Principles of the Philosophy of the Future

Question

Feuerbach claims, "what is other-worldly to religion, is this-worldly to philosophy." Unpack what this statement means in practical terms. How does this reorientation change the fundamental object and method of inquiry for philosophy compared to religion?

Synthesized answer

Feuerbach's statement, "what is other-worldly to religion, is this-worldly to philosophy," signifies a fundamental shift in focus. For religion, certain concepts or beings are considered transcendent, existing outside the earthly realm and not directly accessible as objects of immediate experience [3]. Philosophy, on the other hand, takes these same concepts or beings and brings them into the realm of worldly inquiry and understanding [1].

This reorientation changes the object and method of inquiry by moving from a concern with God-in-himself to what God is for man [1]. Religion, in its theoretical aspect, might leave God intact as a transcendent being, not an object for religious man [1]. However, speculative philosophy engages in the rational assimilation and dissolution of this transcendent God, making it an object of study [1, 4]. The new philosophy, in contrast to the old, proceeds from the principle that the self is a real and sensuous being, thinking in harmony with the senses, and consciously recognizing their truth [2]. This sensuous philosophy, with an open heart, contrasts with theological abstraction from the sensuous [2, 3]. The essence of the object of inquiry, such…

Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.

From the book

The religious or practical form of this humanisation was Protestantism. The God who is man, that is to say the human God, Christ, this and only this is the God of Protestantism. Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism is no longer concerned with what God is in himself, but only with what he is for man; hence, it knows no speculative or contemplative tendency like Catholicism. It has ceased to be theology — it is essentially Christology; that 1s, religious anthropology. §3 However, Protestantism negated God-in-himself or God as God — for only God-in-himself is, strictly speaking, God — only…
Passage [2]
The old philosophy had its point of departure in the proposition: I am an abstract, a merely thinking being to which the body does not belong. The new philosophy proceeds from the principle: I am a real and sensuous being. Indeed, the whole of my body is my ego, my being itself. The old philosopher, therefore, thought in a constant contradiction to and conflict with the senses in order to avoid sensuous conceptions, or in order not to pollute abstract concepts. In contrast, the new philosopher thinks in peace and harmony with the senses. The old philosophy conceded the truth of…
Passage [136]
Just as once the abstraction from all that is sensuous and material was the necessary condition of theology, so it was also the necessary condition of speculative philosophy, the only difference being that the abstraction of theology was itself a sensuous abstraction (or ascetics) because its object, although arrived at through abstraction, was nevertheless conceived as a sensuous being, whereas the abstraction of speculative philosophy is only spiritual and ideated, having only a scientific or theoretical, but no practical, meaning. The beginning of Cartesian philosophy — namely, the…
Passage [21]
The secret of "absolute" philosophy is therefore the secret of theology. Just as theology turns the determinations of man into those of God in that it robs these determinations of the specificity through which they are what they are, so, too, does the absolute philosophy. “To think rationally is to be expected of anybody; in order to think of reason as absolute, that is, in order to arrive at the standpoint which I demand, it is necessary to abstract from thought. For him, who makes this abstraction, reason immediately ceases to be something subjective, as it is taken to be by most…
Passage [88]
however, precisely through their object that these are distinguished from other animals, the carnivorous ones. Similarly, the object of the eye is light and not sound or smell, it is through this object that the eye reveals its essence to us. It therefore comes down to the same thing whether someone cannot see or has no eyes. That is also why we name things in life with respect to their objects. The eye is the “light organ.” He who cultivates land is a land cultivator (peasant); someone else, the object of whose activity is hunting, is a hunter; he who catches fish is a fisher, and so…
Passage [12]

More questions about this book