Talk:Ludwig Feuerbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Line in bold?[edit]

Is there a reason for the line in bold in the middle of the page? 128.12.32.199 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Quote[edit]

The "you are what you eat" quote seems quite dubious. JohnJohn 03:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was also doubtful but I googled it and it seems to be correct, or at least an attributed quote. I went the freetranslation.com and it translated "Man ist was man isst" exactly as "One is what one eats". --FranksValli 04:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Translating "Feuerbach"?[edit]

Why is the fact that Feuerbach literally means "fire brook" relevant? It could be that I am missing the point of Nietsche's remark. Otherwise, I don't see the need for translating family names into English. AntonicKnight 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point either, removed the remark. Qwertyus 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Feuerbach's Atheism[edit]

The article states that Feuerbach's theories are 'fatally flawed' by his relativism/atheism. This seems odd to me, surley religious people are not the only ones who can make a valid analysis of the nature and affects of religion!

Also, the article claims that the statement that Feuerbach is an atheist "in the ordinary sense" requires a citation. I don't know how to a cite a source, but I'd like to point out that in the 1842 introduction to The Essence of Christianity, he mentions that "Religion is the dream of the human mind", and that sounds pretty atheist to me. --Filippo Argenti 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that objective evaluation of Feuerbach's atheism is quite contradictary to his assertion of subjectivism. When trying to tie him to a movement it may be interesting to identify him with your own beliefs but labeling his theory atheism in the ordinary sense is merely sticking a flag into Feuerbach and claiming he is either for or against your subjective preference -- it is not fact nor should be included on wikipedia

Feuerbach's Influence[edit]

The statement, " In spite of what many regard as a high style and matter the Essence of Christianity has never made much impression upon thought outside Germany" reflects a considerable ignorance of 20th century theology and philosophy. Theologians such as Paul Tilich and Reinhold Neibuhr have concentrated quite a bit of their energies in explicating Feuerbach's humanism. Also, there may be a renewal of interest in Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity as modern geneticists, neurobiologist and philosophers are beginning to take a more anthropological and empirical study of religion. See D. Dennett's Breaking the Spell


Feuerbach and Aristotle?[edit]

Would it be fair to say that Aristotle influenced Feuerbach? Feurerbach talks a lot about the 'essence' of things in The Essence of Christianity, which sounds pretty Aristotelian, and in the Introduction to The Essence of Christianity he mentions that "I refer the reader to the Analytics of Aristotle." --Filippo Argenti 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Self–contradiction[edit]

In the section on The Essence of Christianity, there are several statements regarding Feuerbach's self–contradiction. It should be noted that he was a follower of Hegel. Hegel rejected the Laws of Thought that A equals A and that A does not equal not–A. According to Hegel, opposites are identical and contradictions are permissible, if not desirable and laudable.Lestrade (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Hey! Look here![edit]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/ Check this out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.20.5 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Works Section[edit]

Why are all of these works listed with the University's that contributed them to Google's acquisitions? The point of a bibliography is to list the publisher so that you can find the same edition/version as being referenced. These universities need to be replaced with the actual publishers that they were produced by and incorporated into the list... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Was Feuerbach a dialectical materialist?[edit]

It has been said that Marx criticised Feuerbach for not being sufficiently dialectical in his writings. Does this mean that Feuerbach was not really a Hegelian? --Oddeivind (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.13.137.118 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dialectic is merely discussion or argument between two or more people. This is in contrast to rhetoric which is a speech by one person who does not expect a response from his audience. People engaged in dialectic long before Hegel was born. Marx may have thought that Feuerbach did not tolerate responses to his pronouncements.Lestrade (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Re-visiting Feueurbach's atheism[edit]

I realize that there's an earlier discussion of this topic above, but it's old and seems to have different concerns than I do.

I don't think that Feuerbach should be identified as an atheist in the lead. He attempts to distinguish his own view from atheism in the Essence of Christianity, his most well-known work. The SEP article is also pretty clear about him referring to his views as anthropotheism, not atheism.2601:B:C580:2D9:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)