Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 313

https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v11i1.217

The politics of false consciousness: hermeneutics of the

philosophy of suspicion in Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud

La política de la falsa conciencia: hermenéutica de la filosofía de la sospecha en Marx,

Nietzsche y Freud

Boris Raúl Ochoa Ordóñez

boris_ochoa@hotmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4928-0915

Investigador Independiente

Artículo recibido: 20 mayo 2024 - Aceptado para publicación: 26 junio 2024

Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar

ABSTRACT

This article addresses and analyzes the essential principles of the philosophy of suspicion,

developed by Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, and subsequently synthesized

by Paul Ricoeur. The purpose of this research is to elucidate, through a hermeneutic reading of

the fundamental texts of these thinkers, how society has constructed a false consciousness that

obstructs an accurate understanding and interpretation of reality. The literature review is framed

within the context of the classical philosophical tradition, allowing for a concise analysis of the

main theories related to reality and consciousness. Subsequently, the specific postulates of the

philosophy of suspicion of each author are analyzed, and the social elements subject to the critique

of suspicion are examined.

Keywords: false, consciousness, philosophy, suspicion, marx, nietzsche, freud

RESUMEN

Este artículo aborda y analiza los principios esenciales de la filosofía de la sospecha, desarrollada

por Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche y Sigmund Freud, y posteriormente sintetizada por Paul

Ricoeur. El propósito de esta investigación es dilucidar, a través de una lectura hermenéutica de

los textos fundamentales de estos pensadores, cómo la sociedad ha construido una falsa

conciencia que obstaculiza una comprensión e interpretación certera de la realidad. La revisión

de la literatura se enmarca en el contexto de la tradición filosófica clásica, permitiendo un análisis

conciso de las principales teorías relacionadas con la realidad y la conciencia. Posteriormente, se

analizan los postulados específicos de la filosofía de la sospecha de cada autor y se examinan los

elementos sociales sujetos a la crítica de la sospecha.

Palabras clave: falso, conciencia, filosofía, sospecha, marx

Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo

licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 314

INTRODUCTION

The philosophy of suspicion is a term coined by Paul Ricoeur in his work "Freud: An

Interpretation of Culture," highlighting common characteristics in the thoughts of Karl Marx,

Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. Ricoeur's hermeneutic interpretation reveals points of

convergence among these three thinkers, who, despite being known for their divergent theories,

coincide in criticizing the conventional view of the self, consciousness, and perception of the

world (Albocerro, 2003). According to these philosophers, the traditional understanding of the

individual and the world is based on a false consciousness that conceals deep, unquestioned

meanings. This process of unmasking reality questions the values of human rationality and the

pursuit of absolute truth. For Ricoeur, these interpretations pose a new problem: "the lie of

consciousness, consciousness as lie" (Herbert, 2016, p. 5). This new reading of the texts of Marx,

Nietzsche, and Freud establishes the basis for a renewed hermeneutic.

One of the most persistent problems that philosophy has faced throughout history is the

interpretation of reality, a task that should not be confused with the concept of reality itself. In

fact, one of the most common criticisms of philosophical sciences is their apparent inability to

offer definitive truths, limiting themselves to interpretation. Understanding the world not only in

terms of its physical reality but also in how it is perceived on an individual and collective level

has been a constant concern in philosophy. In 1845, Karl Marx stated, "Philosophers have only

interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" (p. 2). The ultimate mission of

philosophy must go beyond the analysis of phenomena, fostering changes in how the world and

reality are understood and perceived. Achieving a theoretical understanding of what it means to

be real first requires an epistemological conception of how we understand reality, which has been

one of the fundamental pillars of philosophy.

René Descartes was one of the pioneering philosophers in theorizing reality and is

recognized as the founder of the philosophical school known as rationalism, which emphasizes

the use of reason as the primary source and test of knowledge. In general terms, Descartes'

conception of reality is based on the idea that the physical world exists as an extensive and finite

substance (Guerra, n.d.). Physically, a substance needs nothing more than its own existence to be

independent of any conception or awareness of it. This independence is fundamental to his

conception of ontological dualism, which distinguishes between res cogitans (thinking substance)

and res extensa (extended substance).

For Descartes, there are three main "things" or substances: the world (cosmos), which

contains the entirety of material reality; the human being, composed of body and soul; and God,

as the supreme being. According to Descartes, the world operates according to mechanical laws,

meaning that bodies move according to universal mechanical principles. This mechanistic

approach allows for the explanation of natural phenomena through physical laws, without

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 315

resorting to teleological or metaphysical explanations. However, in studying the relationship

between body and soul, Descartes faced a particular problem: the soul is not governed by

mechanical laws. While the body, as an extended substance, follows the laws of physics, the soul,

as a thinking substance, operates independently. His solution to this dilemma was to recognize

that body and soul are distinct substances; therefore, the soul is not subject to mechanical laws.

The next Cartesian question was how both substances are integrated into a single

individual. Descartes resolved this through a third substance, a "miracle" that allows for the

communion of body and soul despite being different substances, which Descartes calls "God"

(Descartes, 2014). This miracle manifests itself in the pineal gland, which Descartes identified as

the point of interaction between body and soul. Contrary to this perspective, Baruch de Spinoza

proposes that the supreme reality is a unique manifestation of God; the universe, deity, and nature

are the same entity expressed in different ways. According to Spinoza, there is no plurality of

substances; instead, thought and extension are two attributes of a single substance, and these

attributes are part of the totality of nature and being (Spinoza, 1663).

For Spinoza, everything that exists is an expression of God, and the differences we

perceive are simply modes of a single infinite substance. His pantheistic and monistic view

contrasts deeply with Cartesian dualism, offering a unified perspective of reality in which there

is no separation between mind and body, but rather an essential interrelationship of all things in

God. Descartes and Spinoza represent two fundamental approaches in modern philosophy

regarding the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and body. While Descartes

introduces a dualism that separates the mental from the physical, Spinoza proposes a monistic

view in which everything is part of a single divine substance. Both approaches have had a lasting

impact on philosophy and continue to be crucial reference points in contemporary debates about

the nature of reality, consciousness, and the relationship between mind and body. Descartes' and

Spinoza's rationalist ideas laid the groundwork for Immanuel Kant to develop his philosophy of

transcendental idealism (Dilthey, 1949).

Descartes, known as the father of modern rationalism, argued that the certainty of

knowledge comes from reason, not from the senses, and that the physical world exists as an

extensive and finite substance, independent of our consciousness (Descartes, 1641). Spinoza, in

his Ethics, posited that everything that exists is part of a single divine substance, identified with

God or Nature, and that mind and body are two attributes of this substance, an attempt to resolve

Cartesian duality between mind and body (Spinoza, 1677). Immanuel Kant, inspired by these

rationalists, proposed that reality, in terms of space and time, does not exist independently of the

human being; instead, they are forms in which we perceive objects. According to Kant, objects in

space and time are mere representations and do not exist outside our ability to represent them.

With this perspective, Kant argues that things exist, but our perception of them is entirely different

from their true nature, the "thing in itself," which is impossible to fully know (Kant, 1757).

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 316

This limitation is what Kant terms "antinomy," and it is a central pillar of his

epistemological philosophy. Although Kant's position remains debated, it provides multiple

avenues for exploring and explaining our perception of the external world (Gatica, González,

Pérez, Velarde, Velva & Zeindal, 2018). Kant's advancement of notions of space and time deeply

influenced modern physics, especially Einstein's theory of relativity, which suggests that space

and time are interdependent and relative to the observer, an idea that resonates with Kant's thesis

that these are forms of our perception and not independent entities (Einstein, 1916). After Kant,

the figure of Hegel emerges, who complements and perfects Kant's work.

Hegel proposed a solution to Kant's antinomy through his dialectical philosophy, which

holds that reality is a dynamic process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This dialectical

methodology suggests that the inherent contradictions in our perception and in reality itself can

be overcome and reconciled through an evolutionary process of thought and being. The

ontological distinction between the essence of things and what we perceive indicates that the

physical world with which we interact daily is not the true reality; there is a hidden world that our

perception cannot capture. Hegel's central idea is that reality is not only material (substance) but

also thought, spirit, or consciousness, and this reality is total and absolute (Hegel, 1807).

Spirit is infinite, self-determining, and constantly updating, generating and overcoming

the finite. Thus, reality is infinite and based on the elimination and overcoming of its own

limitations (Parra, 2022). Hegel's dialectical system applies to all reality: each individual moment

is essential to the whole, and one would not exist without the other. Hegel's influence on

philosophy and other social sciences is vast. His concept of dialectic has been applied in multiple

disciplines, including Darwin's theory of evolution, Marxism's historical dialectic, and Piaget's

cognitive development psychology, all of which are based on the idea that development and

change occur through the overcoming of internal contradictions.

To analyze the philosophy of suspicion, it is essential to understand the basic concepts of

reality, consciousness, and existence, which allow us to delve into the main thoughts and

contributions on how each individual perceives reality or the world. Given that it has become

clear that reality is not the same as appearance, it is logical to ask about the nature of things, even

if this implies a deep attempt to affirm (Franceschi, 1929). In this context, the philosophy of

suspicion, as proposed by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, questions hidden structures and underlying

motivations of apparent reality, suggesting that behind dominant beliefs and values there are

repressed interests and desires that must be revealed to achieve a deeper and more authentic

understanding of being and the world.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 317

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this article is based on a comprehensive review of the works of Karl

Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, using as a starting point the readings

recommended by Paul Ricoeur in his work "Freud: An Interpretation of Culture" (1965). Ricoeur

provides a crucial theoretical foundation for identifying points of convergence among these three

thinkers regarding the philosophy of suspicion.

To establish this theoretical framework, an initial historical review of literature was

conducted, focusing on the main postulates of classical philosophy from the 17th to the 19th

century. This process included systematic reading and synthesis of fundamental philosophical

theories on epistemological and ontological issues posed by figures such as Descartes (1637),

Spinoza (1663), Kant (1757), and Hegel (1807).

With the historical and philosophical context established, the proposals and theories on

false consciousness presented by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud were analyzed through Ricoeur's

hermeneutic lens. This approach will explore how each of these thinkers questioned and

reconstructed traditional notions of reality, consciousness, and perception of the world.

The analysis will be conducted using comparative techniques to examine the cultural,

political, and social context from the perspective of the philosophy of suspicion. Initially, factors

or elements according to this philosophical approach that influence individual interpretation of

reality will be investigated, and how these interpretations can vary significantly among

individuals. Subsequently, the mechanisms through which social, economic, and political

structures contribute to the generation of false consciousness in people will be explored.

Theoretical Framework

False Consciousness

The theory of false consciousness, primarily conceptualized by Karl Marx in his critique

of capitalism, addresses the distorted perception that individuals have regarding their social,

economic, and political conditions (Marx, year).

Marx explains that this distortion arises due to the ideological influence exerted by

dominant structures of power, such as ruling classes and the media they control. Instead of

objectively perceiving their situation as exploited or alienated workers, individuals under false

consciousness tend to internalize and accept the beliefs and values imposed by these structures,

sometimes even considering them natural or just (Marx, 1975). This obscures the true power

relations and exploitation inherent in the capitalist system, thereby perpetuating the status quo

and hindering any revolutionary social change efforts that Marx considered essential (Marx,

1968).

False consciousness involves an inversion of social and economic reality, where the

interests of dominant classes are presented as universal or common to all of society. Marx argues

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 318

that this dominant ideology functions to maintain established order and economic exploitation,

diverting attention from the true causes of alienation and oppression (Marx, 1975). Consequently,

workers under false consciousness may interpret their labor conditions, for example, as a result

of their own deficiencies or as an inevitable aspect of life, rather than recognizing them as

products of a specific economic and social system that benefits a few at the expense of many

(Marx, 1888).

From a critical perspective, the theory of false consciousness has extended beyond the

Marxist framework, finding application in contemporary studies of culture and society. It is

employed to examine how media narratives and representations can shape collective perceptions

and understandings of reality, influencing social and political attitudes toward crucial issues such

as inequality, gender, race, and others (Marx & Engels, 1932). In summary, this theory is crucial

for understanding how ideologies and power structures manipulate individual and collective

consciousness, limiting individuals' ability to recognize and challenge the systemic injustices they

face (Marx & Engels, 1932).

Philosophy of Suspicion

During the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, a new form of

discourse emerged in contemporary thought that radically transformed the entire structure of

Western culture. This phenomenon can be considered as an unprecedented way of relating to

reality, facing a radically new space for the elaboration of meaning. This different space, which

largely defines all subsequent thought, was developed by Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and

Sigmund Freud, who constructed a new form of discourse that merges theory and practice in a

single act. Paul Ricoeur, philosopher and anthropologist, in his essay "Freud: An Interpretation

of Culture" (1965), brought together the works of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud under a single

category, coining a widely used term in contemporary philosophy exposés: "masters of

suspicion," as founders of a new concept of interpretation and a new hermeneutics.

The fundamental category of consciousness, according to Ricoeur (1975), is the

relationship between what consciousness conceals and what it reveals, that is, between the

simulated and the manifest. The essential point is that these thinkers created, with the means at

their disposal and in opposition to the prejudices of their time, an intermediate science of meaning,

irreducible to the immediate consciousness of meaning. The hermeneuts of suspicion attempted

to align their conscious methods of deciphering with the unconscious work of encoding they

attributed to the will to power, social being, and unconscious psyche.

The expression "masters of suspicion" refers to the common procedure with which the

three authors critique cultural, philosophical, and political discourses, suspecting that their true

meaning is implicit or unconscious in those discourses. Within this spectrum of suspicion, all

cultures have their own system of interpretation or hermeneutics, and in the case of contemporary

culture, these techniques have been elaborated by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, modifying the

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 319

spatial dimension of signs (Foucault, 1964). The suspicion raised is that consciousness is actually

false consciousness. Following the Cartesian line of thought, there is doubt that things are as they

seem, but there is no doubt that consciousness is as it presents itself. However, after Marx,

Nietzsche, and Freud, there is doubt about consciousness itself, as doubting the thing enters into

doubt about consciousness (Ricoeur, 1965).

RESULTS

Philosophy of Suspicion in Marx

Karl Marx's thought is vast and multifaceted, encompassing realms such as economics,

politics, and philosophy. His contributions and investigative studies focused on the historical

context in which he lived, as well as his analyses of capitalist theories and the system they sustain.

Although Marx was a disciple of Hegel and adopted some of his dialectical ideas, he distanced

himself from his master by leaning more towards a left-wing political perspective. The materialist

conception of history stands as the core of his thought.

From the perspective of the hermeneutics of suspicion, Marx's philosophical thought can

be interpreted through its foundation in historical materialism. Marx asserted that "Consciousness

can never be anything else than conscious being, and the being of men is their real life process"

(Marx & Engels, 1950, p. 25).

This suggests that real life determines consciousness, which is produced through real

individuals, their activities, and the living conditions both created and inherited. The concept of

alienation from labor is crucial for analyzing suspicion in Marx's thought. According to him, labor

is external to the worker, not part of their essence. In labor, the worker does not affirm themselves

but denies themselves; they feel outside of themselves. Although the worker creates products and

culture, this production does not belong to them. Marx illustrated this issue with an example: a

man who feels fulfilled at home with his family but not at work, where he produces the material

culture of society but does not identify with it, believing his true happiness lies in activities

unrelated to his labor.

Marx's Marxist critique of the capitalist system also examines how the product of labor

becomes a commodity within an economic and social structure boundless in commodity

production. Social structure and economic interests shape the perception of the world from

various perspectives (Strauss & Cropsey, 2020).

All political, economic, social, and religious considerations of Marx can be interpreted

through the philosophy of suspicion. The economic and social formation of any historical and

geographical context is determined by the superstructure, which includes the set of ideas and

institutions governing that context, with the State being the principal one. These superstructures,

along with economic interests and capitalist production systems, determine ideology, which is

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 320

nothing more than false consciousness created from what each individual perceives based on their

social level (Marx, 1975).

Ideology, religion, and philosophy—all of humanity's cultural production apparatus—

respond to the ruling class, and it is through these productions that they maintain their privileged

position. Returning to Marx's fundamental concepts, it is evident that under the philosophy of

suspicion, the dialectical method for explaining historical materialism does not describe history

as the development of spirit, as Hegel posits, but as class struggle, according to Marx.

The relentless advancement of positivism eliminates any "negative" feelings such as

anger or sadness, and in the absence of these feelings, the human being becomes a mechanical

entity simply performing their work (Han, 2015). Byung-Chul Han argues that the unstoppable

model of the capitalist system has generated an incapacity in human beings to question their

principles and ideology, turning society into a "performance machine" (Han, 2015).

False consciousness, created from the superstructure, dominant ideology, and processes

and models of production, permeates all strata of society. The interpretation of the world, needs,

and ideology of a means of production owner differs significantly from that of their employee.

Economic, academic, social aspirations, electoral preferences, and sentimental interests are

influenced by the dominant social structure and economic interests.

Philosophy of Suspicion in Nietzsche

Nietzsche's famous assertion, "God is dead" (Nietzsche, 1882, p.137), encapsulates a

central aspect of his philosophical thought that permeates his entire work. With the advent of the

Enlightenment, numerous cultural constructs of Western society, particularly those centered on

religion and the idea of God as a supreme being, began to crumble. Postmodernity emerges as a

result of this delegitimization, with Nietzsche standing out as one of its earliest and most

influential thinkers (Vásquez, 2011). According to Gadamer (1997), Nietzsche inaugurated a

radical suspicion, positioning himself at an intersection between ideological criticism and

psychoanalysis.

The core of Nietzsche's thought lies in the idea that human beings are an unfinished work

and that their true greatness lies in the continuous process of self-completion. Nietzsche argues

that humans are not an end in themselves but a bridge to a higher state (Nietzsche, 1885). This

underscores the need to liberate oneself from the constraints imposed by "the tribe" and to not be

absorbed individually by social conventions (Nietzsche, 1885).

To understand Nietzsche's conception of suspicion, it is essential to examine the concepts

of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. These terms refer to Apollo, the Greek god of virtue, and

Dionysus, the god of pleasure, wine, and worldly life. Nietzsche argues that Western society has

been overly hasty in condemning the Dionysian position, especially under the influence of

religion and Christian morality, which he considers a mistake (Drivet, 2016).

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 321

Instead of outright rejecting the Apollonian perspective, Nietzsche advocates for a

balance between both. In his work "Beyond Good and Evil" (Nietzsche, 1972), he suggests that

morality must transcend these basic categories of ethics, proposing that each individual take

responsibility for their own ethics and moral behavior, rather than accepting society's imposed

definitions of good and evil.

Nietzsche's suspicion focuses on the idea that Western civilization's values condition and

limit human perception and intelligence (Tell, 2022). Western civilization is shackled to a series

of idols, constructs that can arise in any area of life and become paradigms or systems of conduct

(Albert, 2021). These idols are not limited to human figures; they also include concepts such as

the good and the bad, defined by society. Nietzsche argues that living according to these idols is

living in a false consciousness.

The solution lies in adopting nihilism and disentangling oneself from these established

precepts, allowing each individual to live according to their own needs.

It is important to note that Nietzsche critiqued the religion of his time, particularly

Christianity, due to the corruption he observed within it. However, he should not be categorized

as an "anti-Christian," as in many of his works he praises the figure of Christ. His critique is more

directed towards the church as an institution and, in a broader sense, towards the moral system.

According to Nietzsche, morals were created by individuals, not by herds, and the acceptance of

these historical values has led to a lack of authentic individuals today (Strauss & Cropsey, 2020).

The full realization of human beings, according to Nietzsche, requires fully exercising

what he calls the "will to power" (Albert, 2021). Each individual must motivate and direct their

own steps, but Western civilization has suppressed this will, leaving an inevitable mark. The

acceptance and imposition without resistance of values and moral systems have stifled authentic

will to power. While Nietzsche's proposal may seem utopian, as a society where each individual

exercises their will could lead to dispersion, the underlying suspicion is that any moral or rule

system is the result of someone's will to power, legitimizing their perspective as correct (Han,

2020).

Nietzsche proposes that overcoming human nature is achieved through a process of

transformation culminating in what he calls the "Übermensch" (Overman or Superman). This is

the individual who has transcended their human condition, is no longer one of the herd, and is not

governed by legitimized social precepts. Nietzsche criticizes the moral false consciousness that

leads humans to decadence; the values imposed by the powerful in each historical context only

serve to oppress society, which will only emancipate itself when it transcends good and evil.

Philosophy of Suspicion in Freud

The theories formulated by Sigmund Freud in the fields of psychology and

psychoanalysis laid the foundations of modern psychology. Similar to the contributions of Marx

and Nietzsche, Freud's extensive work suggests the existence of falsehood, deception, and false

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 322

consciousness, viewing the task of freeing oneself from this deception through philosophical ideas

as emancipatory (Bustamante, 2017). According to Leibniz's proposal, descriptive and analytical

psychology focused on human beings and their historical development, paying special attention

to people's inner lives (Dilthey, 1949).

Among the preliminary theories to Freud's conception of the unconscious, the concepts

of Id, Ego, and Superego stand out as fundamental in his psychoanalytic work. The Id represents

the psychic expression of drives and desires. The Ego acts as a mediator, reconciling the

normative and coercive demands of the Superego with the demands of reality, and the Id's

interests in satisfying unconscious desires. The Superego, on the other hand, refers to the moral

instance that evaluates and judges the Ego's activity (Escobar, 2010).

In the realm of psychological analysis related to the unconscious, Freud identified three

fundamental elements. Firstly, repression, which involves suppressing actions that the individual

decides not to perform due to fear of negative interpretation by society. This repression is crucial

for the functioning of the unconscious. Secondly, projections, which are actions directed towards

one object when they are actually intended for another entity; these projections can originate from

both love and hate, according to Freud. Finally, inhibitions, which are actions not carried out due

to fear of possible negative consequences. These three elements constitute the core of the

unconscious (Freud, 1915).

It is also necessary to consider the instincts present in human existence: the life instinct

(Eros) and the death instinct (Thanatos). Eros acts as a vital force that seeks the preservation of

the human being, and Freud (1915) argued that Eros was strongly influenced by sexuality, as

sexual relations have the capacity to create new life. Thanatos, on the other hand, represents the

consciousness of death, with the human being being the only living creature conscious of their

own mortality, generating fear of the inevitable end. Human life is thus under the influence of

these two instincts: the struggle to stay alive and the acceptance of the inevitable conclusion of

existence.

Suspicion in Freud is total, encompassing not only the individual but all culture, including

religious systems and art (Ricoeur, 2003). In relation to the philosophy of suspicion, Freud himself

pointed out that our consciousness and interpretation of the world are blinded by certain factors:

"We cannot elude the impression that man often applies false standards in his judgments, for while

he longs for and admires power, success, and wealth in himself and others, he despises the genuine

values that life offers him" (Freud, 1966, p.57).

Freud is considered a master of suspicion because psychoanalysis interprets the human

being and cultural productions from the unconscious, confronting the latent and the manifest, and

with human desire progressing in a world full of cultural prohibitions and restrictions

(Bustamante, 2017). Freudian suspicion focuses on the unconscious, whose repressions and

inhibitions determine our perception of the world. We see the world according to the conditions

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 323

of our unconscious, which influences individually how we contemplate, assimilate, perceive, and

appreciate reality. The human being is divided between their conscious and unconscious, between

their desire and reality, and between Eros and Thanatos.

Convergences of the philosophy of suspicion among Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud: The

three main thinkers of suspicion—Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud—share

the idea that human consciousness is, in reality, a false consciousness. This conception is based

on the premise that there are countless variables in a person's life that prevent them from seeing

the world as it is. Although each approaches false consciousness from different perspectives, their

theories converge in criticizing the idea of God.

In their analyses of false consciousness, these thinkers concurred in their atheism and in

the view that the idea of God is a construction designed to deceive society, distancing it from

rationality and reality. Marx, for example, described religion as "the sigh of the oppressed

creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the

people" (Marx, 2010, p. 7-8). This statement is framed within his theory of historical materialism,

which rejects the idea of God.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, argued that religions only exert influence over weak

individuals. His proclamation of the "death of God" symbolizes the end of traditional values and

the opportunity to create a new system of values. For Nietzsche, the death of God is a necessary

step towards moral autonomy and individual overcoming.

Freud, in his work from 1907, considered religion as a universal and pathological

neurosis. According to Freud, religion is a manifestation of unconscious desires and conflicts, and

its persistence in humanity reflects a collective emotional immaturity.

In this sense, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, although from different approaches, share the

view that the idea of God is a deception that perpetuates false consciousness, preventing people

from achieving a true and rational understanding of reality. Their critique of religion is based on

the belief that humanity's emancipation lies in abandoning these illusory constructions.

CONCLUSIONS

The philosophy of suspicion represents a fundamental shift in conceptions of reality and

consciousness. Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud employ diverse philosophical

tools, such as Descartes' Cartesian ideas, Spinoza's propositions, Kantian conceptions of reality,

and Hegel's absolute idealism, to explore the existence of false consciousness and its impact on

the perception of the world.

This approach argues that there is no objective and absolute reality that can be interpreted

in a unique and universal manner. Rather, each individual experiences and perceives the world

through the unique filter of their historical background, cultural context, and personality. The

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 324

philosophy of suspicion contends that crucial aspects of human life, such as political ideology,

class consciousness, economic aspirations, religious convictions, sexuality, and personal desires,

are shaped by influences that surpass individual discernment.

Unlike Kant's view of the "thing-in-itself," which posits an objective reality independent

of human perception, the philosophy of suspicion questions the very existence of this "thing-in-

itself." According to this approach, the interpretation of reality is inevitably conditioned by

external, social, cultural, and historical influences that shape our understanding of the world.

The value of this type of analysis lies not only in exposing underlying social complexities

and issues but also in promoting critical awareness of the inherent falseness in individual

perception. Recognizing that our worldviews are influenced and distorted by imposed and learned

conceptions from various aspects of human life is crucial for fostering a more empathetic and

understanding society.

Ultimately, understanding that there is no absolute truth or ideal world brings us closer to

the visions proposed by the masters of suspicion. These visions invite deep reflection on the nature

of our perceptions and beliefs, paving the way towards more inclusive societies based on mutual

understanding.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 325

REFERENCES

Bell, M. (2022). Philosophical dialogue between 'suspicion' and 'attestation': a hermeneutical

source transversal to the humanities. Cuadernos de filosofía latinoamericana, 43(127),

140-165.

Cropsey, J., & Strauss, L. (2020). History of political philosophy. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura

Económico.

De Spinoza, B. (1663). Principles of Descartes' philosophy demonstrated according to the

geometric method. Trotta.

Descartes, R. (2014). Discourse on the Method. Buenos Aires: Longseller.

Dilthey, W. (1949). History of Philosophy. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económico.

Escobar, C. (2010). Freud's unconscious and its destinies. Tempo Psicanalítico, 403-424. ISSN

0101-4838.

Foucault, M. (1964). Nietzsche, Freud, Marx. Anagrama.

Franceschi, A. (1929). Notes on the concept of reality. Revista Humanidades, 155(164).

Freud, S. (1907). Obsessive acts and religious practices.

Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Public domain book.

Freud, S. (1966). Civilization and its discontents. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Gadamer, H. (1997). The hermeneutics of suspicion. In G. Aranzueque (Ed.), Horizons of

narrative: Readings and conversations with Paul Ricoeur (pp. 127-136). UAM Ediciones.

Gatica, A., González, R., Pérez, H., Velarde, C., Veleva, M., & Zeinal, M. (2018). Philosophy

and its current problems. Buenos Aires.

Guerra, S. (n.d.). Descartes' theory of knowledge.

Han, B.-C. (2015). The society of fatigue. Berlin: Herder Editorial.

Han, B.-C. (2020). On power. Barcelona: Herder Ediciones.

Hegel, G. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económico.

Herbert, A. (2016). Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis. Anuario de Investigaciones Universidad

de Buenos Aires, 67(73).

Kant, I. (1757). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals.

Marx, K. (1888). Theses on Feuerbach.

Marx, K. (1975). Das Kapital, Volume I. Siglo XXI Ediciones.

Marx, K. (1968). Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Buenos Aires: Biblioteca Nueva.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1932). The German ideology. Vision Edition.

Nietzsche, F. (1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Parra, A. (2022). Hegelian conception of actual reality and the critique of metaphysics. Revista

Eidos.

Ricoeur, P. (1965). Freud: An interpretation of culture. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 326

Ricoeur, P. (2003). The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics. Buenos Aires: Fondo

de Cultura Económico.

Vásquez, A. (2011). Postmodernity: New regime of truth, metaphysical violence, and end of

metanarratives. Nómadas. Critical Journal of Social and Juridical Sciences, 29(1).