Of course Marx and Russell are radically different on certain aspects of materialism in the physical world. Indeed, Russell spent volumes on taking issue with various aspects of Marx's dialectical materialism (Ironside, 1996, p. 26). Russell comes from the perspective of Fabian Socialism where change can be gradual. Marx is a complete revolutionary who believes that change can only come from a violent overthrow of the present order. For Russell, Such phenomenon under closer scrutiny are filled with very many contradictions. The quest for certainty has to come from present experiences where doubts and personal experiences and those of others that leads directly to the philosophical problem of the real and the unreal. The quest is to know what objects are, and what they seam to be.

What exists for them is the material world. To concentrate on metaphysics is a waste of time. Indeed, we material beings have very little time and having to chomp on the divine ether burns up precious intellectual synapses and cranial processing. Materialism in all of its historical, material and cultural permutations is the best that we can do with our limited physicality. Indeed, we build upon our physicality and via our intellect can leapfrog into considerations of things that are much bigger than us. Herein lies the difference in between philosophers like Descartes and Russell. In effect, Descartes has a monist ontology. While he could not admit it fully due to the power of Catholic Church in France (even though the Gallic Church had a lot of autonomy), he really was happier with the monist idea that despite differences in religion, philosophy and physicality, there is still one prime mover. This unites a variety of different religious, philosophy, political and other views into a more harmonious construction of the world. Even Lorraine Code's philosophical that the sex of a knower is epistemologically significant could be aided if one would inject...

Indeed, amongst a lot of New Age feminists, they do just this to find what they feel to be the most excellent and complete feminism.
Interestingly, for this author, Descartes has an enduring appeal. He represents a time at the very beginning of the modern age where the old spiritual values had not yet died out. As always, if one can have the best of both (or all worlds), they are infinitely better off. For his time, spirituality was important in materialistic philosophy. Perhaps in this age, we need to return to this position in the interest of our own survival. George Berkley would also be part of this with his immaterialism (or subjective realism) where he contended that individuals could only know directly the sensations and ideas of objects but not abstractions. For him, ideas are dependent upon being perceived for existence itself. Both Descartes and Berkley could not totally abandon God. They both needed him for the inductive leap.

The Cartesian Meditations are not antithetical to this idea. Here, the systematic reflection on and analysis of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness are in the first person. They have to be experienced personally. While Husserl does not mention God, he does not preclude the idea.

The "God thing" of the lack of omnipresence and omnipotence in the human world almost dictates the divine in the philosophical equation. In this way, Code and Russell are definitely not in keeping with the others.

Works Cited:

Huitt, William G. Piaget Theory of Cognitive Development. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html.

Ironside, Philip. (1996). The social and political thought of bertrand russell: the development of an aristocratic liberalism (ideas in context) . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.