Wijsgerige Anthropologie
In the 19th century, the optimistic view of man inherited from the Enlightenment was turned on
its head. This course begins with an examination of the work of the so-called “masters of
suspicion” (Marx, Nietzsche, Darwin and Freud), who debunked many central Enlightenment
assumptions – including that human beings determine their actions autonomously, that they can
understand themselves and each other well, and that the use of reason guarantees social progress.
In the second half of the course, the question will then be considered as to what self-
determination might look like after this in-depth criticism developed by the masters of suspicion.
Is self-understanding – and, crucially, the understanding of others – still possible if we
fundamentally challenge philosophical anthropology's claim to universality? We will here discuss
the work of thinkers such as Plessner, Foucault, Cassirer, Levinas, Young, and Ahmed.
Masters of suspicion → debunking
Or should they be called masters of destruction?
Werkgroep I Week I: Karl Marx
Discussion of the set texts for the week (by Marx and Engels). Students are encouraged to reflect
upon how these two texts challenge pre-existing approaches to the question of human agency, the
formation of knowledge and the exercise of freedom. Do you think that these texts provide
adequate/helpful representations of the economic and societal forces at play in a modern
(Western) State?
Karl Marx - Preface
Karl Marx - The Ruling Class & The Ruling Ideas
Karl Marx - Preface
How did Karl turn to his theories?
Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated to
philosophy and history. In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 1
, Zeitung, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to
discuss what is known as material interests.
→ Material interests are embarrassing since in his time it was embarrassing for a scholar to talk
about materials. He should be interested in elevated topics (ex. ideas and ideals).
My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor
political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the
basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on
the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life
→ Major shift: We can't understand ideas without looking at the material condition. Moving
away from the abstraction of philosophy. A demand for thinking more practically
legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on
the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind → referring to Hegel
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into
definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of
production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their
material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which
arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life
conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.
Men entering relations of production: producing goods for survival, therefore we need to
enter within relationships to produce those goods
These relations depend on the stage of development of society’s productive forces (e.g.,
technology, labour, tools).
Types of relation of production: tribal, ancient, feudal, capitalist
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 2
, Tribal: Communal, with the minimal division of labour; both men and women gather or
hunt.
Ancient: Based on slavery; one person owns another who produces goods for them.
Feudal: Land-based; serfs work the land owned by lords, producing goods for the lords.
Capitalist: Workers own only their labour, which they sell to capitalists (owners of
production).
The totality of relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society:
economics comes first for forming our society, and the relations of production form our
economics, so the relations we enter form society
The real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn
into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in
the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the
whole immense superstructure.
Relations of production can be freeing, but can also turn into something that enslaves us
they transform from being "forms of development" to being "fetters" (obstacles). This
contradiction creates a situation ripe for social revolution.
you are not free if you are worrying about surviving, then you are in the wrong relations of
production.
Ontologically placed the material world first, the material world determines the superstructure of
our society.
1. Relations of Production and Economic Structure
Marx begins by asserting that human beings, in the course of producing the goods they need for
survival, enter into specific relationships that are not chosen individually but are dictated by the
material conditions of their society. These "relations of production" are the social relationships
that arise in the process of production (e.g., between worker and employer). These relations
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 3
, depend on the stage of development of society’s productive forces (e.g., technology, labour,
tools).
The totality of these relations forms the economic structure of society, which serves as
the foundation upon which the legal and political superstructure is built. The superstructure
includes the legal systems, political institutions, culture, and ideology of society. Marx argues
that this superstructure reflects the economic base and that changes in the base will eventually
lead to changes in the superstructure.
2. Material Conditions and Social Consciousness
Marx states that it is not the ideas or consciousness of individuals that shape society, but rather
the material conditions of their existence. In other words, people's material activities and
economic conditions determine their consciousness, not the other way around. This concept is
central to Marx’s critique of idealism, which claims that ideas shape reality.
3. Conflict Between Productive Forces and Relations of Production
At a certain point in history, the productive forces (e.g., technology, labor, knowledge) develop
to a level that comes into conflict with the existing relations of production (e.g., the class
relations, ownership structures). When the relations of production (e.g., feudalism, capitalism)
become outdated and restrict further development of the productive forces, they transform from
being "forms of development" to being "fetters" (obstacles). This contradiction creates a
situation ripe for social revolution.
4. Social Revolution and Transformation of the Superstructure
Marx argues that when the economic foundation changes (i.e., when new productive forces
emerge), this eventually leads to the transformation of the entire superstructure (e.g., changes in
laws, politics, religion, and culture). However, this process is not immediate or automatic; it
involves struggle and conflict. Importantly, the ideological forms (e.g., political beliefs, religious
ideas) in which people interpret these conflicts are shaped by the material contradictions of the
time.
5. Historical Progress and Epochs of Production
Marx outlines different epochs in the economic development of society: the Asiatic, ancient
(slave societies), feudal, and bourgeois (capitalist) modes of production. Each of these modes
represents a different stage of social organization based on specific relations of production.
In Marx's view, capitalism is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production. The
term "antagonistic" here refers not to conflicts between individuals but to a fundamental conflict
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 4
, within the system itself: the exploitation inherent in the relations between the bourgeoisie
(owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers). However, the development of productive forces
under capitalism creates the material conditions necessary to resolve this conflict.
6. Preconditions for Social Change
Marx asserts that no social order is ever overthrown until it has exhausted all its potential for
developing productive forces. Additionally, new relations of production (e.g., socialism) cannot
emerge until the material conditions for their existence have developed within the framework of
the old society (e.g., advanced industry, widespread education).
This means that history progresses through stages, and each stage lays the groundwork for the
next. Problems and contradictions arise only when society has the material capacity to solve
them. Thus, history is not random but follows a certain logic driven by material conditions.
7. End of Prehistory and the Role of Capitalism
According to Marx, the entire history of human society up to this point is merely
its "prehistory" because it has been marked by various forms of class antagonism. Capitalism is
the last such form because it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction: the
productive forces it unleashes eventually conflict with the capitalist mode of production itself,
paving the way for a classless society (communism). With the overthrow of capitalism,
the prehistory of humanity ends, and true human history begins.
Summary
Human society is shaped by its mode of production, which determines its social, political,
and ideological structures.
Social change occurs when the development of productive forces (e.g., technology) conflicts
with existing relations of production (e.g., capitalism).
The current capitalist system is unstable because it creates its own contradictions, leading to
the potential for revolutionary change.
This historical process is driven not by ideas or consciousness but by material conditions and
class conflict.
Karl Marx - The Ruling Class & The Ruling Ideas
Main goal in comparison to the other text:
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 5
, There is a division of labour:
Subgroup within the dominant class: Active conceptive ideologist
→ These people do not have to work to survive
→ These ideas are so important since you never had to worry about surviving
→ have the freedom to be intellectual since they already have the security of survival
Mental labour (the ideologists and thinkers) from material labour (the active members
engaged in economic activities)
Karl Marx opinion on the intellectual: Critical since they are ideologists
The thinkers create and maintain the ideological illusions that justify the ruling class’s
position, while the active members are more focused on practical activities and may be
more passive in their acceptance of these ideas.
The attack is dual: not only are they evil, since they are maintaining ideological
illusions. They make the workers believe that the capitalist system is working in their
favour. But also ignorant since they themselves belief
Intellectuals as an evil subgroup within the dominant group → can be a dangerous
statement in society, since it can lead to totalitarianism when the intellectuals are
being silenced. Intellectuals can also bring progress etc.
Presenting their thoughts as universal, in order to make the people believe that the
workers position is natural or not to be reconsidered, that it is in their favour. Presents
you with an ideal within a system to strive for. The idea is only in favour of the
dominant class, not for everyone
Ideologies exist and are hurtful since there are still revolution but he is optimistic that
there will be critical thoughts which would not be ideals
1. The Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
Marx and Engels argue that in any given society, the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling
class. The class that controls the material means of production also controls the mental means of
production, shaping the intellectual life of the society. As the ruling class holds power over
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 6
In the 19th century, the optimistic view of man inherited from the Enlightenment was turned on
its head. This course begins with an examination of the work of the so-called “masters of
suspicion” (Marx, Nietzsche, Darwin and Freud), who debunked many central Enlightenment
assumptions – including that human beings determine their actions autonomously, that they can
understand themselves and each other well, and that the use of reason guarantees social progress.
In the second half of the course, the question will then be considered as to what self-
determination might look like after this in-depth criticism developed by the masters of suspicion.
Is self-understanding – and, crucially, the understanding of others – still possible if we
fundamentally challenge philosophical anthropology's claim to universality? We will here discuss
the work of thinkers such as Plessner, Foucault, Cassirer, Levinas, Young, and Ahmed.
Masters of suspicion → debunking
Or should they be called masters of destruction?
Werkgroep I Week I: Karl Marx
Discussion of the set texts for the week (by Marx and Engels). Students are encouraged to reflect
upon how these two texts challenge pre-existing approaches to the question of human agency, the
formation of knowledge and the exercise of freedom. Do you think that these texts provide
adequate/helpful representations of the economic and societal forces at play in a modern
(Western) State?
Karl Marx - Preface
Karl Marx - The Ruling Class & The Ruling Ideas
Karl Marx - Preface
How did Karl turn to his theories?
Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated to
philosophy and history. In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 1
, Zeitung, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to
discuss what is known as material interests.
→ Material interests are embarrassing since in his time it was embarrassing for a scholar to talk
about materials. He should be interested in elevated topics (ex. ideas and ideals).
My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor
political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the
basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on
the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life
→ Major shift: We can't understand ideas without looking at the material condition. Moving
away from the abstraction of philosophy. A demand for thinking more practically
legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on
the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind → referring to Hegel
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into
definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of
production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their
material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which
arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life
conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.
Men entering relations of production: producing goods for survival, therefore we need to
enter within relationships to produce those goods
These relations depend on the stage of development of society’s productive forces (e.g.,
technology, labour, tools).
Types of relation of production: tribal, ancient, feudal, capitalist
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 2
, Tribal: Communal, with the minimal division of labour; both men and women gather or
hunt.
Ancient: Based on slavery; one person owns another who produces goods for them.
Feudal: Land-based; serfs work the land owned by lords, producing goods for the lords.
Capitalist: Workers own only their labour, which they sell to capitalists (owners of
production).
The totality of relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society:
economics comes first for forming our society, and the relations of production form our
economics, so the relations we enter form society
The real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn
into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in
the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the
whole immense superstructure.
Relations of production can be freeing, but can also turn into something that enslaves us
they transform from being "forms of development" to being "fetters" (obstacles). This
contradiction creates a situation ripe for social revolution.
you are not free if you are worrying about surviving, then you are in the wrong relations of
production.
Ontologically placed the material world first, the material world determines the superstructure of
our society.
1. Relations of Production and Economic Structure
Marx begins by asserting that human beings, in the course of producing the goods they need for
survival, enter into specific relationships that are not chosen individually but are dictated by the
material conditions of their society. These "relations of production" are the social relationships
that arise in the process of production (e.g., between worker and employer). These relations
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 3
, depend on the stage of development of society’s productive forces (e.g., technology, labour,
tools).
The totality of these relations forms the economic structure of society, which serves as
the foundation upon which the legal and political superstructure is built. The superstructure
includes the legal systems, political institutions, culture, and ideology of society. Marx argues
that this superstructure reflects the economic base and that changes in the base will eventually
lead to changes in the superstructure.
2. Material Conditions and Social Consciousness
Marx states that it is not the ideas or consciousness of individuals that shape society, but rather
the material conditions of their existence. In other words, people's material activities and
economic conditions determine their consciousness, not the other way around. This concept is
central to Marx’s critique of idealism, which claims that ideas shape reality.
3. Conflict Between Productive Forces and Relations of Production
At a certain point in history, the productive forces (e.g., technology, labor, knowledge) develop
to a level that comes into conflict with the existing relations of production (e.g., the class
relations, ownership structures). When the relations of production (e.g., feudalism, capitalism)
become outdated and restrict further development of the productive forces, they transform from
being "forms of development" to being "fetters" (obstacles). This contradiction creates a
situation ripe for social revolution.
4. Social Revolution and Transformation of the Superstructure
Marx argues that when the economic foundation changes (i.e., when new productive forces
emerge), this eventually leads to the transformation of the entire superstructure (e.g., changes in
laws, politics, religion, and culture). However, this process is not immediate or automatic; it
involves struggle and conflict. Importantly, the ideological forms (e.g., political beliefs, religious
ideas) in which people interpret these conflicts are shaped by the material contradictions of the
time.
5. Historical Progress and Epochs of Production
Marx outlines different epochs in the economic development of society: the Asiatic, ancient
(slave societies), feudal, and bourgeois (capitalist) modes of production. Each of these modes
represents a different stage of social organization based on specific relations of production.
In Marx's view, capitalism is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production. The
term "antagonistic" here refers not to conflicts between individuals but to a fundamental conflict
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 4
, within the system itself: the exploitation inherent in the relations between the bourgeoisie
(owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers). However, the development of productive forces
under capitalism creates the material conditions necessary to resolve this conflict.
6. Preconditions for Social Change
Marx asserts that no social order is ever overthrown until it has exhausted all its potential for
developing productive forces. Additionally, new relations of production (e.g., socialism) cannot
emerge until the material conditions for their existence have developed within the framework of
the old society (e.g., advanced industry, widespread education).
This means that history progresses through stages, and each stage lays the groundwork for the
next. Problems and contradictions arise only when society has the material capacity to solve
them. Thus, history is not random but follows a certain logic driven by material conditions.
7. End of Prehistory and the Role of Capitalism
According to Marx, the entire history of human society up to this point is merely
its "prehistory" because it has been marked by various forms of class antagonism. Capitalism is
the last such form because it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction: the
productive forces it unleashes eventually conflict with the capitalist mode of production itself,
paving the way for a classless society (communism). With the overthrow of capitalism,
the prehistory of humanity ends, and true human history begins.
Summary
Human society is shaped by its mode of production, which determines its social, political,
and ideological structures.
Social change occurs when the development of productive forces (e.g., technology) conflicts
with existing relations of production (e.g., capitalism).
The current capitalist system is unstable because it creates its own contradictions, leading to
the potential for revolutionary change.
This historical process is driven not by ideas or consciousness but by material conditions and
class conflict.
Karl Marx - The Ruling Class & The Ruling Ideas
Main goal in comparison to the other text:
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 5
, There is a division of labour:
Subgroup within the dominant class: Active conceptive ideologist
→ These people do not have to work to survive
→ These ideas are so important since you never had to worry about surviving
→ have the freedom to be intellectual since they already have the security of survival
Mental labour (the ideologists and thinkers) from material labour (the active members
engaged in economic activities)
Karl Marx opinion on the intellectual: Critical since they are ideologists
The thinkers create and maintain the ideological illusions that justify the ruling class’s
position, while the active members are more focused on practical activities and may be
more passive in their acceptance of these ideas.
The attack is dual: not only are they evil, since they are maintaining ideological
illusions. They make the workers believe that the capitalist system is working in their
favour. But also ignorant since they themselves belief
Intellectuals as an evil subgroup within the dominant group → can be a dangerous
statement in society, since it can lead to totalitarianism when the intellectuals are
being silenced. Intellectuals can also bring progress etc.
Presenting their thoughts as universal, in order to make the people believe that the
workers position is natural or not to be reconsidered, that it is in their favour. Presents
you with an ideal within a system to strive for. The idea is only in favour of the
dominant class, not for everyone
Ideologies exist and are hurtful since there are still revolution but he is optimistic that
there will be critical thoughts which would not be ideals
1. The Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
Marx and Engels argue that in any given society, the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling
class. The class that controls the material means of production also controls the mental means of
production, shaping the intellectual life of the society. As the ruling class holds power over
Wijsgerige Anthropologie 6
