Bauer: Atheistic Humanism and the Critique of Religious Alienation

  • Robert Gascoigne
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idees / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 105)


Among the Young Hegelians it was Bruno Bauer, theologian turned passionate atheist, who struggled most desperately to interpret Hegel’s absolute idealism as the vindication of the sovereign rights of the human self-consciousness. Bauer’s radically intellectualist search for genuine humanity in the spontaneous activity of the free mind, liberated from history and the absolute, failed to discover a sustaining field of activity in the social group or any other collective, and ended as an abandonment of European intellectual history, but he succeeded in demonstrating the critical potential of his own conception of the self-consciousness.


Human Nature Political Freedom Ethical Life Intellectual Freedom Religious Consciousness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Hertz-Eichenrode, ‘Der Junghegelianer Bruno Bauer im Vormärz’, D. Phil, thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 1959, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (2nd edition, Leipzig, 1846), pp. vi–vii.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibid., p. viii.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., p. xx.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., p. xxiv.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., I, p. 408.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., I, p. 244.Google Scholar
  8. 8a.
    A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, London, 1954, p. 138Google Scholar
  9. 8b.
    Z. Rosen, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx, The Hague, 1977, p. 50.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, III, p. 14.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Ibid., III, p. 15.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Ibid., III, 252.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Ibid., III, p. 308.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Ibid., III, p. 309.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Ibid., III, p. 310.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Ibid., III, p. 312.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel den Atheisten und Antichristen, 1841, in Löwith, K. Hegeische Linke, Stuttgart, 1962, p. 166.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Ibid., p. 151.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Ibid., p. 159.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Ibid., p. 220.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Ibid., p. 170, quoted from the Preface to Hegel’s Rechtsphilosophie.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Ibid., p. 171.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Ibid., p. 171.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Bauer’s interpretation of Hegel was strikingly similar to that of the most celebrated exponent of a ‘left-wing’ interpretation of the Phänomenologie des Geistes: ‘by seeing in the Wise Man the human ideal in general, the Philosopher attributes to himself as Philosopher a human value without equal (p. 88)… In short the Phenomenology only shows that the ideal of the Wise Man, as it is defined therein, is the necessary ideal of philosophy, and of every philosophy — that is, of every man who puts the supreme value on Self-consciousness, which is precisely a consciousness of self and not of something else’, (p. 92) Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Posaune, p. 170.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    E. Barnikol, in his Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialen (Assen, 1972), considered this review to be the work of Bauer himself, (p. 547)Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Deutsche Jahrbücher, 1841, p. 594.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Ibid., p. 594.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit, Hallische Jahrbücher, 1841, p. 537.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Ibid., p. 537.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    Ibid., p. 541.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Ibid., p. 542.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Ibid., p. 550.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit (Zürich und Wintertur, 1842), p. 39.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Ibid., p. 214.Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Ibid., p. 217.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Rosen, op. cit., p. 120.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    For E. Barnikol, in his essay ‘Bruno Bauers Kampf gegen Religion und Christentum und die Spaltung der vormärzlichen preussischen Opposition’ (in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Band XLVI, Neue Folge LX, 1927) Bauer’s Das entdeckte Christentum was to ‘decide the question of religion once and for all’ and to abolish the religious foundations of the establishment. ‘Bruno Bauer’s conflict with religion was in the service of his Prussian politics, which was intended to dominate the Prussian state, to free it and to found, through “pure criticism”, a state both internally and externally truly independent of religion and the Church. In this sense, which cannot be emphasized enough, his struggle against religion was to him a service to the state’, (p. 21) Barnikol notes further, however, that Bauer’s extreme atheism, combined with his unpolitical and illiberal judgements of the situation, caused a harmful split in the liberal opposition to the regime: Bauer rejected co-operation with the liberals since his own ideal was an atheistic rather than a politically liberal state. His articles destroyed the politically liberal potential of the Rheinische Zeitung. This reinforced by his refusal to condemn the Berlin Freien, led to Marx’s break with him. Cf. Rosen, op. cit., pp.214–5.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Die Judenfrage, in Deutsche Jahrbücher, 1842, p. 1108.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Ibid., p. 1119.Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    Kritik der Synoptiker, I, p. 25.Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    Über die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden, in H.M. Sass, ed., Feldzüge der reinen Kritik (Frankfurt, 1968), p. 186.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Ibid., p. 182.Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    Ibid., p. 190.Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Kritik der Synoptiker, III, p. 99.Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Das entdeckte Christentum, Zürich, 1843, re-issued by E. Barnikol in Das entdeckte Christentum im Vormärz, Jena, 1927, p. 141.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Die gute Sache der Freiheit, pp.9–10.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Ibid., pp. 27–8.Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    Das entdeckte Christentum, p. 141.Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Theologische Schaamlosigkeiten, Deutsche Jahrbücher, 1841, p. 465.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Ibid., p. 470.Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    Leiden und Freuden des theologischen Bewusstseins, in Anekdota, ed. A. Rüge, Zürich und Wintertur, 1843, p. 96.Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Ibid., p. 101.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Theologische Schaamlosigkeiten, p. 466.Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Leiden und Freuden, p. 112.Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Das entdeckte Christentum, Zürich, 1843, re-issued by E. Barnikol in Das entdeckte Christentum im Vormärz, Jena, 1927, p. 138.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Kritik der Synoptiker, II, p. 160.Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Die gute Sache der Freiheit, p. 71.Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Das entdeckte Christentum, p. 155.Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Ibid., p. 155.Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    Ibid., p. 129.Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Ibid., p. 158.Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    Ibid., p. 94.Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    Ibid., p. 160.Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    Ibid., p. 162.Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    Die gute Sache der Freiheit, p. 203.Google Scholar
  69. 68.
    Hertz-Eichenrode, ‘Der Junghegelianer Bruno Bauer im Vormärz’, op. cit., p. 89.Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    Was ist jetzt der Gegenstand der Kritik? first published in Bauer’s Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, June 1844, re-printed in Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, ed. H.M. Sass, Frankfurt, 1968, p. 202 (Sass ed.)Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Ibid., p. 203.Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Ibid., p. 207.Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Ibid., p. 208.Google Scholar
  74. 73.
    Ibid., p. 211.Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Bekenntnisse einer schwachen Seele, Deutsche Jahrbücher, 1842, p. 596.Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    Was ist jetzt der Gegenstand der Kritik?, p. 212.Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Review of Hinrichspolitische Vorlesungen, in Sass, op. cit., pp. 197–8.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Bekenntnisse einer schwachen Seele, pp. 593–4.Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Die Gattung und die Masse, in Sass, op. cit., p. 215.Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Ibid., p. 216.Google Scholar
  81. 80.
    Ibid., p. 220.Google Scholar
  82. 81.
    Ibid., p. 221.Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Ibid., p. 222.Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Ibid., p. 223.Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    Ludwig Feuerbach, in Beiträge zum Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, Berlin, 1846, p. 4.Google Scholar
  86. 85.
    For N. Lobkowicz, in his Theory and Practice (University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), p. 257, ‘Feuerbach… instead of trying to transcend man’s finite condition simply declares man’s finite condition infinite. The task of philosophy, then, consists in “putting the infinite into the finite”, that is, in rediscovering the original infinity of natural finite man… Hegel conceived the self-realization of man as a transcendence of the limited and natural biological level; Feuerbach, on the contrary, condemned all such transcendence as “alienation”. In this sense he is a precursor of all “philosophies of life” from Nietzsche to Klages’.Google Scholar
  87. 85.
    For M. Wartofsky, by contrast, in his Feuerbach (Cambridge, 1977), Feuerbach envisages man’s transformation through the dialectical process of image formation: ‘The overcoming of sheer identity with the image is the work of critique. This critique raised to the level of self-recognition in the image is self-criticism. Self-transformation requires both self-objectification and the critique of this objectification. Dialectic is nothing less than this process of self-transformative praxis, therefore’, (p. 13).Google Scholar
  88. 86.
    Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 12.Google Scholar
  89. 87.
    Das entdeckte Christentum, p. 95.Google Scholar
  90. 88.
    For J.E. Toews, in Hegelianism. The Path towards Dialectical Humanism 1805–1841 (Cambridge University Press, 1980), although Marx, Feuerbach and Bauer ‘all accused each other of regressing to the abstract and undialectical positions of traditional metaphysical idealism or materialism, they all laid claim to the dialectical inheritance’. Bauer, as well as Marx and Feuerbach, made his analysis of the human condition concrete by ‘shifting the locus of human emancipation from the political to the social dimension’, although he rejected socialist and communist theory. ‘The development of Bauer’s critical theory after 1843 was also grounded in a critical reduction of the illusion of human essence to the concrete relationships of human existence’. While rejecting the social projects of the Feuerbachians, ‘Bauer also insisted that such negative dialectics was a positive, communal activity.’ (p. 365) For the present author, however, Bauer’s shift from political concern was less to the ‘social dimension’ than to a revolution of consciousness, a fundamental re-orientation away from all objective substance, whether religious or social, a characteristic of Bauer’s thought which is well-expressed by H. Stuke: ‘Bauer’s critique of established reality was ultimately not against particular historical relationships, institutions, ethics and rights, or forms and concretions of the spirit which no longer corresponded to its “higher concept”, but rather against the (in the Hegelian sense) continuing substance of world-history itself’. (Philosophie der Tat, Stuttgart, 1963, p. 186.)Google Scholar
  91. 89.
    Russland und das Germanentum, Charlottenburg, 1853, p. 121.Google Scholar
  92. 90.
    Kritik der Synoptiker, III, p. 310.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Gascoigne

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations