Bruno Bauer

Rezeption Die deutsche Ideologie 20-4 Der Einzige und die Deutsche Ideologie : Transformationen des aufklärerischen Diskurses im Vormärz / Ulrich Pagel.-Ber-lin [u.a.] : De Gruyter, 2020.-IX, 690 S. ; 25 cm.-(De-Gruyter-Marx-Forschung ; 1).-Zugl.: Halle-Wittenberg, Univ., Diss. 2015.-ISBN 978-3-11-061827-3 : EUR 109.95 [#6791] Die außerordentliche Bedeutung eines seltsamen Denkers, 1 der sein Hauptwerk Der Einzige und sein Eigentum unter dem Pseudonym Max Stirner publizierte, 2 wird nirgends sonst so augenfällig als in der Tatsache, daß sich Marx und Engels über Hunderte von Seiten mit ihm auseinander-1 Stirner wird etwa von Pirmin Stekeler als "Quartalskritiker" betitelt, weil er zu de-nen gehöre, die eine Redeform nicht verstehen könnten oder wollten, die sich auf generische Sätze beziehe. Das sei aber das "Kennzeichen eines logisch ungedie-genen Individualismus und Nominalismus", der als Stichwortgeber für so unter-schiedliche Denker diene wie Feuerbach, den frühen Marx, Nietzsche, Fritz Mauthner und dann auch die "teils logisch-empiristische, teils materialistische

The promise of paperless office as well as of ubiquitous digital applications has not been adequately realised owing to various reasons. While discussing the issue of ‘paperless office’ in the Hegelian context of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis, the paper further considers the main development thrust of organizations, which is for achieving their objectives. Relative importance of ‘paperless office’ differs in different type of organizations owing to differing focus of their objectives. This paper explains how an organization may work more effectively through closer integration of its sub-systems, and secondly, through alignment of individual goals with organizational objectives by means of employee motivation.

Index Terms— Paper-less office, conflict resolution, change management, organizational development (OD)

My key argument will be that by shifting the debate over Jewish emancipation from the plane of theology, where it had been traditionally fought, to the plane of sociology, Marx was able to circumvent one of Bauer's main arguments against emancipating the Jews. Bauer had contended that as a religion of law, not of faith, Judaism was by its very nature a public creed. It was incompatible, therefore, with life in a free state, where religion could only be a private matter. Marx chose to ignore this argument, treat Judaism as no different from Christianity, and focus his discussion on the nature of the state on the one hand and on the role played by the Jews in civil society on the other. This was less than a satisfactory response to Bauer's argument, but it enabled Marx to present a powerful case for emancipation while, at the same time, launching his critique of economic alienation. Thus, the philosophical advances made by Marx in On the Jewish Question were necessitated by, and integrally related to, his commitment to Jewish emancipation.

"Abstract: Bruno Bauer’s response to Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
(1845) is here examined closely, for the fi rst time. In working out their concepts
of freedom and self-determination, the Hegelian Left stressed different
elements in the synthesis which Hegel himself had effected. Options appear
that can be described as generally Fichtean or Spinozistic; each has distinct
political and ethical implications. Bauer’s claim is that Stirner “Unique One”
is to be understood as a version of Spinozist substance, which fails to rise
to the Fichtean-Hegelian standpoint of rational subjectivit y which his own
thought represents. The paper endorses Bauer’s conclusion that essential differences
between his republicanism and universalism, as opposed to Stirner’s
anarchism and particularism, can be traced to divergent receptions of Fichte
and Spinoza, as mediated through Hegel. With references to Hegel’s critiques
of Spinoza, the paper reconstructs Bauer’s argumentation on the inadequacies
of a merely substantial view of freedom."

RE: Facades, illusions & ideological concepts created & promoted by ancient royalty out of necessity; effective creation of an alternate version of reality. It is only by knowing this information that the true nature of ancient texts may be understood correctly. Not knowing, means making incorrect assumptions & conclusions. Important!

The aim of this study is to investigate the relation between Marx’s philosophy and Hegel’s thought, particularly from the point of view of Hegel’dialectic and his Elements of the Philosophy of Right. However, before it, it was necessary to understand the influence of the Left Hegelians over the reflection of the young Marx, to determinate in which extent they have conditioned his interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy; so, it has been analyzed, first, Bruno Bauer’s thought (Chapter 1), then Feuerbach’s reflection (Chapter 2) and, last, the German Ideology and the conflict between Marx and Stirner (Chapter 3).

This chapter examines the historical and conceptual interrelations among several influential critiques of religion that emerged in the history of German philosophy in the nineteenth century.  The chapter begins by describing factors leading to the fragmentation of the Hegelian school in the wake of the publication of D. F. Strauss’s Life of Jesus in 1835-36.  The second section traces Feuerbach’s development from the idealistic pantheism of his youth to the atheistic humanism and materialism of his later works, focusing mainly on the account of religious consciousness contained in The Essence of Christianity (1841).  The third section outlines the interpretation of Hegel that underlies Bruno Bauer’s atheistic philosophy of self-consciousness, and considers Bauer’s position in relation to those of Karl Marx and Max Stirner.  The concluding section identifies features of Nietzsche’s cultural location, and his way of thinking about religion, that distinguish them from those of his atheistic precursors.

Bruno Bauer, Karl Marx, "La Trompette du Jugement Dernier contre Hegel l'athée et l'antichrist : un Ultimatum",
traduit de l'allemand par Henri-Alexis Baatsch, suivi de "De Marx comme trompettiste" par Nicolas Dessaux.

Nicolas Dessaux


"En 1841 paraît un livre anonyme intitulé La Trompette du Jugement dernier contre Hegel l’athée et l’antichrist. Sa cible : la philosophie hégélienne, accusée de propager un esprit de subversion contre la religion et les institutions. OEuvre d’un dévot ou canular destiné à tromper l’oeil du censeur ? Stirner, Bakounine, Engels s’enthousiasment pour ce brûlot qui livre les clefs d’une lecture radicale de Hegel. Bientôt, des noms circulent : il serait l’oeuvre impie d’un célèbre théologien, Bruno Bauer, et de son disciple encore inconnu, un étudiant nommé… Karl Marx.
Dans l’essai qui accompagne la republication de ce pamphlet, Nicolas Dessaux démontre qu’il s’agit bien du premier livre publié de Marx. C’est l’ancrage dans la philosophie hégélienne qui donne toute sa puissance révolutionnaire à la théorie marxienne, inspirant non seulement sa critique de la religion mais aussi sa critique du capitalisme en tant que religion. Et l’on redécouvre ainsi un Marx humaniste, dialecticien, critique de l’aliénation, aux antipodes de l’image pétrifiée qu’en a donné le marxisme orthodoxe.

Un texte indispensable pour connaître les prémisses philosophiques de la pensée marxienne."

Publié le 21 septembre 2016 chez L'Echappée.

Quarta di copertina: In questo testo giovanile del 1829 con il quale vinse il Premio Reale Prussiano di filosofia, Bruno Bauer si interroga sul significato dell’arte e sul rapporto di questa con la religione e la filosofia, mediante un confronto serrato con la "Critica del Giudizio" di Kant e con il pensiero di Hegel, il quale, in qualità di commissario del premio, giudicò positivamente lo scritto. Temi quali l’emancipazione dell’autocoscienza attraverso la lotta, oppure la concezione della religione in quanto alienazione, sono presagiti in questo scritto, sebbene l’inflessione politica del pensiero di Bauer giunga a maturazione solo successivamente, a seguito dell’intensificazione degli antagonismi sociali nel Vormärz. La squillante difesa dell’universalità, mantenuta vigorosamente fin dopo le sconfitte del 1848, è una chiamata alla libertà e alla realizzazione della ragione. L’unità di pensiero ed essere, di ragione e oggettività, è un processo e una meta che si realizza mediante avversità e contestazione. Come Bauer dichiara già nel suo manoscritto, l’arte è il suo araldo.

Che significa ereditare e, più radicalmente, l’eredità può coniugarsi con la risata? Quando ciò avviene, il comico può rilevarsi un paradigma non solo interpretativo, ma anche euristico e performativo, un mezzo per confrontarsi con la storia, addirittura per fare la propria storia. Pochi, nello sviluppo del pensiero occidentale, hanno incarnato il paradosso del ridere unito all’ereditare con maggiore incidenza di Max Stirner (1806-1856). Rileggerne oggi la proposta teoretica, affrontando la duplice istanza di un confronto con la letteratura critica e con l’orizzonte speculativo del giovane hegelismo, significa in primo luogo ricostruire, sotto questo aspetto, le profondità di una stagione di pensiero non ancora pienamente indagata e, in secondo luogo, restituire senso all’unico riconoscimento che a Stirner è sempre stato tributato, ossia il suo essere estremo. Significa cioè mostrare che l’estremismo stirneriano non fa segno agli abissi del nichilismo passivo, bensì a una cuspide della strategia parodica che attinge il piano metafisico e apre al futuro di un’etica inedita – un’etica della consumazione.

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

Il giovane Karl Marx è una storia appassionante e umanissima di persone che vivono nell'amore e nell'amicizia, di uomini e donne che si uniscono immaginando una rivoluzione sociale che, nel tempo a venire, non rimarrà solo un'utopia e coinvolgerà milioni di individui, già relegati in una condizione di sfruttamento e povertà. Contemporaneamente, si tratta di un film filosofico e letterario, poiché mette in primo piano la produzione teorica dei due padri fondatori del comunismo e narra la formazione del pensiero marxista negli anni cruciali dal 1842 al 1848. Incontriamo, inizialmente, il Karl degli esordi, che lavora come altre decine di giovani intellettuali, in tipografie affollate e su tavoli ingombri di carte e di bozze, che fatica a mantenere se stesso e la propria famiglia, già imprigionato in patria per i suoi scritti e poi esiliato. La storia racconta di lui e della sua formidabile moglie Jenny von Westphalen, raffinata e colta intellettuale di famiglia nobile, abbandonata e ripudiata dai suoi, per essersi innamorata di Karl e averlo seguito nella sua grama vita di pensatore. Poi, lo straordinario incontro tra i due padri del comunismo che si scrutano e valutano subendo una reciproca attrazione, malgrado tutti i simboli sociali militino contro di loro e ne facciano due avversari. Friedrich Engels è il ricco erede di un padre industriale, un tedesco "pietista" (setta integralista protestante avversa a ogni forma di vita mondana e di diffusione della cultura), nonché proprietario di alcune fabbriche tessili in Germania e a Manchester, in Inghilterra. Karl nasce all'interno della buona borghesia della provincia prussiana da una coltissima famiglia di ebrei convertiti. La sua povertà contrasta vistosamente con la ricchezza del primo e con la sua cultura raffinata, arricchita dalle letture dei testi dei grandi economisti e pensatori dell'Ottocento, europei e americani. Dopo i primi incontri, l'attenzione si sposta sullo studio faticoso e ossessivo di Karl. Il giovane Marx era giunto a Berlino nel 1836, in un clima di grande fermento culturale che vedeva già affermata la divisione dei discepoli hegeliani in destra e sinistra (Hegel era morto nel 1831). Marx si colloca subito a sinistra frequentando i radicali berlinesi del cosiddetto Club dei dottori, divenendo amico di Bruno Bauer che, in seguito, contesterà nell'opera La sacra famiglia (1845). Nel 1841 Marx si laurea con una tesi su Democrito ed Epicuro elogiando una filosofia decisa a liberarsi delle paure degli dei e delle superstizioni religiose, per un libero sviluppo dello spirito umano. In un 1

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers.
https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

The aim of my paper is to show to what extent Bruno Bauer's first writing and his critical theory of art are indebted to Hegel's last lectures on the aesthetics or the philosophy of art, which Bauer attended in 1828-29. First, I will deal with Bauer's concept of myth (§ 1). To consider his concept of myth allows us to understand Bauer's rhetorical strategy in the Young Hegelian movement. In a second step (§ 2), I will give an account of Bauer's critical theory of art. Next, I will show (§ 3) how the prelude to his account of art was already present in his first writing, the dis-sertation On the principles of the beautiful, written in 1829. In the last part of my contribution (§ 4), I will take into account Hegel's final lectures on aesthetics (1828-29), aiming at showing its significance for Bauer's early reflections.

Die Figur Bruno Bauer ist eine philosophiegeschichtlich vernachlässigte Größe, auch wenn sich Kenner des Marxismus und der Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie naturgemäß mit Bauer beschäftigen müssen. Bruno Bauer ist in jüngster Zeit auch monographisch behandelt worden. 1 Da ist es rundheraus als erfreulich zu bezeichnen, daß bei Königshausen & Neumann eine Band erscheint, der auf eine Jenaer Tagung zurückgeht und das Gesamtwerk Bauers umfassend würdigt. In vier größeren Abschnitten wird das Werk eingekreist, das schließlich, um dem vierten Teil, gewidmet den Rezeptionslinien und Rezeptionschancen, vorzugreifen, nur wenige Spuren hinterließ, etwa bei Fontane (Angelika Landau) oder Carl Schmitt (Reinhard Mehring). Zur Wirkung gehört daher auch der Briefwechsel Schmitts mit dem Bauer-Kenner Hans Körnchen von 1942 und 1943, von dem hier zehn Stücke mitgeteilt werden, die freilich alle aus der Feder Körnchens stammen. Rolf Rieß, der diese Briefe hier ediert hat, teilt in seinem einleitenden Text auch etwas aus einem Brief Schmitts an Ernst Barnikol von 1967 mit, der die Werke Bauers herausgab; Schmitt erwähnt hier auch das Schicksal des größten Teils seiner Bauer-Sammlung, die das Schicksal seiner Bibliothek teilte. Der erste Teil des Bandes ist der für Bauers Denken und Wirken zentralen Evangelien-und Religionskritik gewidmet. Denn Bauers Vorgehen in dieser Hinsicht war damals denkbar radikal, trieb er doch die Kritik an den Evangelien bis zur absurdesten Reduktion, so daß es nicht abwegig ist, ihn 1 Philosophie und Politik bei Bruno Bauer / Douglas Moggach. Aus dem Englischen übers. von Brita Isabel Oeding.-Frankfurt am Main [u.a.] : Lang, 2009.-XVI, 285 S. : Ill. ; 21 cm.-(Forschungen zum Junghegelianismus ; 17).-Einheitssacht.: The philosophy and politics of Bruno Bauer <dt.>.-ISBN 978-3-631-56653-4 : EUR 51.50 [#0476].-Eine Rezension in IFB ist vorgesehen.-Vgl. auch Bruno Bauer : vom Marx-Freund zum Antisemiten / Hermann-Peter Eberlein.-Berlin : Dietz, 2009.-254 S. ; 20 cm.-ISBN 978-3-320-02180-1 : EUR 16.80.

El siguiente trabajo se propone analizar cómo la diferencia entre
economía y política, previa lógicamente a la (in)determinación
económica de lo político, deviene problemática al interior del proceso
de pensamiento del joven Marx. Para esto se analiza el corpus
filosófico-político más temprano de las obras de juventud para
rastrear de qué maneara lo económico es tramitado dentro de lo que se
denomina esquema político-ideal (Gaceta Renana) y esquema políticoantropológico (Manuscrito de 1843). En el movimiento entre estos dos
esquemas se reseña también el recorrido que va desde la
autonomización de lo político frente a la teología a su descentramiento
como forma particular de la actividad humana. Por último se intenta
demostrar de qué forma lo económico como problema real de la
sociedad moderna constituye un resto que desarma permanentemente
estas formas marxianas del pensamiento filosófico-político que
intentan suturar la escisión moderna entre política y economía

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

The Tenth Muse Essays in Criticism,  Sir Herbert Read summarizes the emergence and relevance of Stirner's philosophy at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21th century within english circle. After a sleep of a hundred years the giants whom Marx thought he had slain show signs of coming to life again...

Marx et Engels se rencontrent en juillet 1844 et décident de rédiger un pamphlet contre leurs anciens amis jeunes-hégéliens pour en finir avec leur « vieille conscience philosophique ». C’est La Sainte Famille, ouvrage publié en février 1845.
La Sainte Famille est un document exceptionnel sur l’état d’esprit de ces deux jeunes philosophes et publicistes qui affirment ici leur matérialisme et font leur premier pas vers le communisme.