As a graduate student Karl Marx was enthralled with the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, the most dominant German thinker of his day. Hegel is called an “Absolute Idealist.” The real world for him is a world of ideas. Reality is by no means static in Hegel’s view. It is driven by the dialectical movement of history according to the three-fold pattern of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis.” Each stage of history, the “thesis”, establishes itself as the norm, only to be challenged and replaced by its opposite, the “antithesis”.
The struggle between these two stages eventually gives rise to a ”synthesis” of the two. This in turn becomes the new thesis stage, and the dialectical process begins a fresh. The final end of this historical process according to Hegel will be the ideal state of both reality and the human political world. Hegel’s thought dominated western philosophy for decades and this is why Marx chose to study and follow his philosophy when building his own. Hegel’s main follower in the English-speaking world was F.H. Bradley.
Although he was strongly influenced by Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, Marx chose, in his own words, to “stand it on its head”. That is to say, rather than affirming ideal reality as the proper way to construe one’s understanding of the world, Marx maintained that it is material reality that determines the nature of things. Thus, his philosophy is referred to as “dialectical materialism.” In his works Marx traced the development of history and society according to a dialectical pattern, the stages of which followed the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” pattern.
In short, then, Marx’s philosophy was materialistic at the base, but he was not a “physicalist” in the narrow sense of the term. He sought to track the major dynamics of human history and culture through their dialectical stages according to the thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, each stage arising out of its conflict with the previous stage. He saw them as moving from the primitive communal epoch through that of slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and finally concluding with the socialist/communist stage. The major dynamic driving this progression according to Marx is “class conflict.”
Thus, according to Marx in each of the above stages the “haves” and the “have-nots” struggle to control the basic “means of production” so as to improve their respective quality of life. The temporary resolution of each of these struggles, Marx argued, triggers the arrival of the next. This dialectical process follows an inexorable law and will eventually lead to the fulfillment of human history and humankind. So in the end Marx was a humanist and looked forward to the emancipation of the human. He collaborated with Friedrich Engels a great deal in producing his many volumes.
This makes the material world the base upon which the human world will build. Marx generally termed these respectively the “substructure” and the “superstructure” of both reality and the dialectical process driving it. The key factor in all of these stages and processes is the control of the means of production. In modern times this has resulted in the struggle between the owners of “capitalist” class and the “proletariat” of the working class. Thus, in the 20th century we have followed the conflict between socialist countries like Russia and China, on the one hand, and capitalist America, on the other.
In spite of the terms involved in the designation “dialectical materialism”, it is clear that Marx was not a philosophical materialist. What he cared most about was the wellbeing of human beings, their possibility for opportunity and growth. Unfortunately, most of those who claimed to have followed in his path have managed to twist his philosophy into a mere caricature of his main ideas. This partly explains his basic withdrawal from active political involvement during the last thirty years of his life while working in the British Museum writing his many books. Essentially Marx was a thinker, not an activist.

Generally speaking, there are two ways the works of Soren Kierkegaard have been interpreted. The first, and more well-known, is to see him as a rather extreme religious existentialist thinker who placed blind faith as his top priority. According to this interpretation Kierkegaard believed that faith alone, unsupported by any historical or logical reasoning, is the ultimate criterion for judging a person’s existential value. His account of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac if asked to by God in Fear and Trembling clearly focuses this extreme view of religious faithfulness. The person of faith finds himself treading water over 70,000 fathoms still believing the impossible contradiction that God became human. In other words, it is a leap of faith, there is no basis for it.
The second way of interpreting Kierkegaard’s line of thought is to see it as simply absurd at the outset and thus necessarily dismissible from a rational, philosophical point of view. This is, to be sure, the predominant point of view of most philosophical, and even many theological, thinkers. Henry Allison, in his essay “Christianity and Nonsense”, argues that Johannes Climacus’ presentation of the logic of Christian faith in Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript is either self-contradictory or flat-out irrational. (Cf. “Christianity and Nonsense” in Philosophy Today # 1) So we have this dilemma of how to understand Kierkegaard at the heart of his writings and perspective. Which way Kierkegaard?
I struggled with this issue for many years during my early years as a student of both philosophy and theology. I finally was able to put my mind to rest when I read Louis Mackey’s interpretation in his very insightful book Kierkegaard: A Kind of Poet. Mackey’s overview of Kierkegaard’s entire authorship revolves around his understanding of Kierkegaard as a poetic writer who, in and through his various writings and characters, “traffics in existential possibilities”. Rather than seeking to present a solid, one-dimensional perspective that covers all perspectives and interpretations of faith and life, Kierkegaard is, according to Mackey, striving to present the reader with a variety of perspectives embodied in the various characters comprising the cast of his creative writings in order to force the reader to think deeply and choose amongst them for him or herself.
Kierkegaard himself sets the stage for this way of viewing his authorship in his very early The Point of View for Understanding My Work as an Author and in his doctoral dissertation The Concept of Irony. In both of these works Kierkegaard extols the virtues of “indirect communication”, pseudonymity, and irony as the proper means of expressing and focusing of the various existential possibilities confronting the human individual. He makes it quite clear that his own works are to be understood as stimulators to one’s own action, not as patterns to be copied. I think there can be little doubt that in spite of numerous misunderstandings and exaggerations, Kierkegaard’s writings have succeeded achieving his goals. The characters and options populating his many works continue to be at the center of numerous lectures, debates, and writings, as well as the actual choices and behavioral patterns of those who have read his works.
Viewed from this interpretive perspective the many characters in Kierkegaard’s numerous volumes take on a whole new meaning and interest. Indeed, he himself becomes visible as more of a person in his own right rather than merely as a brilliant but eccentric theological thinker. So, I no longer struggle with the logical and theological issues raised by Kierkegaard’s writings in the same way as I used to. I still gather challenges and insights about my own way of being in the world, and still enjoy the cleverness of both the author and his characters, but I no longer puzzle over the confusing and at times seeming contradictory character of his incredible literary quality and theological diatribes. Actually, he now seems even more creative and insightful than before I came to understand him as primarily a literary artist. I would be very interested to know if and how any of these thoughts may strike my readers. (L. Mackey: Kierkegaard: A Kind of Poet, W. Lowrie, A Short Life of Kierkegaard, J. Gill, Essays on Kierkegaard)