenzen der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie, in Marx-Engels, , Gesamtausgabe, Sec. II, Vol. 1, Pt. I, p. 131Google Scholar.
2 Quoted by Rühle, Otto, Karl Marx, His Life and Work (London, 1929), p. 33Google Scholar. Marx is here acknowledging his indebtedness to Ludwig Feuerbach. See my “Ludwig Feuerbach and the Formation of the Marxian Revolutionary Idea,” Laval Théologique et Philosophique, Vol. 7, pp. 218–48 (No. 2, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Oekonomische-philosophische Manuskript 1844, Marx-Engels, , Gesamtausgabe Sec. I, Vol. 3, p. 155Google Scholar.
4 Metaphysics, Bk. XIII, ch. 3, 1078b, 20.
5 Ibid., 1078b, 24.
6 Metaphysics, Bk. I, ch. 6, 987a, 31–987b, 10.
7 Contra Gentiles, I, ch. 26.
8 See de Monleon, Jacques, “Petites notes autour de la famille et de la cité,” Laval Théologique et Philosophique, Vol. 3, pp. 262–89 (No. 2, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 The Statesman, 258E–259D.
10 Politics, Bk. 2, 1261b, 23–33.
11 Oekonomische-philosophische Manuskript (cited in note 3), Vol. 3, pp. 125–26Google Scholar.
12 Quoted by Rühle, , Karl Marx, His Life and Work (cited in note 2), p. 33Google Scholar.
13 Manuscript economico-philosophique, XXIV. Cited in De Marx au Marxisme, ed. Aron, Robert et al. , (Paris, 1948), p. 95Google Scholar.
14 De Anima, II. ch. 3, 414b415a.
15 Politics, I, ch. 1, 1252a, 1.
16 Ibid., 1252a, 7.
17 Manuscript economico-philosophique (cited in note 13), XXIV, p. 95Google Scholar.
18 Oekonomische-philosophische Manuskript, p. 117.
19 Ibid., p. 125.
20 Ibid., p. 114.
21 Lenin, V., The State and Revolution (Detroit, Michigan), p. 108Google Scholar.
22 Oekonomische-philosophische Manuskript, p. 125.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.