Human beings are social in nature and depend on each other to truly thrive. Modern life, however, seems to run counter to the conditions necessary for humanity's success, forcing members of society into alienation in the illusion of a thriving and collaborative social system. When it comes to ideological concepts and derived meanings, such things are social in their essence and are strongly influenced by the parameters of the society from which they come: such ideas have informed the questions of philosophers and political theorists in both the post-Enlightenment past and the next present. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to Stanley Cavell in Must We Mean What We Say?, part of this alienation is due to the establishment of general norms within the language that are used in modern life. Modern conversation has slowly turned into movements, words spoken without concern for their implications. Too often, topics are treated too objectively with little recognition of context or history –– the latter of which, Cavell argues, can include “one's past, what is past, or what has passed, within itself” (Cavell XIX). . Relying on the concepts evoked by words has distracted from consideration of their true purpose or purpose. While Karl Marx also questions the apparent alienation present in modern life, Marx identifies the source to be rooted in the nature of production relations. These relationships define the economic structure of a society and from this basis a political structure develops. During the 19th century, the distinction between the working class and its exploiters became apparent, a shift marked by capitalism fueled by industrialization. The position of the worker became akin to a cog in a wheel, their mechanistic role fostering alienation to exist beyond classes, extending to the individual self. By using physical labor to create commodities for consumption in capitalist society, workers' bodies have also become commodities, their physical being and skills transformed into objects to be exchanged for a nominal wage. Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto establishes a basic superstructure distinction to make clear the idea that government and laws are not natural events, but simply manifestations of social realities dominated by class interests. Reforms from the grassroots are essential to making impactful changes within the superstructure, which is why economic (base) and political (superstructure) revolution go hand in hand to combat the alienation that is a consequence of stratified social classes. Marx's model of the basic superstructure extends beyond economic and political practices to individual beings themselves. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (Marx 160) Leveling class disparities would have a direct impact on the social position of individuals in the outside world. It is the external environment that serves as the base that dictates the superstructure that is their awareness and how they perceive things. By establishing the conditions of the external world integral to one's mental state, Marx introduces a clear contradiction with traditional Cartesian individualist thinking. In the Sixth Meditation of his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes establishes that he has a “clear and distinct idea” of himself that he cannot doubt, while his physical being is something that could “possibly” exist. Based on these premises, he concludes that the mind has sovereignty overexternal world, existing in a manner “entirely and absolutely distinct from the [body.” (Descartes 1-27) Both Cavell and Marx argue that there is no sovereignty of the mind, for the things that subsist in the mind – thoughts, values, opinions – are intangible concepts established by the nature of social order and structures. Talking is necessary for learning, and learning is “essential to understanding what science” – or any subject – “is” (Cavell XVIII). Marx describes language as “practical consciousness” (Marx 173), the presence of which confirms that the mind is a “social product.” (Marx 174) Descartes actually acknowledges the use of language in the development of his work, but expresses concern about the imposition of words and how he is "almost deceived by the terms of ordinary language." However, Cavell also addresses questions regarding the “complexity of assertions” (Cavell 12) invented by vocabulary, particularly that of the vocabulary used in modern philosophy, being estranged from meaning. While Descartes uses linguistic discrepancies to question and almost reject the validity of language and shift all attention to internal processes, Cavell proposes greater social interaction through conversation as a remedy. The conversation in question, however, is much more thoughtful and in-depth than the imitative language used by most individuals in everyday life. It requires knowing the implicatures of a dialogue and the hidden meanings of words beyond their literal sense. “Intimate understanding is implicit understanding” (Cavell 12), which requires more effort and knowledge than understanding derived simply from the surface level. By integrating this intensity and intimacy into speaking a language, people are able to form relationships with each other. In doing so, people not only mitigate the sense of alienation so prevalent in modern life, but also develop a better understanding of the nature of ideas and ethics, as well as the role they play in everyday life. By participating in discussion, people are able to work collaboratively toward solid definitions for conceptually controversial topics that are both “familiar and foreign” (Cavell XIX), such as knowledge, morality, or justice. For Cavell, the answer as to what the true essence of these themes is does not come from an established place of high enlightenment, but rather from the depths of the ordinary, where seemingly mundane things are elevated, given attention and importance in an effort to develop a meaningful understanding of everyday life. Marx takes a different approach to solving the problem of alienation in modern life, but the source of the solution is similar: impactful change must begin with the common man, not with those in any particular economic or political position energy. A communist revolution to overthrow the existing capitalist system, carried out by the working class proletariat, would drastically change the economic base on which the superstructure of political and social systems depends. All people would be united under communist organization, no longer allowing alienation to even exist as a viable situation, and communism would transform all “existing conditions into conditions of unity.” (Marx 189) However, an externality of the camaraderie up to this point between all members of society is that each individual is “[stripped] of his natural character,” reduced exclusively to the “individual as a person,” regardless of any "accidental" thing. or irrelevant in themselves, in order to “[submit] them to the power of united individuals.” (Marx 189) In gaining a stable place and a sense of belonging in the world, one loses everything.