ny people, some of whom you mention, tried to turn his
critique into an irrationalist one.
DG.
-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Verschickt: Do., 27. Sept. 2007, 13:51
Thema: Re: [Marxism-Th
Feuerbach as many people here are probably aware was, despite or perhaps even
because of his atheism, an important influence on 20th century theology.
People like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Martin Buber, and Paul Tillich all wrote
about and wrestled with Feuerbach's critique of Christianity and
Religion & Marx
This might be on the bibliographies, I haven't checked. At any rate,
this ten page article looks to take an interesting approach. I don't
have a copy though. This is the cheapest (USD 25.00) online price I
could find for this article. But as I said, it would be tempting to
work ou
Marx Wartofsky's massive study, Feuerbach (Cambridge University Press,1977),
would, I think be an exception to that rule.
Jim F.
-- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Expositions of Marxism have tended to limit treating Feuerbach as a
thinker in his own right, but not all scholars, Marxi
Expositions of Marxism have tended to limit treating Feuerbach as a
thinker in his own right, but not all scholars, Marxist and
non-Marxist, have imposed such limitations.
I don't know whether Marx or Kierkegaard even knew of one another's
existence, so I don't know what is to be said on that s
One problem is Feuerbach often gets schematized as a stepping stone
from Hegel to Marx in the 'progress' of the history of thought. It
would tempting to deal with a host of other 19th century thinkers AND
Marx. For some in European traditions, it might be interesting to
re-visit Sartre, as a synthe
Wise, Rick B. A.
Religion & Marx.
Austin, TX: American Atheist Press, 1988.
xv, 268 p.
I must have purchased this book within a few years of its
publication. I even remember Madelyn O'Hair talking about it and
mentioning the dialectic on some video of some American Atheists
Conference program
