The Similarities Between Marx and Aurelius - Essay Example

? The Similarities between Marx and Aurelius   What makes "Life worth living"? What is a meaningful existence for one, constitutes chaos for someone else. Marx and Aurelius are a perfect example of different philosophical writings with different interpretations. They both strived for meaning full lives. This essay will discuss how they define man, and happiness. Their concepts will be introduced, and compared. Upon analysis, it is incredibly surprising to see that though they used different techniques, lived in different times and lived in different socio-economic cultures, they basically wanted the same thing: the happiness of man. It will be shown how they agreed and the differences they shared. Karl Marx's Estranged Labour confirms that man is defined by the work he produces. His whole identity is intertwined with the right to work. Man is a product of his environment. He identifies himself with the "fruit of the efforts". Aurelius's environment is the Universe, Nature and Divine Providence. He considers it more important the work one does upon his intelligence and his existence in the present. To explain Marx's economic principle, if man is a product of his material wealth in which his work is for someone else, the more he works, the poorer he becomes. "The alienation of labour occurs because labour is not essential to his being. He does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind" (74) If he is poor, he become alienated to what he is doing and his self identity is destroyed. If he has a low concept of himself. He will become estranged to others and his society. Marx says as we work for others, we become slaves to the material wealth we produce. Material wealth will determine our level of happiness. How can one think highly of himself if he is poor and hates what he is doing. An earlier philosopher, John Locke said that "work was one of the unalienable rights of man". Aurelius said that work should have a purpose. Aurelius defines man by his introspection and lack of material wealth. Aurelius shows man what needs to be done in order to be happy. Marx's implicitly says that our happiness is defined by the projection of our self identity. Aurelius says we only can find freedom when we no longer depend on material wealth.. Karl Marx "work is essential so that an individual does not become estranged or alienated from himself and other workers." Self conception is defined by the fruits of one's efforts. Work or labor on physical matter enables an individual to meet his basic needs and see himself in terms of society. If we agree that self conception is defined by the effort one puts into the work, both Marx and Aurelius agree to the meaning of happiness. Aurelius would say that Necessity is the need to work. The ability to create from the soul forms one's personal identity and thus enables personal survival and the desire to survive. These three concepts are the basis of humanity. Aurelius would agree at his level, as change keeps the universe going. "The transformation of nature into objects is one of the fundamental aspects of human condition. Two different philosophers agree that the universe has to have constant creation and change otherwise there is decay and death. Aurelius used different language to say that we are all from one universe and must work together to find a common ground. It is not natural to stand in each other's way. He would have agreed with Marx that it would not have been natural to have an unhappy worker. Aurelius didn't wanted man to become distracted by the material aspects of life. He did not really explain if the necessities of life were part of the material aspects. One would have to assume that he meant material wealth. The basic daily needs of man were met. Once again Aurelius and Marx mentioned that people should not have to suffer from others, whether they were good or bad if they did not work harmoniously together. Aurelius adds that if an individual is limited because he does not work on his soul, do not let him ruin your life. Life is sacred. We keep our intelligence as we age but everything else changes. Each breath we take is the first of the last. Aurelius was convinced that the body got old but the mind stayed young. "The whole divine economy is pervaded by Providence…Providence is the source from which all things flow; and allied with it is Necessity." (#3) Aurelius and Marx are once again in agreement. Without using the word "worker" once again, the passive voice will be used. "Nothing can be created without nature, without the sensuous external world" These two sentences completely correspond with the philosophy that Nature must be in harmony. Aurelius continues by saying that we do not need to continue the past written in books. Live the moment as it is now. There is no past and there is no future. There is only now. Labor is not something which allows a worker to work on his intrinsic capacities as Aurelius says needs to be done. He is denied his natural existences of happiness. He cannot create a self identity. He only works to fulfill his animal needs. Aurelius would agree with Marx that men should be given the opportunity to develop their self identity. Life is limited. A certain amount of time has been allocated to each individual. "In estranging from man nature and himself, his own active functions, his life-activity, estranged labour, estranges the species from man" (75)"Nature is man's inorganic body" (Marx). If man's inorganic body is not developed because of his work condition, he will suffer. His inorganic body is his spiritual body. It constantly moves as a river does (Aurelius) It enables man's physical body to remain alive. Both speak about the physical, and spiritual and how they are linked to nature; If any one of these elements are "estranged", there is an imbalance of the Universe which is felt. Marx says men become alienated from others, Aurelius talks about the men who create conflict with nature or argue with circumstances. Work should give purpose. Marx defines a need; says there is a problem, but does not say how to resolve the problem. He says that man should not work because there is work to be done. He should have a choice to work to fulfill a goal in life. Marx says that work should help build self identity. If we use Aurelius explanation that the sins "of desire are more culpable than the sins of passion" (#9), who is to judge why a particular job is chosen? Aurelius discussion about the fear of death is the antithesis of our societies Anglo-Saxon views. It is a process of nature. It gives man a reason to believe in God. We should use life to the maximum so as to live without fear. Our intelligence is for the power of perception. Death is a product of the imbalance of the worker not fulfilling his self identity. These can be conflicting views. Marx talks about two groups of people: the property owner and the property-less worker. He never talks about the property owner and his philosophical views towards the rich. Aurelius talks about the Intelligent, those who work on their souls and the unhappy."You will not easily find a man coming to grief through indifference to the workings of another's soul; but for those who pay no heed to the motions of their own, unhappiness is their sure reward." (#8) Though he comes from the upper class, his discourse covers universal premises about the human race which still are valid today. He talks about work having a purpose. Marx is more pragmatic. His analysis with work being the essence of man's identity is extreme in the 21rst century. Aurelius attitude towards self improvement coming from within rather innovating. To conclude both men wanted that man have an concept of self identity. Aurelius was a prolific writer, his daily writings were a sign of his intelligence and self development. He saw the truth of man's happiness. Marx saw an unjust world and would not accept the social inequalities which were part of the 19th century. True philosophy takes into account the laws of nature, divine providence and the concept of change. True philosophy is universal and transverse time. Though Marx and Aurelius did have similar goals, Marx added social economic elements which hindered his arguments. He never agreed to personal enlightenment beyond the working and he only wrote about one class of people whereas Aurelius wrote about all of society. Read More