Trying to pursue the maximum human potential mirrors the futility of counting to the largest number. Human potential is unbounded as if it were a numerical value. The moment a summit appears to be within reach, a greater one surfaces with the same unattainable glare the conquered once held. Man prides himself in dominating new heights and although the biggest number will never be counted, he will never stop counting. The limitless potential of humans stems from an instinct to continually desire more.
Regardless of how unbounded human potential may be, the rate at which it grows relies on the quality of humans that wish to maximize it. Friedrich Nietzsche in the book On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life and Karl Marx along with Frederick Engels in The Communist Manifesto comment on what qualities are necessary for the improvement of human life. They all clearly believe in the cultivation of human ideas and progress, however, they maintain significant differences in their approaches to identifying the vital from the superfluous. Nietzsche has faith in the power of the individual while Marx and Engels believe it is social interactions and the masses that control which qualities are essential to maximizing human potential.
As social commentators, these authors look at society and history to draw very different conclusions. Essentially every person contains the ability to maximize his or her potential yet a relatively small number ever do. Something has to set these individuals apart from the rest of the population and the qualities that Nietzsche cites responsible are distinctly different from those of Marx and Engels.
Habitual defender of the individual, Nietzsche states that "there will come a...
... middle of paper ...
...d Engels differ drastically in their opinions as to which human qualities have the greatest potential to improve human life. Nietzsche is steadfast with strong individuals capable of limiting their horizons and holding themselves masters over history. Marx and Engels naively surrender the individual to a socialist paradise where the individual is sacrificed for the good of society. Ironically Marx's distrust of humanity, specifically the bourgeoisie, led him to write The Communist Manifesto but it is his trust of humanity that leads to the downfall of Communism in practice.
Humanity has always had a certain amount of power, whether that is the power to manipulate the environment, flora and fauna, or other humans. The qualities described by the authors can easily be found anywhere in society today, even the sacrifice of the individual for a greater good.
First, I want to identify who Marx and Nietzsche are and their critiques on religion. Karl
Philosophers have tried to describe human nature in a plethora of diverse ways. Some focus on what they think humans are born as, what their life goals are, or what morals classify them as human. Mead and Marx both focus on the surroundings of certain types of people, and describe how this changes their human nature. In the process, they both describe similar but different human natures. Mead believes human nature is cultural, and therefore can be shaped by nurture. Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats.
What is the author’s main argument in “How and how not to love mankind” The main argument in the essay, How and how not to love mankind is about how alike, yet how different Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx are. They were both born the same year in 1818 and they both passed away the same year in 1883 and they were both European writers as well. They studied the same things, attended the same university, and wrote about the same topics although they both had different personalities and distinct beliefs also different views on the world around them, especially in humans. Their perspective in While Turgenev saw man, Marx saw classes of man and while Turgenev saw people, Marx saw the people. They both were so alike yet so different in so many different
There are many comparisons between the beliefs and philosophies of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. They are two very significant people that have made an impact on our society through their realizations. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud both have strong views on society’s perception and morality. They have proved that society is driven on our perceptions, morality, and code of ethics. I believe that their philosophies are accurate. They are considerable and even in our present society, their philosophies shine through.
Revolutionaries are not necessarily born but are made. Friedrich Engels is an excellent example of this because his history and family life does not reflect his career path. Unlike Marx, he was born of a “well-to-do” authoritarian textile manufacturer on November 28, 1820 in Barmen, Germany. By the age of fifteen his parents were very concerned with his behavior. In a letter written by his father he was said to have had a “lack of character” and “other unpleasant qualities”. Friedrich was receiving substandard grades, and he was disobedient despite the strict discipline at home. His father saw promise in him despite his disobedience, but was continuously troubled by his son’s actions. These acts can be seen as a sign of his future rebellion toward society. [ii] Friedrich Engels’ biographical information is important to know because it gives the reader and understanding of what shaped Engels’ views in the Communist Manifesto.
Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim all offered differing perspectives on the division of labor. Marx claims that the division of labor is motivated by the market. Weber claims that it developed through the industrious essence of the Protestant ethic. Durkheim claims it developed due to an increase in dynamic density. Each theorist argues that the division of labor impacts society using differing methods. The challenge is the management of attaching different values without causation of detriment to the system. All of the theorists explain how differing values inherently offer intrinsic values to individuals within the division of labor. The division of labor is the cause of evolving societies because it influences individualism and perpetuates
During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists. Both of them tried to explain social change taking place in society at that time. On the one hand, their views are very different, but on the other hand, they have many similarities. Weber had argued that Marx was too narrow in his views. He felt that Marx was only concerned with the economic issues and believed that that issue is a central force that changed the society.
He worked closely with a famous german thinker, Friedrich Engels and wrote several different books and ideas about society and their findings on social topics. Marx’s ideas of capitalism and the division of labor were opposing of Durkheim’s. Being a conflict theorist, he argued that the division of labor caused several different issues that affected both the individual and the collective like recurrent crises in the economy and alienation. He said that it would create inequality between social groups because of how the system works. Marx focused on change and how changing certain aspects of society could better improve the way it works
Society became divided into different social classes. The two biggest, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were in conflict with each other. The bourgeoisie controlled the means of production, which were the tools and capital needed to create a successful economy. The proletariat owned nothing. All they could do was work in their difficult factory jobs. Marx and Engels believed that the struggle between the controlling and the non-controlling classes had been taking place throughout all of human history. The goals of communism were mainly about class structure. Marx and Engels wanted to end class conflict, especially between the proletariat and the...
The generation holding total and absolute control of the future and everything that happens in the world regarding advancements, developments, and so much more, holds a vast potential to be the most intelligent and productive generation with the education and exposure required for the development of a growth mindset in the early stages of their lives. There are two contrasting types of mindsets, a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. The difference between the two mindsets are expressed typically through the actions of the person. A person with a fixed mindset will think they cannot do anything to further themselves in life, avoid challenges, give up when things get hard, and settle for bare minimum
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
To Marx, his theory of human nature is called species being. Species being describes human as social producers of goods. Based on his theory, humans do not work for their own survival or need, but rather they produce for the benefit of society. Given this, it is the human’s nature to build things even without others. As a part of species being, humans work and produce so that they could forge social connections. Marx specifies in his theory of alienation that species being is not about trading or making money, but rather social relationships. As Marx explains, the disruption from species being leads to man being alienated in labor through the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but upon human emancipation, man can once again return to his original nature. Like Marx, Nietzsche has a belief in human nature that is disrupted in modern man. His theory of alienation describes a theory of human nature called the will to power. Nietzsche’s will to power is a creative force that man inflicts on others. The will to power is the main driving force in man that contributes to his ambitions and achievements. Nietzsche describes the will to power as “the essence of life” and “the instinct of freedom.” Nietzsche’s will to power can act as an isolating quality to overcoming his problem within his theory of alienation. The will to power is
Humans are always trying to achieve something they’ll never have, something that is so blatantly unachievable that it’s strange that they’re even trying.
Maximum of humans or perhaps educated humans, appear to imagine that all citizens are basically the same and have the same characteristic capabilities and aptitudes, and only people doing hard work and who have fortune at their side, separates those who are highly skillful from those who are not. This is extremely unreal because people differ by every other dimension, from body structure to the sizes of their brains. So, why shouldn't they vary in their skills and aptitudes? In FACT they do. It's time to acknowledge this fact and take advantage of it.
Throughout humanity, individuals evolved and adapted to a changing society. People have not always been perfect in their selected field, however, as time progress individuals learn to develop themselves. A common factor that drives success throughout humanity is an individual 's capacity to set goals and strive towards personal development. As we progress through life and become older, individuals tend to realize life only becomes harder, and in the working world; life is not a walk to Elysium. With each passing year, life becomes more extensive, and stress tends to consume us, although life is difficult anything can be achieved and overcome by setting goals and attempting to enhance our personal development. Personal development is the key