Preface to the Second Edition

- Attaches himself only to realism.

- Religion identifies the idea of the fact with the fact itself. so as to
reduce real existence to an existence on paper, but it separates the
two, and precisely by this separation attains to the fact itself; it
recognises as the true thing, not the thing as it is an object of the
abstract reason, but as it is an object of the real, complete man,
and hence as it is itself a real, complete thing.
- His Philosophy generates though from what is real and concrete.
- Speculation has assigned a meaning to religion without any
reference to the actual meaning of religion. -Contrarily, Feuerbach
lets religion talk for itself; he interprets rather than prompts it.
- Religion fundamentally believes in nothing but the truth and
divinity of human nature.
- Work is only destructive to the non-human elements of religion.
- Thus in the first part I show that the true sense of Theology is
Anthropology, that there is
no distinction between the predicates of the divine and human
nature, and, consequently, no distinction between the divine and
human subject: the predicates are not accidents but express the
essence of the subject, there is no distinction between subject and
predicate.
- The second part shows that the distinction which is made, or
rather supposed to be made, between the theological and
anthropological predicates resolves itself into an absurdity.
- Essence of religion: it conceives and affirms a profoundly human
relation as a divine relation. Then in the second part he discusses
how theology (the reflection of religion) declares that the son of God
is not a son in the natural, human sense but is one contradictory to
nature and therefore is absurd.
- Shows that religion takes the apparent and superficial in Nature
and humanity for the essential, and hence conceives their true
essence as a separate, special existence.
- He changes the object as it is in the imagination into the object as
it is in reality.

Essence of Christianity
- In religion, the consciousness of the object and self-consciousness
coincide.
- The proposition: the object of any subject is nothing else than the
subject’s own nature taken objectively. Such are a man’s thoughts
and dispositions, such is his God; God has as much worth as the
man who takes him as his God.
- God and people who believe in said God are identical.
- Our ideal of God (which is unique to each person) is the translation
of their heart and soul.
- God is the manifested inward nature, the expressed self of man.
- But this is not to say that religious people know their identity;
ignorance of such is fundamental ot the nature of religion.
- What is initially identified as religious becomes something
perceived as human; objectivity becomes subjectivity.
- Religion cannot be viewed objectively by religious people.
- Religion refers to Christianity.
- Not giving a clear understanding of God (maybe?) is a form of
concealed atheism by religious people.
- Dreading quantitative qualities of God is dreading he does not
exist?
- An existence without qualities is an absurdity.
- However, humans can only form a human conception of God. but
this means that if God is to exist to me then he can only exist to me,
not to others - to them exists a different God. This concept would
destroy collective religion.
- Transcendentalism is only an illusion, for, one can make the
distinction between the object as it is to oneself and as it is to
others, only when the object can actually appear otherwise to me.
This cannot happen with God as it exists to oneself as the absolute
measure of their nature determines God to appear.
- If one’s conception is determined by others (society), then the
distinction between what an object is in itself, and what it is for
oneself ceases; the conception is itself an absolute one.
- Religion has the conviction that above is the case?
- To a bird God would be winged point (page 6).
- To a bird the highest nature is the bird-nature; take from them the
conception of that and you take from them the conception of the
highest being. - I do not quite get this point, surely we can think of
something of a higher being than ourselves?
- If you doubt the objective truth of the predicates, you must also
doubt the objective truth of the subject whose predicates they are.
- God is an existence, a subject to thee, for the same reason that he
is to thee a wise, a blessed, a personal being. The distinction
between the divine predicates and the divine subject is only this,
that to thee the subject, the existence, does not appear an
anthropomorphism, because the conception of it is necessarily
involved in thy own existence as a subject, whereas the predicates
do appear anthropomorphisms, because their necessity—the
necessity that God should be conscious, wise, good, &c.,—is not an
immediate necessity, identical with the being of man, but is evolved
by his self-consciousness, by the activity of his thought.
- To humans, something existing is presupposed by “it” having
predicates. So, humans abandoned the predicates, but took the
existence of God as an objective truth.
- What exactly are the predicates?
- But, what the subject is lies only within the predicate; the
predicate is the truth of the subject. hence, negating the predicates
is, therefore, a negation of the subject.
- Humans conceive things as real when they conceive things as true
(that is, objective existence). Originally, only what is real is true to
oneself.
- God is the nature of humans ragarded as absolute truth.
- To doubt of God is to doubt of yourself?
-The identity of the subject and predicate is clearly evi denced by
the progressive development of religion, which is identical with the
progressive development of human culture.
- Religion is the dream of the human mind.
Feubach Principles 1-7
1
The task of the modern era was the realisation and humanisation of
God. The transofrmation and dissolution of theology into
anthropology.
2
Religious form of this humanisation was Protestantism. Only Christ
is their God, tehy are not concerned about what God is in himself
like other religions. it is no longer theology it is religious
anthropology.
3
God was negated by Protestantism only in a practical way. He is a
transcendent being that will only become an object for man when
he is in Heaven.
4
Speculative philosophy is the rational or theoretical elaboration and
dissolution of God.
5
The essence of speculative philosophy is nothing but the
rationalized, realized, presented essence of God. Speculative
philosophy is the true, consistent, and rational theology.
6
God is nothing but the essence of reason itself. Theology recognises
him by means of the imagination as being distinct and independent
from reason. Under these circumstances, it is an inner, a
sacred necessity that the essence of reason as distinguished from
reason itself be at last identified with it and the divine being thus
be apprehended, realised, as the essence of reason. Whoever can
think of no other being but a sensuous being, whoever therefore
possesses a reason limited by sensation, will, precisely as a result,
also have a God limited by sensation. That reason which conceives
as God as an unlimited being conceives of God only its own
limitlessness. The necessity of God relies on him being rational and
intelligent. The primary and the highest being rests, therefore, on
the presupposition that the intellect alone is the being that
is primary, highest, necessary, and true. Just as the truth and
reality of metaphysical or onto-theological determinations depend
on their reducibility to psychological or rather anthropological
determinations, so the necessity of the divine being in the old
metaphysics or onto-theology has meaning, truth, and reality only in
the psychological or anthropological characterisation of God as an
intelligent being.
7
What is objective in theology is subjective in speculative
philosophy. Religious person conceives God from the point of view
of sensation. The speculative theologian or philosopher, on the
other hand, conceives God from the point of view of thought. He
therefore does not have the disturbing appearance of a sensuous
being midway between him and God. He thus identifies, without any
hindrance, the objective, conceived being with the subjec- tive,
thinking being. If, now, God is an object of man-and, indeed.
inasmuch as he really is a necessary and essential object-what is
expressed in thebeing ofthis object is merely the peculiar essence
of man.

Feubach Principles 53-65

53
Thinking is a necessary consequence and attribute of the human
essence. Humans are not limited and restricted in the same way as
animals - universality, absoluteness, an freedom are inseparable.
Precisely thereby is man free of the frenzy of voracity with which an
animal throws itself over its prey.
54
The new philosophy makes man the unique, universal and highest
object of philosophy; thus, it makes anthropology the universal
science.
55
Art, religion, philosophy, and science are manifestations or
revelations of the true human essence.
56
The natural viewpoint of man is the true and absolute viewpoint; it
is the viewpoint of philosophy.
57
The new philosophy-which makes the essential and highest object
of the heart and of man likewise the most essential and highest
object of the mind--thus estab. lishes a rational unity of mind and
heart, of thought and life.
58
Truth does not exist outside of the human essence.
59
The essence of man is not individual, it exists only in the community
and unity of humans.
60
Community is freedom and infinity. Man alone is man, man in unity
with others is God.
61
The human philosopher recognises themselves as a person amongst
other people.
62
True dialect is between people, not alone.
63
The highest and last principle of philosophy is the unity of man with
man; all essential relations are only different kinds and ways of this
unity.
64
The new philosophy takes the place of religion and has the essence
of religion within itself. In turht, it is itself religion.
65
The indispensable condition of a really new philos- ophy, that is, an
independent philosophy corresponding to the needs of mankind and
of the future,is, however, that it will differentiate itself in its
essence from the old philosophy.

Questions for discussion:

• Is Feuerbach’s reduction of religion to anthropology
convincing? Think of some examples of religious statements or
proclamations. How would these be explicated according to
Feuerbach’s method?

When they talk of history they are very Euro-centric, idealised

versions of humanity would be powerful and all-knowing in the
west. Whereas thsi is not the case for much of eatern relgiion
such as Buddhism, espeically ones that are non-theistic (no
supreme being). Feuerbach’s approach does not answer this -
 could just be their version of human desires and
characterisitics. When is becomes to more explicit
supernatural areas of religion, such as Hell, then his
Philosophy does not really work (could just be a metaphore of
what the world can be like depending on whether we reach
self-discovery or not).
Religious Statement: "God is love."
• Feuerbach's Explanation: According to Feuerbach, this statement can be
explicated as a projection of human attributes onto the divine. When
people say "God is love," they are expressing their own capacity for
love and their desire for a loving, caring, and compassionate deity.
In Feuerbach's view, this statement reveals humanity's longing for
love and a sense of security, which is then projected onto the
concept of God.
Religious Statement: "God is all-powerful and all-knowing."
• Feuerbach's Explanation: Feuerbach would argue that this statement
reflects human aspirations for power and knowledge. People project
their own desire for control and understanding onto the concept of
God. By attributing omnipotence and omniscience to God, they
externalize these qualities and idealize them in a divine form.
Religious Statement: "God created the universe."
• Feuerbach's Explanation: Feuerbach would see this statement as a
projection of human curiosity and the desire for origin and
explanation. When people attribute the act of creation to God, they
are projecting their own need to understand the origins of the world
and the universe onto a divine creator. This reflects a human quest
for meaning and explanation.
• Is Feuerbach right that idealism ought to be
rejected?

• “Religion has been so harmful to humanity that it

cannot be true, and it has just been used as a tool by the ruling
classes to oppress humanity”. Would Feuerbach agree with
this statement?
No, religion is destructive in relation to the unhuman aspects of religion, not to the part that is
the unity of humankind. he separates religion and theology - theology seems to be his issue.
While Feuerbach did not primarily focus on religion as a tool of the
ruling classes, his ideas were influential in later critiques of religion
from a socio-political perspective. Marxist thinkers, for example,
drew on Feuerbach's ideas to argue that religion could be used to
maintain social and economic structures that benefit the ruling
classes.
I would not agree with this statement, I take that Feuerbach
believes that theology has obscured the true essence of religion by
 focusing on abstract and metaphysical ideas rather than the
concrete realities of human existence. However, his work has since
been used in later critiques of religion from a socio-political
perspective. It does lead to the alienation from human nature.
Chat GPT:
Feuerbach’s rejection of idealism:
Feuerbach's rejection of idealism is rooted in his belief that idealist
philosophy, including Hegel's, places too much emphasis on
abstract concepts, metaphysical speculation, and the realm of
ideas, neglecting the concrete and material aspects of human
existence. He argued that idealism, with its focus on the Absolute,
the World Spirit, or abstract concepts like "the Idea," obscured the
importance of human beings and their real-world experiences.

Feuerbach advocated for a materialistic and anthropological

approach that emphasized the concrete reality of human existence,
the importance of sensory experience, and the significance of
human nature. He believed that philosophy should start from the
empirical, material world and that concepts like God or Absolute
should be understood as human projections.

Critics of Feuerbach argue that his rejection of idealism

oversimplifies the complexities of idealist philosophy and its
contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Idealism
has been a significant and influential philosophical tradition, and
many philosophers have found value in exploring abstract concepts
and metaphysical ideas.

In the Essence of Christianity, how does Feuerbach show there is no distinction between
predicates of the divine and human nature?
In Ludwig Feuerbach's work "The Essence of Christianity," he
argues that there is no real distinction between the predicates of
the divine and human nature. Feuerbach's central thesis is that God
is a projection of human qualities and desires onto an external,
divine being. He believes that the traditional concept of God is a
reflection of human attributes and aspirations, and that when
people attribute certain qualities to God, they are essentially
describing their own nature and desires in an idealized form. Here's
how Feuerbach shows this lack of distinction between the
predicates of the divine and human nature:

Anthropomorphism: Feuerbach contends that human beings have a

tendency to anthropomorphize God, which means they attribute
human characteristics, emotions, and qualities to the divine. For
example, when people describe God as loving, just, or merciful, they
are projecting their own human qualities onto God. Feuerbach
argues that the language and concepts used to describe God are
essentially human projections.
Projection of Desires: Feuerbach suggests that the attributes
people ascribe to God often reflect their own desires and needs. For
instance, the idea of God as an all-powerful and benevolent being
who cares for His creatures can be seen as a projection of
humanity's desire for security, protection, and benevolence. In this
way, the predicates of God's nature are reflections of human
aspirations.
Alienation from Human Essence: Feuerbach argues that by
attributing divine qualities to God, humanity alienates itself from its
own essential nature. Instead of recognizing the human source of
these attributes, people externalize them into a separate divine
entity. This, he believes, leads to a distortion of human self-
understanding and a disconnection from the true essence of
humanity.
Critique of Theology: Feuerbach critiques traditional theology for
perpetuating this alienation by treating God as an independent,
external entity with distinct attributes. He argues that theologians
have mistakenly emphasized the transcendence of God at the
expense of recognizing the immanence of human qualities within
the divine.
In essence, Feuerbach's argument is that the predicates of the
divine nature are, in reality, reflections of human attributes and
desires. He contends that the distinction between the divine and
human is illusory, and that a true understanding of God would
involve recognizing God as a projection of humanity's own essence.
This critique of religion and theology laid the foundation for
Feuerbach's humanist philosophy, which emphasized the
importance of understanding human nature and the human condition
without relying on religious concepts and projections.
How does Feuerbach show there is no distinction between the divine and Human
Subject?
Unity of Essence: Feuerbach contends that the distinction between
the divine and the human subject is illusory. He believes that there
is a unity of essence between God and humanity. Instead of viewing
God as a separate, transcendent being, he sees God as a projection
of the essential attributes of humanity. God is, in a sense, a mirror
image of human nature.
How does this distinction between theological and anthropological predicates resolves
itself into an absurdity?
Ludwig Feuerbach's distinction between theological and
anthropological predicates in his work "The Essence of Christianity"
leads to what he considers an absurdity in traditional religious
thought. To understand this, it's important to first define these
predicates:

Theological Predicates: These are the qualities, attributes, and

characteristics traditionally ascribed to God within religious
theology. They include concepts like omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, transcendence, and divine perfection.
Theological predicates describe God in ways that elevate God to a
transcendent and supreme being.
Anthropological Predicates: These are human qualities, attributes,
and characteristics projected onto the divine. Feuerbach argues
that when people attribute qualities like love, wisdom, justice, and
compassion to God, they are essentially projecting their own human
nature onto the divine. These predicates describe God in ways that
reflect human ideals and values.
Feuerbach's argument revolves around the idea that theological
predicates are rooted in anthropological predicates. That is, the
qualities traditionally ascribed to God are ultimately derived from
human qualities and desires. Here's how this distinction leads to an
absurdity:

Projection of Human Attributes: Feuerbach contends that

theological predicates are a product of human projection. When
humans conceive of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good,
they are projecting their own desires for power, knowledge, and
goodness onto the divine. In this sense, theological predicates are
based on human attributes and aspirations.
Absurdity: The absurdity that Feuerbach highlights is that, in
traditional religious thought, theological predicates are often
presented as qualities that are entirely separate from and
independent of human attributes. God is seen as possessing these
qualities to an infinite degree, far beyond anything humans can
attain. This creates a paradox: if God's attributes are derived from
human qualities, how can they be simultaneously infinitely greater
than and distinct from their human counterparts?
Theological Contradiction: Feuerbach argues that this
contradiction between the human origin of theological predicates
and the insistence on God's transcendent greatness leads to an
absurdity in religious thought. Theology, in his view, fails to
reconcile the human projection of attributes onto God with the
claim that God is entirely distinct from humanity. This, in turn,
raises questions about the coherence of traditional religious beliefs.
In essence, Feuerbach's critique suggests that traditional religious
theology presents an apparent contradiction or absurdity by
maintaining that God possesses qualities that are rooted in human
nature while simultaneously asserting God's absolute
transcendence. This tension, according to Feuerbach, reveals the
anthropocentric nature of religious thought, where human attributes
and desires are projected onto a divine being that is then regarded
as wholly separate and superior. This perceived absurdity in
traditional religious thought serves as a central critique in
Feuerbach's philosophy, as he advocates for a more humanistic and
anthropological understanding of religion.

Lecture
- Kants Copernican Revolution - rather than knowledge coming
from the human mind, the human mind uses objects and concrete
forms to map the world in such ways to make knowledge of the
world possible. To consider the kinds of a priori knowledge that
ratiopnal subjects have in order to set metaphysics forth as a
proper science. Objects conform to knowledge, not vice versa.
- Hegel - history is a rational process where freedom becomes ever
more central to full human life.
- Then enter Feuerbach.
- ‘God became Man’ Feuerbach believes this epitomises Christianity
- the inherent idea to translate religion into humanity.
- Theology is Anthropology - a study of God is the study of humanity.
All claims about God are just claims about an idealised human
nature (we see ourselves, as we would like to be).
- Feuerbach is inspired by Hegel, but critical of Hegelianism. Mainly
over the big picture question of idealism over materialism.
- Marxism would say idealism is ideology.
- Feuerbach is clearly an athiest but refused the label due to the
connotations. He does not believe a supreme being created the
world.
- It might not be that we become non-religious, it might be that we
become truly religious afterall.
- Religion can be true if interpreted in Feuerbach’s way; it is about
humankind, it is Anthropology.
- Hegel says history has a prupose, it is going towards greater
freedom; the nature of things is such that it is a neccessity, the
direction of history is necessary. Feuerbach beleives that history
will gain a form of self-conciousness, which is neccessary insofar as
it couldnt be the case that we always and forever were under the
illusion that there is a God. At some point we will attain self-
conciousness of relgiion, but when it happens is contingent. That it
happened at all is neccessary.
- Marxism is contradictory like biology - they tend towards their own
destruction through their own functions.
- Marxism answer Feuerbach by saying that human nature is not
static, we are reflective and rational creatures so we will always
think of ourselves of free which has a huge impact on how we view
society and legislation.