Philosophers have only interpreted the world, but the point is to change it
It's important to start first with the needs of people, working towards praxis-oriented solutions to these real needs
Philosophy has perennially received accusations of “navel gazing from an ivory tower.” As it turns out, thinking hard about a problem or having really sincere thoughts about an issue are generally not-very-effective methods of moving the material needle. Marx said it well: “philosophers have only interpreted the world… the point is to change it” (McIntosh 1997:25). Certainly, Marx the Philosopher had no issues with being a “lover of wisdom,” and is not apprehensive of metaphysical consciousness per se nor avoidant of arguing from syllogisms or premises. However, the pervading contemplatio, effervescence, and the “head in the clouds” elements of the Idealism of Marx’s time led him to believe that A) philosophical starting points needed to be reversed and that 2) the locus of practicality needed to be grounded in “the real.”
In The German Ideology, Marx describes German philosophy as something “which descends from heaven to earth,” whereas Marx’s materialism “[ascends] from earth to heaven” (McIntosh 1997:30). Marx turns philosophy on its head by starting from material (“earth”), the real experiences of real people, rather than beginning from metaphysical speculation (“heaven”).
When starting from speculation or philosophical logic, according to Marx, the locus of practicality gets mixed up. Again, Marx does not avoid logical reasoning; his materialist theory “starts from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment” (McIntosh 1997:30). Fundamentally different from Idealism, however, those premises are actual human people, “not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions” (McIntosh 1997:30). Definitiveness, or practicality, is found in the day-to-day living, working, and surviving of actual humans.
Why does Marx argue that his materialist philosophy in German Idealism, over the philosophical movement of Idealism, more cogently describes the world and better inspires people towards active praxis? First, because the things closest to us are the material conditions of the world, not Platonic forms, sacramental realities, or “Das Wesen.” Instead, what informs, shapes, cultivates, and is is material — the tools we use for work, the desire to eat when hungry, or our being members of communities. And, when we examine those artifacts and elements as they are (that is, materially), this then gives us a more accurate starting point to how real individuals are impacted abstract systems — emergent systems such as capitalism.
Second, on the other side of this same rhetorical coin, Marx believes his argument in German Idealism is better because it grounds social action or praxis in the material, not the “abstract.” Reversing Idealism, Marx states that “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” (McIntosh 1997:30). If one starts with, for instance, an abstract religious consciousness, one might conclude that the best thing an exploited worker can do is think about how their suffering is like Jesus’, and that suffering is building up for them a treasury of virtue in Heaven. “Life,” or the desire and ability to live and work in just and equitable conditions, is submitted to this abstract consciousness, which ultimately undercuts praxis towards better conditions. However, when one starts with “life,” one can correctly identify the sources of estrangement. When starting first with the needs of people, they then think about (in this sense, contemplate) praxis-oriented solutions to these real needs — and work towards unionization, shared means of production, and eventually, revolution (McIntosh 1997:37–38).
References:
McIntosh, Ian, ed. 1997. Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Image Credit:
Genie Music on Pexels