The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner (most read books txt) π
Those not self-conscious and self-willed are constantly acting from self-interested motives, but clothing these in various garbs. Watch those people closely in the light of Stirner's teaching, and they seem to be hypocrites, they have so many good moral and religious plans of which self-interest is at the end and bottom; but they, we may believe, do not know that this is more than a coincidence.
In Stirner we have the philosophical foundation for political liberty. His interest in the practical development of egoism to the dissolution of the State and the union of free men is clear and pronounced, and harmonizes perfectly with the economic philosophy of Josiah Warren. Allowing for difference of temperament and language, there is a substantial agreement between Stirner and Proudhon. Each would be free, and sees in every increase of the number of free people and their intelligence an a
Read free book Β«The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner (most read books txt) πΒ» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Max Stirner
- Performer: -
Read book online Β«The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner (most read books txt) πΒ». Author - Max Stirner
were seeking the truth, what did your heart then long for? For your master!
You did not aspire to your might, but to a Mighty One, and wanted to exalt a
Mighty One ("Exalt ye the Lord our God!"). The truth, my dear Pilate, is --
the Lord, and all who seek the truth are seeking and praising the Lord. Where
does the Lord exist? Where else but in your head? He is only spirit, and,
wherever you believe you really see him, there he is a -- ghost; for the Lord
is merely something that is thought of, and it was only the Christian pains
and agony to make the invisible visible, the spiritual corporeal, that
generated the ghost and was the frightful misery of the belief in ghosts.
As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you
are a -- servant, a -- religious man. You alone are the truth, or rather,
you are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before you. You too do
assuredly ask about the truth, you too do assuredly "criticize," but you do
not ask about a "higher truth" -- to wit, one that should be higher than you
-- nor criticize according to the criterion of such a truth. You address
yourself to thoughts and notions, as you do to the appearances of things, only
for the purpose of making them palatable to you, enjoyable to you, and your
own: you want only to subdue them and become their owner, you want to orient
yourself and feel at home in them, and you find them true, or see them in
their true light, when they can no longer slip away from you, no longer have
any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they are right for you, when
they are your property. If afterward they become heavier again, if they
wriggle themselves out of your power again, then that is just their untruth --
to wit, your impotence. Your impotence is their power, your humility their
exaltation. Their truth, therefore, is you, or is the nothing which you are
for them and in which they dissolve: their truth is their nothingness.
Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they
then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their
sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said "the
truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins
the victory," etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my
means to the victory, like the sword ("the sword of truth"). The truth is
dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is
dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive -- to
wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables
and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.
Objects are to me only material that I use up. Wherever I put my hand I grasp
a truth, which I trim for myself. The truth is certain to me, and I do not
need to long after it. To do the truth a service is in no case my intent; it
is to me only a nourishment for my thinking head, as potatoes are for my
digesting stomach, or as a friend is for my social heart. As long as I have
the humor and force for thinking, every truth serves me only for me to work it
up according to my powers. As reality or worldliness is "vain and a thing of
naught" for Christians, so is the truth for me. It exists, exactly as much as
the things of this world go on existing although the Christian has proved
their nothingness; but it is vain, because it has its value not in itself
but in me. Of itself it is valueless. The truth is a -- creature.
As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth's
surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still
ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight
in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your
newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for
my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used
for their demands.
All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I
should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with. For me there is
no truth, for nothing is more than I! Not even my essence, not even the
essence of man, is more than I! than I, this "drop in the bucket," this
"insignificant man"!
You believe that you have done the utmost when you boldly assert that, because
every time has its own truth, there is no "absolute truth." Why, with this you
nevertheless still leave to each time its truth, and thus you quite genuinely
create an "absolute truth," a truth that no time lacks, because every time,
however its truth may be, still has a "truth."
Is it meant only that people have been thinking in every time, and so have had
thoughts or truths, and that in the subsequent time these were other than they
were in the earlier? No, the word is to be that every time had its "truth of
faith"; and in fact none has yet appeared in which a "higher truth" has not
been recognized, a truth that people believed they must subject themselves to
as "highness and majesty."
Every truth of a time is its fixed idea, and, if people later found another
truth, this always happened only because they sought for another; they only
reformed the folly and put a modern dress on it. For they did want -- who
would dare doubt their justification for this? -- they wanted to be "inspired
by an idea." They wanted to be dominated -- possessed, by a thought! The
most modern ruler of this kind is "our essence," or "man."
For all free criticism a thought was the criterion; for own criticism I am, I
the unspeakable, and so not the merely thought-of; for what is merely thought
of is always speakable, because word and thought coincide. That is true which
is mine, untrue that whose own I am; true, e. g. the union; untrue, the
State and society. "Free and true" criticism takes care for the consistent
dominion of a thought, an idea, a spirit; "own" criticism, for nothing but my
self-enjoyment. But in this the latter is in fact -- and we will not spare
it this "ignominy"! -- like the bestial criticism of instinct. I, like the
criticizing beast, am concerned only for myself, not "for the cause." I am
the criterion of truth, but I am not an idea, but more than idea, e. g.,
unutterable. My criticism is not a "free" criticism, not free from me, and
not "servile," not in the service of an idea, but an own criticism.
True or human criticism makes out only whether something is suitable to man,
to the true man; but by own criticism you ascertain whether it is suitable to
you.
Free criticism busies itself with ideas, and therefore is always
theoretical. However it may rage against ideas, it still does not get clear of
them. It pitches into the ghosts, but it can do this only as it holds them to
be ghosts. The ideas it has to do with do not fully disappear; the morning
breeze of a new day does not scare them away.
The critic may indeed come to ataraxia before ideas, but he never gets rid
of them; i.e. he will never comprehend that above the bodily man there
does not exist something higher -- to wit, liberty, his humanity, etc. He
always has a "calling" of man still left, "humanity." And this idea of
humanity remains unrealized, just because it is an "idea" and is to remain
such.
If, on the other hand, I grasp the idea as my idea, then it is already
realized, because I am its reality; its reality consists in the fact that I,
the bodily, have it.
They say, the idea of liberty realizes itself in the history of the world. The
reverse is the case; this idea is real as a man thinks it, and it is real in
the measure in which it is idea, i. e. in which I think it or have it. It
is not the idea of liberty that develops itself, but men develop themselves,
and, of course, in this self-development develop their thinking too.
In short, the critic is not yet owner, because he still fights with ideas as
with powerful aliens -- as the Christian is not owner of his "bad desires" so
long as he has to combat them; for him who contends against vice, vice
exists.
Criticism remains stuck fast in the "freedom of knowing," the freedom of the
spirit, and the spirit gains its proper freedom when it fills itself with the
pure, true idea; this is the freedom of thinking, which cannot be without
thoughts.
Criticism smites one idea only by another, e. g. that of privilege by that
of manhood, or that of egoism by that of unselfishness.
In general, the beginning of Christianity comes on the stage again in its
critical end, egoism being combated here as there. I am not to make myself
(the individual) count, but the idea, the general.
Why, warfare of the priesthood with egoism, of the spiritually minded with
the worldly-minded, constitutes the substance of all Christian history. In the
newest criticism this war only becomes all-embracing, fanaticism complete.
Indeed, neither can it pass away till it passes thus, after it has had its
life and its rage out.
Whether what I think and do is Christian, what do I care? Whether it is human,
liberal, humane, whether unhuman, illiberal, inhuman, what do I ask about
that? If only it accomplishes what I want, if only I satisfy myself in it,
then overlay it with predicates as you will; it is all alike to me.
Perhaps I too, in the very next moment, defend myself against my former
thoughts; I too am likely to change suddenly my mode of action; but not on
account of its not corresponding to Christianity, not on account of its
running counter to the eternal rights of man, not on account of its affronting
the idea of mankind, humanity, and humanitarianism, but -- because I am no
longer all in it, because it no longer furnishes me any full enjoyment,
because I doubt the earlier thought or no longer please myself in the mode of
action just now practiced. As the world as
Comments (0)