SESSION 1

I. Anti-Hegelian Reaction: What is it?

II. The Hegelian Left
II.1. Ludwig Feuerbach
II.1.a. Life and Works
II.1.b. Hegel’s Materialist Turn
II.1.c. Main Philosophy
II.2. Karl Marx
II.2.a. Life and Works
II.2.b. Dialectical or Historical Materialism
II.2.c. Critique of Religious Alienation
II.2.d. Critique of Religious Alienation
II.2.e. Critique of Political Alienation
II.2.f. Critique of Social Alienation
II.2.g. Critique of Economical Alienation
II.2.h. Marx Thinking

I. Anti-Hegelian Reaction: What is it?

Hegel's Dialectical Idealism
Hegel’s philosophy was based on the concept of dialectical idealism, which
posited that reality and history unfold through a process of contradictions and their
resolutions. In this process, opposing forces—the thesis and antithesis—clash, but
their conflict ultimately leads to a higher, synthesized form, known as the
synthesis. This synthesis then becomes the new thesis, which enters into conflict
again, creating a perpetual dialectical evolution.
At the heart of Hegel’s thought was the idea that this dialectical process led toward
the realization of the Absolute Spirit, or the ultimate truth that encompasses all of
reality. In essence, for Hegel, ideas and consciousness—not material conditions—
drive the historical process and shape reality itself. He emphasized the importance
of abstract reasoning, the development of consciousness, and ideal forms
over material or individual realities.
But as we will see, many philosophers who came after Hegel strongly disagreed with
these ideas, forming what is known as the Anti-Hegelian Reaction.
The Anti-Hegelian Reaction
The Anti-Hegelian Reaction refers to a group of philosophers and intellectuals who
critiqued and negated core aspects of Hegel’s philosophy. These thinkers believed
that Hegel’s ideas were too abstract, conservative, and disconnected from the
material conditions of life. They rejected the notion that history is driven by ideas or
that the state, as Hegel claimed, is the highest realization of human freedom.
Let’s look at some of the specific Hegelian ideas that these thinkers opposed:
1. Absolute Idealism
Hegel’s Absolute Idealism posited that reality is shaped by the development of
ideas and ultimately leads to an Absolute, or an all-encompassing truth. He
believed that consciousness and thought processes, rather than material conditions,
shape the world.
Anti-Hegelian Response:
The Anti-Hegelian thinkers, especially Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, rejected
this notion of idealism. For them, material conditions, not ideas, are what shape
human consciousness and history. Feuerbach famously argued that human thought
and religion are merely projections of material, human needs. Marx took this further
by asserting that human reality is shaped by economic structures and the mode
of production, not abstract ideas.
 Example: Marx’s theory of historical materialism directly opposes Hegel’s
idealism. Marx argued that the economic base—the forces and relations of
production—determines the social, political, and ideological superstructure.
For Marx, the real engine of history is the conflict between economic classes,
not the dialectical evolution of ideas.

2. State as the Realization of Freedom

Hegel believed that the state represents the culmination of human freedom and
the highest realization of the ethical spirit. For Hegel, the state is where
individuals can fulfill their roles within a collective spirit, achieving both individual
and communal freedom.
Anti-Hegelian Response:
Anti-Hegelian thinkers, particularly Marx, argued that the state, far from being the
realization of freedom, is actually an instrument of class oppression. According to
Marx, the state under capitalism serves the interests of the ruling class—the
bourgeoisie—and perpetuates the exploitation of the working class. Rather than
enabling freedom, the state under capitalism alienates individuals and reinforces
inequality.
 Example: Marx critiqued the bourgeois state in works like The Communist
Manifesto. He argued that the state’s laws and institutions are designed to
protect private property and maintain the dominance of the capitalist class.
For Marx, true freedom could only be achieved through the abolition of the
capitalist state and the establishment of a classless, stateless society.

3. History as a Rational Process

Hegel saw history as the unfolding of reason through a dialectical process.
According to Hegel, history is essentially rational, with each stage representing
progress toward the realization of the Absolute Spirit. In Hegel’s view, contradictions
in society and history are resolved in higher, more advanced forms, leading to a
rational and ethical world.
Anti-Hegelian Response:
Anti-Hegelian thinkers, especially Marx, viewed history in materialist terms.
Instead of focusing on the development of ideas, they argued that history is driven
by material conditions and the struggle between economic classes. Marx
developed his concept of historical materialism, which holds that the economic
system at any given stage of history determines the social, political, and intellectual
life of that period.
 Example: For Marx, the history of human society is the history of class
struggles. Each mode of production—such as feudalism or capitalism—
creates its own internal contradictions, leading to conflict between the
oppressed and the oppressors. This conflict drives historical change, not the
rational unfolding of ideas, as Hegel believed. In Marx’s view, capitalism
would eventually collapse due to its inherent contradictions, paving the way
for communism.

Philosophical Stance of the Anti-Hegelian Reaction

The Anti-Hegelian Reaction marked a significant shift from idealism to
materialism. Thinkers like Feuerbach and Marx rejected Hegel’s abstract
metaphysical system in favor of a philosophy grounded in the material world and
human experience. They believed that human consciousness and society are
shaped by material conditions—especially economic realities—and that philosophy
should focus on changing these material conditions rather than contemplating
abstract ideas.
Marx’s famous statement, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world,
in various ways; the point is to change it,” perfectly encapsulates the activist
spirit of the Anti-Hegelian Reaction. For Marx, philosophy’s goal should not be the
passive interpretation of ideas, but the active transformation of society.

The Hegelian Left, or the Young Hegelians, a group of thinkers who

adopted Hegel’s dialectical method but applied it to critique the social,
political, and religious institutions of their time. Unlike conservative
Hegelians, who interpreted his ideas as a path toward reconciliation of
contradictions within the status quo, the Hegelian Left saw Hegel’s
philosophy as a call for radical social change. Their goal was human
emancipation, rather than achieving harmony within the abstract spirit Hegel
often emphasized.
II.1. Ludwig Feuerbach

II.1.a. Life and Works

Let’s begin with Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), a German philosopher

who initially followed Hegel’s ideas but later broke away. Feuerbach is best
known for his materialist critique of both religion and idealism, which he
laid out in works such as The Essence of Christianity (1841). In this book, he
argued that religious beliefs are projections of human nature and desires,
rather than reflections of divine truths.

Example: Feuerbach claimed that the image of a compassionate God in

Christianity is simply humanity projecting its own desire for compassion, not
a reflection of an independent, absolute truth as Hegel would argue.

II.1.b. Hegel’s Materialist Turn

Feuerbach’s break with Hegel centered on negating Hegel’s idealism.

While Hegel believed that human consciousness and reality develop through
an evolving dialectic of ideas, Feuerbach argued that ideas and
consciousness are the products of material existence. He “turned Hegel on
his head,” positing that it is not the spiritual or the ideal that shapes the
material, but rather material conditions that shape ideas.

Initially a devout Hegelian, Feuerbach soon became critical of Hegel’s

idealism. He argued that Hegel's philosophy alienated itself from sensible
reality, emphasizing abstract concepts over human experiences. Feuerbach
believed that reality should be understood through the senses, not
through Hegelian abstractions. For Feuerbach, human beings are defined by
their physical and sensory experiences, not by an overarching absolute
spirit. His famous line, "Man is what he eats," illustrates this materialist
perspective: thought and consciousness are grounded in material conditions,
though not reducible entirely to them. Feuerbach critiqued Hegelianism as a
form of theology, contending that God's consciousness is actually man's
self-consciousness, reflecting human ideals and needs.

Feuerbach essentially inverted Hegel’s philosophy, placing emphasis on

human beings and their material reality rather than abstract, spiritual
developments. For him, human consciousness is a direct reflection of human
needs, desires, and physical conditions, not an evolving idea of the absolute
spirit.

II.1.c. Main Philosophy

Feuerbach’s philosophy is known as anthropological materialism, in
which he argued that religion is a human creation, a product of human
imagination. Where Hegel viewed religion as an essential stage in the
evolution of human self-consciousness and the unfolding of the Absolute,
Feuerbach contended that religion alienates humans by externalizing
their human qualities into gods. By attributing their qualities to divine
beings, humans lose sight of their true essence.

Feuerbach’s philosophy centers on the belief that religion is a projection

of humanity's essence. He argued that all divine attributes—God's power,
will, and love—are simply reflections of human characteristics. In this view,
religion is an alienation of human essence, where people externalize their
qualities onto a divine being. To overcome this alienation, people must
recognize their own potential and humanity within themselves, not in an
external deity. Feuerbach saw religion as rooted in human need and desire,
explaining that “your God is nothing more than what you most intimately
need.”

Feuerbach also emphasized that religion leads to social alienation, as it

distracts humans from their immediate material and social realities. His
inversion of Hegel's idealism into materialism and the elevation of the
human species over God laid the groundwork for future thinkers like Karl
Marx, who would transform this theory into political and social praxis.

Philosophical Stance: Feuerbach was a materialist and a humanist. He

believed that by recognizing the human origin of religion, people could focus
on improving their material conditions rather than chasing after abstract
ideals.

II.2. Karl Marx

Next, we move on to Karl Marx, arguably the most influential thinker in the
Hegelian Left. While Marx expanded on Feuerbach’s materialism, he
developed his own revolutionary critique of capitalism. Marx’s works, such
as The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, offer a detailed analysis of the
economic and political structures of his time, emphasizing the role of class
struggle in driving historical development.

II.2.a. Life and Works

Marx took Feuerbach’s materialist critique of religion and extended it to

encompass the entire social and economic system. In his analysis,
capitalism was the root of alienation, exploitation, and inequality. Marx
rejected Hegel’s focus on ideas and abstract reason, arguing that the
material conditions of society—especially the modes of production—are
the driving forces of history.

II.2.b. Dialectical or Historical Materialism

Marx negated Hegel’s dialectical idealism by transforming it into

dialectical materialism. While Hegel believed that the dialectic of ideas
(thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) drove historical progress, Marx argued that
it is the material conditions and economic relations of production
(feudalism, capitalism, etc.) that shape history. History progresses through
class struggle, not through abstract ideas.

Example: Marx’s analysis of the French Revolution shows that it was not a
conflict of ideas as Hegel might have seen it, but rather a material
contradiction between the feudal aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy because of the changing material
and economic conditions, not simply due to ideological disagreements.

II.2.c. Critique of Religious Alienation

Marx, like Feuerbach, critiqued religion, but his critique had a broader socio-
economic focus. He viewed religion as a form of alienation, where the
working class is encouraged to find solace in religion rather than address the
real, material causes of their suffering. Marx famously declared that
“religion is the opium of the people,” meaning that it serves as a tool to
dull the pain of exploitation, rather than as a means to confront it.

Philosophical Stance: Marx saw religion not as a necessary stage of

human consciousness (as Hegel did), but as a distraction from the harsh
material realities of life under capitalism.

II.2.d. Critique of Political Alienation

In contrast to Hegel’s belief that the state represents the realization of

human freedom and ethical life, Marx viewed the state as an instrument of
class oppression. Under capitalism, the state is not neutral, but rather
serves the interests of the ruling class—the bourgeoisie—by maintaining the
system of exploitation.

Example: Marx’s critique of the bourgeois state as an entity that maintains

inequality and class hierarchy directly opposes Hegel’s view of the state as
the highest realization of freedom. For Marx, the state under capitalism
perpetuates oppression rather than bringing about ethical life.
II.2.e. Critique of Social Alienation

Marx extended Hegel’s concept of alienation to encompass the entire

structure of labor in capitalist society. He argued that under capitalism,
workers are alienated from the products of their labor, the production
process, their fellow workers, and their own human potential. Capitalism
treats workers as commodities rather than as fully realized human beings.

Example: Marx’s theory of alienated labor opposes Hegel’s view that labor
is a path toward achieving self-consciousness. In Marx’s analysis, labor under
capitalism dehumanizes workers because they produce goods they do not
own or control. This alienation from their own labor prevents them from
achieving self-realization.

II.2.f. Critique of Economical Alienation

Marx argued that Hegel’s focus on abstract consciousness ignored the

real source of alienation: the capitalist economic system. For Marx,
economic alienation occurs when workers are separated from the value
they produce, which is appropriated by capitalists for profit.

Example: In Das Kapital, Marx shows how the capitalist system allows the
bourgeoisie to exploit the surplus value created by workers. This exploitation
creates a cycle in which workers are alienated from the fruits of their labor,
while capitalists profit from their toil.

II.2.g. Marx Thinking

Finally, let’s look at Marx’s overall philosophical stance. Marx’s thought

represents a materialist inversion of Hegel’s idealism. Where Hegel saw
history as the evolution of ideas toward the Absolute, Marx saw history as
the result of economic structures and class struggles. Marx famously
stated in his Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted
the world in various ways; the point is to change it." For Marx, philosophy
should not just be about interpreting the world, but about changing it
through revolutionary action.

Example: Marx’s call for revolutionary praxis directly opposes Hegel’s focus
on the contemplation and reconciliation of ideas. For Marx, the task of
philosophy is to transform society by addressing real, material conditions
—not just to analyze or interpret ideas.

II.2.b. Dialectical or Historical Materialism

Marx developed dialectical materialism by synthesizing philosophy, economics,
and politics. Unlike Hegel, who focused on the dialectic of ideas, Marx argued that
history is driven by material conditions and class struggles. For Marx, the thesis
and antithesis in this dialectic represent real, material forces—such as the
bourgeoisie and proletariat—engaged in conflict. The synthesis, or resolution, is not
abstract or ideal but found in revolutionary change, leading to the transformation of
the socioeconomic order toward socialism. Marx’s materialism asserts that
economic structures determine human consciousness and society.
II.2.c. Critique of Religious Alienation
Marx critiqued religion as a form of alienation, where individuals are separated
from their true essence by projecting their desires and ideals onto divine beings.
Religion, in Marx’s view, is both a reflection of real suffering and a tool used by
the ruling class to maintain the status quo. He famously described religion as the
“opium of the people,” meaning it provides false comfort and diverts attention from
the material exploitation and suffering caused by capitalism. Marx's goal was to
abolish religion in order for humanity to confront and transform its real material
conditions.
II.2.d. Critique of Religious Alienation (continued)
For Marx, religion is not just a cause of alienation but more an effect of the
alienation rooted in capitalist society. It serves to legitimize and sanctify the
injustices of the socioeconomic system, reinforcing class division and oppression.
Marx believed that once material conditions improve and class oppression is
eliminated, religion will naturally disappear, as it is merely a byproduct of
human alienation under capitalism.
II.2.e. Critique of Political Alienation
Marx rejected Hegel’s notion of the state as the realization of freedom. Instead, he
viewed the state as a tool of class oppression, used by the ruling bourgeoisie to
maintain their control over the proletariat. Marx argued that political alienation
results from the separation between social life and political institutions, which serve
the interests of the few. He envisioned the withering away of the state after a
proletarian revolution, leading to a classless society where the state is no longer
needed to enforce domination.
II.2.f. Critique of Social Alienation
Social alienation, according to Marx, is primarily a result of the division of society
into classes. Under capitalism, the working class (proletariat) is alienated from the
products of their labor, from the production process, and from their fellow workers.
This alienation arises from the private ownership of the means of production,
which reduces workers to commodities. The resolution to social alienation, Marx
argued, would come through a revolution that abolishes private property and class
distinctions, creating a society based on collective ownership and cooperation.
II.2.g. Critique of Economic Alienation
Economic alienation is central to Marx’s critique of capitalism. He argued that in
capitalist societies, workers are alienated from the value they produce, as the
surplus value of their labor is appropriated by capitalists for profit. This process
commodifies labor, reducing workers to mere instruments of production. Marx saw
this as the root cause of all other forms of alienation and believed that only the
abolition of capitalism and private property would end economic exploitation and
restore humanity to its true nature.
II.2.h. Marx Thinking
Marx's philosophy was an inversion of Hegel’s idealism. He believed that
material conditions, not ideas, drive history, and that philosophy should aim to
change the world, not merely interpret it. Marx advocated for revolutionary
praxis, where human liberation from alienation would be achieved through the
abolition of capitalism, leading to a classless society. His materialist view of history
sees the proletariat as the key to this transformation, as they have both the
material interest and the power to overthrow the capitalist system.

SESSION 2
III. Soren Kierkegaard
III.1. Life and Philosophy
III.2. Hermeneutics
III.3. Kier’s Category: Individual
III.4. Existential Stages
III.4.a. Aesthetic Stage
III.4.b. Ethical Stage
III.4.c. Religious Stage
III.5. Kier’s Thinking
 IV. Arthur Schopenhauer
IV.1. Life and Works
IV.2. The World as Representation
IV.3. World as Will
IV.4. Liberation through Contemplation and Aesthetic Asceticism
IV.5. Schopen’s Thinking
SESSION 3
V. Friedrich Nietzsche
V.1. Life and Works
V.2. Grand Theme: Life
V.3. Nihilism and Death of God
V.4. The Eternal Return
V.5. Übermensch
V.6. Will to Power
V.7. Morality and Christianity
V.8. Nietzsche’s Thinking
VI. Summary and Recap