Comparison of Marx and Hegel

Introduction Many scholars have considered Karl Marx a left-wing Hegelian philosopher. This is due to his disagreement with Hegel over the view that the driving force in human life is based on the academic competency or religion. Hegel observed that this was needed for connectivity, something that Marx opposed vehemently.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Comparison of Marx and Hegel specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In this regard, it is established that the basic difference between Hegel and Marx is based on God and material goods. On his part, Hegel believed that God was in charge of everything in the world. He was in charge of people’s destinies. Marx replaced God with power and ownership of property. The major difference between the two philosophers relates to the utilization of property. Marx believed that the rich in society utilize wealth to subjugate and dominate the poor. Hegel viewed property as th e means to ends meaning that each person should possess property in order to fulfill his or her needs. This paper will therefore compare the reasoning of the two philosophers based on the dialectical method. The two philosophers concur that an individual needs property in society but they differ over the use and acquisition of property. Differences In the first place, the two classical philosophers differ over conceptualization of philosophy. Hegel viewed philosophy as an activity of thought, self-enclosed and independent. In this sense, the main function of philosophy is to document what has happened in the world. Hegel thought that offering a clarification to a particular event meant explaining it in terms of coherent inevitability. In this case, the event or an occurrence is to be explained within its immediate context. Through this, the meaning of various events could be offered to various philosophical occurrences. Furthermore, the philosopher can only offer meaning to what has already occurred but not to what is about to occur. Hegel believed that offering meaning to various events needed the presence of God, spirit and the mind (Coplestone, 1999).Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This can be interpreted to mean that philosophy is self-comprehending and truth is only arrived at through God’s assistance. In comparison to Marx’s comprehension of philosophy, Hegel’s reasoning is rationally retrospective. Marx believed that social conditions and materials determine the position of individuals in society. God has nothing to do with the living standards of people. The rich are responsible for the poverty that rocks the unfortunate in society. Marx considered Hegel’s explanation a teleological metaphysics that only justifies human problems through religion. Hegel could explain poverty as a punishment from God. Marx could view the same as part of the process of capitalism. In trying to extrapolate how alienation affects the lives of individuals, Hegel utilized a dialectical method to show how human consciousness is a process that develops from simple to a more multifaceted process. He noted that human mind grows procedurally to adopt the changing events in the world. In this view, some individuals are more active than others hence the less powerful in terms of reasoning are dominated and estranged (Coplestone, 1999). Human mind has grown from what it used to be to grasp the existing nature of objects. Through this, human beings are more aware about their environment. He noted that philosophy evolves through the same dialectical method. What a certain generation holds as true is further disputed by the new generation hence generating new ideas in society. Although Marx had the same perspective as that of Hegel, Marx is more materialistic than Hegel who was an idealist. Hegel observed that ideology is the most impor tant aspect of human history. Human beings utilize ideas to dominate and suppress others in society.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Comparison of Marx and Hegel specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Ideology helps an individual to comprehend truth in society. Marx believed that societies could only be understood in terms of material possessions. Marx saw history as a revolution in the modes of production. The history changed from feudal mode of production to the current capitalistic mode. In the current mode, human life is characterized by competition, subjugation, pauperization and hopelessness. All these can only be rectified through a revolution. The proletariat should rise up against the bourgeoisie and claim leadership. For Hegel, the lives of people in society are influenced by objects, which are needed in case life is to proceed well. The same objects are the major causes of alienation. The objects are needed by individuals to accomplish their tasks. Without the objects, people can do nothing to satisfy their needs. Therefore, the religious leaders utilize the objects to dominate and suppress the poor (Marx, 1988). From Hegel’s analysis, it is evident that alienation is inevitable in human history. Alienation is natural to human beings, which is shaped by objects. The objects keep on changing in shape and form. It reaches a time when human beings dispute the existing structure by arguing that some objects are unnecessary. Alienation to Marx does not pertain to human objects instead, it relates to production of goods and services in society. It is more concerned about ownership of the means of production. Hegel observed that labor was a positive activity in human history. However, Marx differed with him since labor is evil meaning that it causes alienation and domination in society (Polanyi, 2006). In fact, to Marx, labor is the main cause of alienation. Hegel viewed alienation to be inherently in people but Marx narrowed it down to an individual. An individual is alienated from his own activities since he or she does not have any time to conduct private activities apart from animal related ones such as eating, sleeping and procreating.Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Similarities The two philosophers pointed out that the worker is alienated in four ways, one being alienation from the product. Although workers are the direct producers of goods, they are slaves of the goods they produce. The produced good has more value as compared to the worker because goods are to be offered maximum security and stored in safe places. Workers produce goods that they do not consume meaning they produce for others. The increase in product value decreases the viability of workers. The worker ends up being treated in the same way as goods implying that goods and workers are treated as equals. Workers are perpetually pushed to the periphery leading to alienation from the process of production (Coplestone, 1999). The way workers relate to the whole process of production leaves a lot to be desired because the relationship is unnatural and uncalled for. The workers never find satisfaction because they satisfy the interests of other individuals (Capitalists). The worker views the whole process of production as forced labor because actually it is inhuman. The worker ends up being alienated from the self because of the last two forms of alienation. The worker portrays two personalities. One is the feeling of belonging to capitalism because the worker is separated from real consciousness. On the other hand, workers perceive themselves as human beings. References Coplestone, C (1999). A history of philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Marx, K. (1988). The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Co. Polanyi, K. (2006). Primitive, archaic, and modern economies. Michigan: Beacon Press. This essay on Comparison of Marx and Hegel was written and submitted by user Aleigha Aguirre to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

How to Cover a Beat in Journalism

How to Cover a Beat in Journalism Most reporters don’t just write about anything and everything that pops up on any given day. Instead, they cover a â€Å"beat,† which means a specific topic or area. Typical beats include the cops, courts, and city council. More specialized beats can include areas like science and technology, sports or business. And beyond those very broad topics, reporters often cover more specific areas. For instance, a business reporter may cover just computer companies or even one particular firm. Here are four things you need to do to cover a beat effectively. Learn Everything You Can Being a beat reporter means you need to know everything you can about your beat. That means talking to people in the field and doing lots of reading. This can be especially challenging if you’re covering a complex beat like say, science or medicine. Don’t worry, no one’s expecting you to know everything a doctor or scientist does. But you should have a strong layperson’s command of the subject so that when interviewing someone like a doctor you can ask intelligent questions. Also, when it comes time to write your story, understanding the subject well will make it easier for you to translate it into terms everyone can understand. Get to Know the Players If you’re covering a beat you need to know the movers and shakers in the field. So if you’re covering the local police precinct that means getting to know the police chief and as many of the detectives and uniformed officers as possible. If you’re covering a local high-tech company that means making contact with both the top executives as well as some of the rank-and-file employees. Build Trust, Cultivate Contacts Beyond just getting to know the people on your beat, you need to develop a level of trust with at least some of them to the point where they become reliable contacts  or sources. Why is this necessary? Because sources can provide you with tips and valuable information for articles. In fact, sources are often where beat reporters start when looking for good stories, the kind that don’t come from press releases. Indeed, a beat reporter without sources is like a baker without dough; he’s got nothing to work with. A big part of cultivating contacts is just schmoozing with your sources. So ask the police chief how his golf game is coming along. Tell the CEO you like the painting in her office. And don’t forget clerks and secretaries. They are usually the guardians of important documents and records that can be invaluable for your stories. So chat them up as well. Remember Your Readers Reporters who cover a beat for years and develop a strong network of sources sometimes fall into the trap of doing stories that are only of interest to their sources. Their heads have become so immersed in their beat they’ve forgotten what the outside world looks like. That may not be so bad if you’re writing for a trade publication aimed at workers in a specific industry (say, a magazine for investment analysts). But if you’re writing for a mainstream print or online news outlet always remember that you should be producing stories of interest and import to a general audience. So when making the rounds of your beat, always ask yourself, â€Å"How will this affect my readers? Will they care? Should they care?† If the answer is no, chances are the story’s not worth your time.

Aztec empire art Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Aztec empire art - Essay Example Although there is no explicit evidence of bloodletting in the archeological records, there are strong beliefs that they practiced it. This is being proven by numerous ceramic spikes, thorns and artifacts which have been cited as blood letters. In Elmanati site, disarticulated skulls and femurs were found. In addition, the skeletons of newborn children were discovered. This leads to speculations that infant sacrifices were being conducted in these places. Nevertheless, it is yet unknown how these infants met their deaths. Innovation of writing by Olmec played a significant role in art and beliefs of later Mesoamerican cultures. In 2002, there was discovery of bird, speech scrolls and glyphs. These artifacts were crucial in enabling the Mesoamerican to organize their seasonal rituals. In addition, they were able to plan their activities that were significant in improving their religious beliefs. Hieroglyphs such as Epi-Olmec were also crucial in developing the Mesoamerican art. Chichen Itza and Tula have many similarities in art and architectural designs. Both cities had similar temples, an aspect that indicated that there was a close relationship between the two sites. People in these areas have similar religious structures that they used to appease their gods. In addition, the Sacred Cenote, which was a large cylindrical and natural sinkhole, had a religious importance to the local people. Tula copied some of the architectural designs from such structures. This is an indication that Itza was established before Tula. Major beliefs in Tula had some similarities with those of Itza. The artifacts indicate that the carvings and the writings had major similarities. For instance, both cities portrayed a close relationship with Plumed Serpent. The art and architecture includes different depiction of him. In addition, the carvings of big-nosed god had some relationship between