The latter must itself, therefore, first be understood in its contradiction and then, by the removal of the contradiction, revolutionised in practice.
Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be criticised in theory and revolutionised in practice.
This used to be an important maxim, but I ask myself now: do I really believe in it? On its own it may seem uncontraversial Assumption C is the real can of worms.
I used to think it as important, because people believe philosophy is a deliberating act, one where it is all talk and no balls. The notion of justification is the carpet that lies beneath B, we may assume that B is uncontraversial, but what we may find in C could undermine that.
But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.
In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.
Hence, this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society .
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionising practice.
Philosophers have previously only interpreted the world in various ways II.
‘Changing the world’ is given to be a justified proposition The key assumptions that arouse me are the following: A. Assumption B needs to be examined, and by no means should be presupposed.