on the philosophy of the future

Notes on my recent guest post

One of my most recent reads has been Feuerbach’s slightly controversial essay, Principles of the Philosophy of the Future. Primarily used in academia as a precursor to Marxian theories, the book is known for its support of materialism and the political implications that it could have in the wake of modern philosophy. 

I, myself, have never been one for modern philosophy. I never found the arguments very convincing, and oftentimes, never felt as if the subject was worthy of such a lengthy discussion. It’s the world’s lengthiest case of the armchair philosopher discussing issues whose only implication was possible religious persecution.

A few weeks ago, I published a guest piece for my good friends over at

Cymposium

(give it a look!) which essentially diluted Feuerbach’s points in the Principles–that God himself was not only a projection of man’s values, but a concoction shaped by intellectual men of the time. 

The philosophy is undoubtedly intriguing. Dragging divinity down from the heavens and dissecting it on a comprehensive human level was something that very few people have ever attempted simply due to its (ridiculously) lofty goal.

Yet, despite attempting to free us from modern religious thinking, I am tempted to claim that Feuerbach trapped us in a different way of thinking that is just as limited. His focus on explaining philosophy through human experiences almost feels too narrow, buying into the anthropocentrism that came to define the decades after his work.

In trying to make God more human-like, did Feuerbach actually end up making humans seem godlike? Rather than obsessing over heavenly entities, Feuerbach’s approach now obsesses over earthly materials, yet it’s very anthropocentric – and problematic – either way.

The philosophy of the future is not one in which humans are at the center, but one in which the effect we have on others is. The effects we have on our communities, our environment, our institutions–this is where our sights should be. 

I very much agree that philosophy should be grounded in the concrete experiences and emotions that we experience as humans. Philosophy as a discipline has often been far too abstract to have any real influence on our actions–Feuerbach knows this–but there’s simultaneously an anthropocentric weakness that comes with this new approach. 

Feuerbach’s philosophy shows what philosophy can do for us. How it can explain our actions, our hierarchies, our values. 

But it doesn’t show what it does to those around us.

If Feuerbach’s task was to liberate philosophy from the realm of abstraction, then our task now is to liberate it from the confines of human idealism, of human centrism. The truly radical move isn't to bring God down to Earth, but to extend our gaze beyond the individual human – to recognize that we are but one thread in a vast tapestry of existence.

The irony, of course, is that such a philosophy might bring us closer to the kind of cosmic perspective that religion once provided, and that Feuerbach once rejected – not by projecting the human onto the divine, but by recognizing the divine in the workings of earthly existence. The philosophy of the future may very well be a philosophy of the past.