đž Archived View for library.inu.red âş file âş morten-blaabjerg-the-straitjacket-of-humanity.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:36:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄď¸ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Straitjacket of Humanity Author: Morten Blaabjerg Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: egoism, Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Max Stirner, Non Serviam, philosophy, The Matrix Source: Retrieved 06/18/2022 from https://web.archive.org/web/20061122104323/http://www.nonserviam.com/magazine/issues/16.html
In the american sci-fi blockbuster The Matrix[1], the young hacker Neo
is faced with a choice. To succumb to an oblivious existence as clerk in
a multinational software firm, in what he himself considers ârealityâ,
or realize that his reality is an illusion; a complex system of digital,
sensible delusions. A perfect, yet artificial simulation of the world as
we know it, created with the sole purpose of enslaving the human race.
The rebel leader Morpheus explains: There has been a devastating war
between man and AI controlled machines. The machines invented âthe
matrixâ in order to feed on the vast energy created by human bodies.
Thereâs a small group of partisans however, who has realized the true
condition of things and is fighting the system. The prophecy tells that
someday one will be born inside the system who is able to command the
structure of âthe matrixâ. Morpheus believes that Neo is âThe Oneâ.
Neo faces a choice: On one hand, his comfortable, but ultimately
frustrated life as an obedient taxpayer in society. On the other; a
dangerous existence as a digital freedom fighter, âThe Oneâ, a unique
individual, mentally struggling to break down the power which habitual
perceptions and concepts have taken over men.
Should he choose the red pill, he will be thrown right out in the open,
shocking revelation of the fraud. If he takes the blue pill, he will be
sent right back to his enslaved, but safe, oblivious existence. Neo
chooses the red pill, and consequently the film depicts his struggle to
overcome the mental barriers of his self and break down the illusion
that has been haunting him his whole life. The thing is, that only when
he admits to the illusion and sees that the world is only what he can
make of it, can he take action. The film takes shape as a breathless
tour de force of visually stunning action sequences. The young hero is
being chased by the guards of âthe matrixâ; deadly computer programs
visually represented by a secret police, until finally he has grown
sufficiently in his mind to deal with the artificial reality and its
enforcers. By then, he is able to do anything. He is in fact able to
accomplish the impossible.
The interesting thing is that this development is expressed visually as
well as in the filmâs content. âSome rules can be bent, others brokenâ,
as Morpheus puts it to Neo at one point, his name bearing several
references, to the ancient Greek god of sleep, as well as the English
word âmorphâ, a computer slang reference to some kind of indefinite
change, or âbendingâ. And it shows. The main characters can instantly
âdownloadâ weapons or definite skills, and likewise, if they are
mentally capable, they can âbendâ the visual representations of their
actions. Scenes or characters can instantly change and turn out to be
something else than what they seem to be. While the popcorn audience
gets all the action they anticipated, and a little more, the academics
are in for a ride in the philosophical roller coaster. The Matrix
somehow manages to question just about everything we usually take for
granted, and the philosophical logic is largely intact. In this film the
conflict between man and machine becomes an existentialist battle which
pits the single, unique individual against suppressing, habitual
conceptions of the world as a community of plight and duty.
The proclaimed anarchist band Rage Against The Machine concludes the
film with the song âWake Upâ. And exactly this is what the individual
has to do. The individual must shake off the suppressing concepts of
society in order to enable himself to act freely. To do this means
acting against authority; turning against all concepts and institutions
of law, state, society, and the guardians of these institutions, by all
necessary means.
One can only wonder how it has come so far that a commercial Hollywood
production like The Matrix not only surfaces such openly anarchist
views, but in addition displays such a powerful argument, visually as
well as philosophically. But the thoughts and arguments of the Matrix
are not new. In the following Iâll try and shed some light on the
philosophical heritage in which The Matrix has its roots.
The German philosopher Max Stirner (1806â1856) proposes much the same
anti-authoritarian and individualist approach to reality as The Matrix.
In contrast to some of the political anarchists of his time, for whom
revolution was the breaking point from which events and arrangements of
society were then to be taken, Stirnerâs anarchism is about
self-realization all the way. His greatest and only work Der Einzige und
sein Eigentum[2] has as its focal point that the individualâs
self-realization begins with the realization that reality consists of
âemptyâ conceptsâconcepts which the subjective individual is left to
fill out. Only when one realizes that law, right, morality, religion,
etc. are nothing other than artificial concepts, and not holy
authorities to be obeyed, can one act freely.
The consequence of this is first and foremost a radical political
anarchism. For how can I realize this in a society which is based
precisely on the individualâs duty to the community, and which asks
unquestioned obedience to the institutions of law, morality and society?
The political passion and wit of Stirnerâs anarchism travels far beyond
the trenches of time, and reaches the modern reader without much
difficulty. To fully appreciate Stirnerâs philosophical argument,
however, is to understand his philosophical and historical context.
Platoâs theory of ideas, Hegelâs dialectics, and Stirnerâs contemporary
Feuerbachâs critique of religion, all contain important entries to
Stirnerâs philosophy.
Stirner and Feuerbach belonged to the inner circle of the so-called
Young Hegelians, also referred to as the Left Hegelians. Eager
subscribers to Hegelâs dialectical method, the Young Hegelians applied a
dialectical approach to Hegelâs own conclusions, which led to not only
new, politically more radical and disturbing conclusions than Hegelâs
own, but also to internal dispute and disruption. The publishing of
Stirnerâs Der Einzige gave rise to a philosophical argument between
Stirner and his friend and colleague with the Left Hegelians, Ludwig
Feuerbach,[3] which I will use here to try to shed light on some of the
points of dispute in Stirnerâs philosophy.
It all begins with Platoâs theory of ideas. This is not a chair. It is
the idea of a chair. A horse is not just a horse. It only becomes a
horse with the idea of what makes a horse a horse. The things
surrounding us, the world around us, only exist by the virtue of ideas,
of concepts. In other words, one could say, reality is conditioned by
our concepts of reality.
With this theory, Plato thought to have gained an entry to the truth.
The ideas behind the sensible world, behind reality, for him constituted
a possible, objective truth, which in contrast to the sensible world was
unchangeable and ideal. The ideas exist independently of their physical
objects. Whereas the concrete, living horse is born, lives and dies,
thus being transitory and changeable, the idea of horse exists forever.
The ideas, therefore, exist independently, they are of an eternal and
perfect nature.
And thus was the starting signal given for seeking the ideal. Following
Platoâs thinking, it was actually possible to argue, that political
reality should seek towards an ideal of âthe good societyâ, for
instance. The hectic race for âthe goodâ and âthe trueâ could begin. By
no means would it become as easy as it sounded.
With Christianity the ideal became divine. The unconditioned,
independently existent truth became God. The Christian church obtained a
monopoly on the truth. Only with the reformation of the 1500s did the
discussion catch fire. Could one really trust the truth of the church?
As it turned out, there were different opinions about this; what was the
right faith, the right truth. The discussions led to endless executions
of heretics, and to wars, from which our hands are still soaked in
blood. But Christianity first and foremost put its fingerprints in
virtue of a Christian dualism; a splitting between good and evil, truth
before falseness, spirit over body.
The formation of strong, sovereign national states eventually succeeded
in establishing some sort of religious tolerance. The arena now became
political. Revolutions followed, exchanging kings with parliaments.
Enlightenment, science, and reason led to ever new opportunities for
development and progress, embraced by capitalism and ideology. Which
gave birth to the social sciences and to modern philosophy. And thus,
Hegel.[4]
With Hegelâs influential, yet much debated dialectical system, thereâs a
decisive break with Christian dualism. Or it was supposed to be. On one
hand, Hegel reckons with the notion of a definite, eternal truth within
our reach. On the other, he believes to have found precisely the truth
of everything.
âThe dialectical method is the philosophical dialogue, by which
discussion of opposing points leads towards a more true position. With
Hegel, the theoretical conversation as well as the concrete historical
process, is said to be of a dialectical nature. In theory, the
dialectical aspect manifests itself by concepts and positions reaching
out of themselves, towards more adequate positions, and in practice, in
that the different transcendental horizons of understanding develop
themselves towards their completion in the state. (...)
Hegel conceives the driving force in the reflectory process of formation
as a striving towards abolishing the defects of the fundamental concepts
that prevail. The reflection is the driving force, because it is
negating. It tracks down the âdefectsâ and by this creates a desire to
abolish the shortcomings.â[5]
In Skirbekk and Gilje it is furthermore said that Hegelâs dialectical
method, in contrast to empirical observation or deductive analysis,
where assumed âlawsâ or given truths are only to be âfoundâ or
ârealizedâ, is based on the case itself. It is the shortcomings of the
case itself, the negation, which shows the way to a new position. The
case in question can be anything from political institutions to
philosophical concepts, as well as completely trivial phenomena.
For Hegel, the âspirit of historyâ lifts the existing, inadequate truths
and concepts to better and more true positions. It does so by means of a
dialectical change, in other words by a negative criticism. The spirit
of history is an objective force, which steadily preserves the best of
the old, and by the negative critique contributes the new and better,
expanding our horizons of understanding and, accordingly, improving
societyâs institutions.
The break with dualism consists in that history will constantly seek to
unite the opposites into newer and more true syntheses. So there will be
no definite opposites. On the other hand, the dialectical process
constantly leads to new opposites, which by critique leads to new
syntheses etc.
This raises the question, if this new âdialectical truthâ, or âspirit of
historyâ so to speak, is open to a new dialectical critique, or is the
definitive, irreplaceable truth. There were to be different opinions
about this.
Hegel inspired several generations with his dialectical method. The
subscribers roughly divided themselves into two camps. The Old
Hegelians, who largely felt that with Hegelâs system, philosophy had
practically come to an end, and the Young Hegelians, who believed the
dialectics could be applied in a radical critique of especially the
church and the state. Where the Old Hegelians meant that Hegelâs spirit
of history was a guarantee for a politically stable, conservative tide
of affairs, which would only naturally strengthen the unshakeable
institutions of manâs society, the Young Hegelians used the dialectics
in their rebellion against those self-same institutions.
The key argument of the Left Hegelians is that this âspirit of historyâ
in itself leads to another kind of dualism, a new eternal truth, which
man has to obey as his master.
The 1830s witnessed the formation of that group of Young Hegelians in
Berlin, which referred to themselves as âDie Freienâ. The group met
regularly in Hippelâs Weinstube in Friedrichsstrasse, where problems of
a philosophical or theological nature were debated. The group consisted
primarily of Ludwig Feuerbach, David Strauss, the brothers Bruno and
Edgar Bauer, Arnold Ruge, and Max Stirner, and in the 1840s additionally
such famous characters as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They all
contributed in important ways to the development of German philosophy
after Hegel, but Iâll limit my interest here to just a few.
David Strauss sets the stage with Das Leben Jesu (1835), which rejects
the Christian notion of Christ being the son of God, and dialectically
expands the concept of Christ and the life of Jesus to metaphors of
mankind and the history of mankind. Yes, Jesus has been a historical and
exceptional person, but not the son of God. It is mankind itself, which
is the medium of God.
Strauss lays the foundation for Ludwig Feuerbachâs important work Das
Wesen des Christentums (1841).[6] Not only is Jesus a metaphor for
mankind. Mankind itself is God. Feuerbach first argues what separates
man from the animal, and finds that this is manâs self-conscience, as
opposed to the animalâs instinct. Through religion man mirrors his own
conscience. Recognizing this is also to recognize that the ideal
concepts which have been attributed God, really are attributes of man.
The expression âGod is loveâ leads to the expression âlove is divineâ,
and so it is with all those concepts attributed to God, like wisdom,
goodness, righteousness, truth, etc. Once transcended, says Feuerbach,
everybody can recognize these attributes as straight-forward aspects of
human life. God does no longer exist. But love is divine. And thus man
is divine. The consequence becomes a humanism of mankind, where man,
liberated from religion, truly can unfold his fellowship, his true
spirit. It is a grand, magnificent message.
The final battle stands with Stirnerâs Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
(1844), wherein Stirner applies Hegelâs dialectical method to breaking
down each and every âabsolute conceptâ which is outside and above the
unique individual, including Feuerbachâs âhumanityâ. Feuerbach creates
another dualism, says Stirner, wherein being a human demands exactly the
same obedience to morality, as under Christianity, just dressed a little
differently. What happens if one is âinhumanâ; an egoist who does not
will the better for mankind, but only for himself? He must be
disciplined, for he is not a real man. He does not live up to those
attributes Feuerbach is so busy attributing to him.
This, even though God does not exist for any other cause than his own,
and the sultan rules his people, i.e. his property, out of pure egoism,
and the same goes for humanity, which supposedly wills whatever is best
for humanity, and couldnât care less for anything else. Stirner has
learned the lesson, as he says, and accordingly, will also base his
position on himself alone.
The task for Stirnerâs unique individual now is to apply the sharp knife
of critique to the cutting down of absolute institutions and concepts.
By insight and might to claim these as his property, and recreate the
world in his own image. The dialectical critique of the absolute
concepts leads to a synthesis, wherein the individual self is the point
of departure, as well as the objective.
Ludwig Feuerbachâs The Essence Of Christianity is first and foremost a
break with the notion of God as a spiritual entity outside man. The
ideal concepts, which man relates to God, make him appear inferior. Man
stands in religion in an unequal relationship to God, and will remain
frustrated and unable to fulfill his true potential as long as God is
seen as a goal in himself. But the fact remains that these ideal
concepts attributed to God are just simple sensible phenomena, common to
every man. Once man sees that divine qualities such as love, goodness,
truth, etc. really are the essence of man, those qualities will be
liberated in manâs best interest. In the words of Frederick M. Gordon:
âThe regard which was formerly directed toward God, and consequently
denied to humanity, would be turned toward oneâs fellow human beings, in
whom is embodied the rich diversity of human capacities. Bonds of
solidarity would unite the human species in relations of democratic
respect.â[7]
In his argument, Feuerbach applies Hegelâs dialectical method in an
elegant manner. By the critique of religion, man breaks down the
suppressing and false conception of God as an entity in himself, and
then creates a synthesis on a higher level, in which he freely can
unfold his divine qualities.[8]
Feuerbach then differentiates between the limited individual and
mankind. The single individual is limited in several ways, and will seek
to liberate himself from these limitations.
âMan has his highest being, his God, in himself; not in himself as an
individual, but in his essential nature, his species. No individual is
an adequate representation of his species, but only the human individual
is conscious of the distinction between the species and the individual;
in the sense of this distinction lies the root of religion. The yearning
of man after something above himself is nothing else than the longing
after the perfect type of his nature, the yearning to be free from
himself, i.e., from the limits and defects of his individuality.â[9]
The only way in which the individual can become one with his perfect
being, now that God has been abolished, is through humanity. Feuerbachâs
humanism is consequently the grand message of the true brotherhood of
man, which can be accomplished, once man has shaken from his shoulders
the burden of religion.
For Max Stirner, however, this is not adequate. In The Ego and His Own,
he launches a sarcastic critique against Feuerbachâs humanism. To him,
it appears to be another religion in disguise.
âAt the entrance of the modern time stands the âGod-manâ. At its exit
will only the God in the God-man evaporate? And can the God-man really
die if only the God in him dies? They did not think of this question,
and thought they were through when in our days they brought to a
victorious end the work of the Illumination, the vanquishing of God:
they did not notice that Man has killed God in order to become nowââsole
God on highâ. The other world outside us is indeed brushed away, and the
great undertaking of the Illuminators completed; but the other world in
us has become a new heaven and calls us forth to renewed
heaven-storming: God has had to give place, yet not to us, but toâMan.
How can you believe that the God-man is dead before the Man in him,
besides the God, is dead?â[10]
Stirner strikes at Feuerbachâs two concepts âmanâ and âhumanityâ, which
he finds precisely as claustrophobic as the Christian concepts of God
and morality. The spooks of alienation, which Feuerbach was attempting
to deal with, appears in the guise of these ideal concepts of man.
Feuerbachâs attempt at defining the human essence, splits man into an
essential and unessential Self.
âWhat he says is that we had only mistaken our own essence, and
therefore looked for it in the other world, but that now, when we see
that God was only our human essence, we must recognize it again as ours
and move it back out of the other world into this. To God, who is
spirit, Feuerbach gives the name âOur Essenceâ. Can we put up with this,
that âOur Essenceâ is brought into opposition to usâthat we are split
into an essential and an unessential self? Do we not here with go back
into the dreary misery of seeing ourselves banished out of ourselves?
What have we gained, then, when for a variation we have transferred into
ourselves the divine outside us? Are we that which is in us? As little
as we are that which is outside us. (...) With the strength of despair
Feuerbach clutches at the total substance of Christianity, not to throw
it away, no, to drag it to himself, to draw it, the long yearned-for,
ever-distant, out of its heaven with a last effort, and keep it by him
forever.â[11]
Stirner terms the resultant predomination of ideal concepts, spooks.
Through its upbringing, the child learns to strive for the ideal and
beware of the evil. The spook comes into existence, in that not only the
âessentialâ qualities are made to appear desirable, like when the child
is praised for âbeing goodâ, but the undesired, âunessentialâ qualities
are set forth as frightening and dangerous. The child learns to nurse
the aspects of itself which matches the ideal, and to fear and suppress
those that do not. This quickly becomes a splitting in the human
individual. The ideal becomes an obsession, a so-called spook or fixed
idea, which will enforce itself on the individual. But the suppressed
feelings and qualities will still be there, and will haunt the
individual, with fear and powerlessness as direct consequences.
For what happens to the man who commits an offence against love, the
so-called âhuman essenceâ? He is not human, but inhuman; an egoist who
has not understood his own essence! He must be disciplined! This leads
to precisely the same suppression of the âunessentialâ qualities, which
Feuerbach was about to abolish.
Stirner accuses his contemporaries among the Young Hegelians for being
unconfessed egoists in disguise, possessed by fixed ideas in a way not
particularly different from the Christian moralists. He compares modern
man with a poor madman possessed by the idea of being the emperor of
Japan or God Almighty. In the same fashion modern man, and not least the
free-spirited humanists among Die Freien, is possessed by the ideas of
liberty, equality, humanity, etc. The only great difference is that the
size of the asylum in which they walk about, takes up such a vastly
larger space![12]
According to Stirner, we could therefore say that Feuerbach, with his
concepts of âmanâ and âhumanityâ, creates a straitjacket of humanity:
Not only must modern man fight his inferiority to Christian ideals and
morals, as he had to do when God was established as en entity outside
man; he must now even contain these concepts as his own essence, inside
himself. âIf Feuerbach goes on to destroy its heavenly dwelling and
force it to move to us bag and baggage, then we, its earthly apartments,
will be badly overcrowded.â[13]
Stirnerâs work, however, is more than a critique of Feuerbachâs
humanism. According to Lawrence Stepelevich[14], The Ego and his Own is
modeled on the structure of Hegelâs Phänomenologie des Geistes
(Phenomenology Of The Spirit). Stirner describes the development in a
human life, from the first steps of the child, eager to explore the
world in a material-sensible phase, through the youthâs spiritual
attempts at âgetting behindâ and changing the world in an idealist
phase, to the adult recognition of oneâs own interest in using the
world, the final, egoist phase.
Subsequently, Stirner has this development in the human life take place
in the concrete historical process. Highly simplified, from the
materialism of the antique (the past) through the idealism of
Christianity (the present), to the modern, incipient egoism (the
future).
This development parallels that of Hegelâs philosophy of history, but
where the dialectics of Hegel concludes in an abstract concept, âthe
spirit of historyâ, Stirnerâs conclusion is quite another. His
dialectical rejection of all absolute concepts, with reference to their
inadequacy in describing the unique individual satisfactorily, leads him
in reality to nothing.
When no concept can describe the unique individual adequately, or in a
definite manner, language comes to an end, and one has to realize that
concepts are nothing but names. Or in other words, references to
something else; to point out, to choose. To choose one thing before the
other.
This choice springs from an interest. My own interest. I gain
consciousness of myself, before this sun of nothingness.
âThey say of God, âNames name thee notâ. That holds good of me: no
concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts
me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and
has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me
alone. I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique.
In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing,
of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it
man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun
of this consciousness. If I set my affair on myself, the unique one,
then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes
himself, and I may say: I have set my affair on nothing.â[15]
Stirnerâs quite consequent application of Hegelâs dialectics accordingly
leads him far beyond Hegel as well as Feuerbach, to a nothingness, which
by sheer necessity creates a consciousness of self. It is this self, the
unique individual, or in Stirnerâs terminology, the concept of âThe
Unique Oneâ, which is the point of dispute in the debate between Stirner
and Feuerbach.
To begin with, Feuerbach was enthusiastic for Stirnerâs work, and felt
that Stirnerâs critique was based exclusively on misinterpretations of
The Essence of Christianity. But gradually, as the book circulated and
won popularity among the Young Hegelians, he was forced into print.[16]
In his essay âDas Wesen des Christentums auf Bezichung den Einzigen und
sein Eigentumâ, which was printed in a German periodical,[17] Feuerbach
answers the criticism raised by Stirner.
First and foremost Feuerbach repudiates Stirnerâs claim that he splits
man into an essential and an unessential self. The divine properties,
which Feuerbach attributes to man, are not properties which are strange
to man, but can pure and simply be observed and sensed in the world. The
essence of man can thus by no means be strange to man.
Consequently, the Christian dualism between body and spirit is not
carried on with the âessence of manâ, because the sensible, corporeal,
profane being is precisely the same as the absolute, spiritual, higher
being. On the other hand, there is a human essence which is of a higher
nature than the other. There is a difference between humanity, âthe
essence of manâ, and the single individualâs self consciousness.
Feuerbachâs argument gives rise to some difficulties here, because it
sounds like he is contradicting himself. In order to explain
Christianity and âthe essence of religionâ, he says, he has to base his
position initially on the difference between man and God, and by this,
in a difference between the unique individual and the universal human
being.
If one bases oneâs position on the unique individual (like Stirner), and
by this raises this very individual to a special, holy position, one is
in fact creating a new religion.
âFor, in exactly that standpoint, consists the essence of religion, at
least in this connection, viz. That it selects from a class or species a
unique individual and sets him up as holy, unapproachable by all the
others. This man, this âUnique Oneâ, âIncomparable Oneâ, this Jesus
Christ, exclusively and alone is God. This oak, this place, this bull,
this day, is holy, not the rest. To transcend religion therefore is not
something different than to demonstrate the identity between consecrated
objects or individuals and the other profane ones. (...)
Religion can only be transcended if you bring this incomparable
individual down out of the blue haze of his supernatural egoism into a
world of profane sensible appearance; and this would demonstrate to you,
unmistakably and undeniably, also his identity with other individuals,
his commonness, despite his individual differences. (...) Strike down
the âUnique Oneâ in heaven, but also strike out of your head the âUnique
Oneâ of this world.â[18]
To be a man is certainly to be an egoist. But it implies also to be
social, to be a communist. The single individual, yet quite limited in
comparison to man as such, needs other people, and needs the opportunity
for completion and perfection which mankind implies. For instance, there
is the kind of love where oneâs being is fulfilled, which is an
unselfish kind of love towards all of mankind, and then there is the
love that is selfish and limited, and consequently not nearly as
satisfactory. But also on a purely practical level do humans need each
other; like the child needs its father, the sick needs a doctor, and the
poor man depends on the charity of the rich. There are limitations to
human existence which we can only overcome in our companionship and
community with others.
Accordingly, as in The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach invites us
into his brotherhood of man, in which individuals are enabled to their
completion in mankind, because the single individual in himself is
inadequate. If the individual does not get this opportunity to develop
his potential in the concept of âmankindâ, he will simply reinvent God
and religion once again, because his limitations will feel too
overwhelming.
Stirner is placing his âUnique Oneâ as a new sanctuary, a new absolute.
Stirnerâs ânothingâ is really a divine designation, i.e. Stirner has
after all based his affair on God...! Which is not far from true, as
this is precisely what Stirner does in his opening chapter. Examining
âthe essenceâ of God and Godâs cause, he concludes:
âNow it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only
with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his
eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher
person, and satisfies only himself. His cause isâa purely egoistic
cause.â[19]
It is not clear who is being satirical of whom here. Stirner in the
first place, imitating Feuerbachâs âexamining the divine essenceâ, or
Feuerbach the second time around, comparing Stirnerâs âunique oneâ with
Christ. Either way, Feuerbach clearly misses Stirnerâs point, which the
following will show. However, his argument still stands.
Some of Feuerbachâs points are thought-provoking, as they anticipate a
socialist way of thinking. We are in fact witnessing here the
theoretical shaping of socialism. Frederick M. Gordon is highly critical
in his analysis of Feuerbachâs argument. He points out that Feuerbach
leaves his initial thesis which is based on the âspontaneousâ feeling
which originally is supposed to be the essence of man.[20] Instead, âthe
essence of manâ becomes a doctrine, which is supposed to âsaveâ man from
the alienation of religion. And from there, thereâs not a great distance
to a Lenin or Stalin.
One can reasonably claim some contradiction in that Feuerbach first
obstinately denies splitting man into an essential and unessential self,
and thereafter makes the point, that one has to differentiate between
the single, limited individual, and the higher, common cause of
âmankindâ. Which somehow leads to a confirmation of Stirnerâs
assertions. But one doesnât do Feuerbach justice by dismissing him
solely on this account. He doesnât have the wit or sharpness of a
Stirner, but thereâs a lot in Feuerbachâs thinking that actually makes
sense on a practical level. And the more disturbing is his claim that
men simply cannot live as unique individuals without some kind of
substitute for religion. Is this void, the ânothingâ of Stirner, of such
an incomprehensible, terrifying oblivious nature that we simply cannot
cope facing it?
Stirner addressed the critique in an essay entitled âRecensenten
Stirnersâ (Stirnerâs Critics)[21]. Here he elaborated on the concept of
âThe Unique Oneâ in particular, and argued that precisely this concept
and the self-interest of the individual, in all ways stands in
opposition to religion.
âStirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name thee not.
He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the âUniqueâ, but adds
nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something
different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig
does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means you, for which he has no
word. (...) The Unique One is the straight-forward, sincere
plain-phrase. It is the end-point of our phrase.world, of this world in
whose âbeginning was the Wordâ.â[22]
The concept of âThe Unique Oneâ is in contrast to the concepts of man,
spirit, essence, etc., an empty concept, because it doesnât imply
anything except saying âyou are youâ. It does not imply an ideal, as
Feuerbach accused Stirner of, but is a plain empty phrase, which it is
up to the individual to fill out. It is simply the indefinable self,
which can only be expressed by its own presence, its own subjective
existence, not by any kind of absolute definition. It is impossible to
base a definition of the âessence of manâ on referring, as Feuerbach, to
the properties which two or more people have in common. That two people
both are animals, does not mean that the animal is the definition of a
man. Stirner firmly rejects Feuerbach notions of the âuniversal human
beingâ, sarcastically referring to the fact that prisons for centuries
have been full of âin-humansâ, which did not find themselves comprised
by âhumanityâ.
âThe reviewers show still more anger to the âEgoistâ than to the
âUniqueâ. Instead of trying to get close to the meaning of egoism as
Stirner understands it, they stick with their customary conception of it
that theyâve had since childhood, and read off the list of sins familiar
to all. See here Egoism, the ghastly sinâthatâs what Stirner âcommendsâ!
(...)
Does Feuerbach live in some other than his own world? (...) Isnât the
world, just because Feuerbach lives in it, the world that surrounds him,
the world that is thought, experienced, contemplated by Feuerbach? He
lives not merely in the middle of it, but is its middle himself, is the
middlepoint of his world. And as with Feuerbach, so no one lives in
another than his own world; as with Feuerbach, so everyone is the center
of his world. World is really only what one is not oneself, but what
belongs to one, what stands in relationship to one, what is for one.
(...) Your world extends as far as your power of conception, and what
you grasp is your own by your mere grasping. You, Unique One, are Unique
only together with âyour Propertyâ.â[23]
Stirner points out that even if the individual by his conscience or
âgraspingâ acquires the world as his property, one cannot avoid that
this property likewise is its own; it could very well be a unique
individual like yourself. This makes it possible for human beings to be
united, in love, for instance. Our pleasure with our property, with our
world, shows, in that we forget ourselves.
Religion arises only when we throw ourselves into the dust before a
âholyâ, elevated world, and by doing so keeps it sacred. The sacred is a
maintained claim to our interest, even if we donât have an own interest
in it. Marriage, for instance. âNow what is marriage, which is praised
as a relationâ, save the fixing of an interesting relation despite the
danger of its becoming uninteresting and senseless?â[24]
âThe belief that something other than an interest can justify a
sympathetic attitude toward some-thingâthis belief, that goes beyond
interest, is what begets disinterestedness, indeed begets âsinâ as oneâs
disposition toward oneâs own interests. (...) The interesting can be
interesting only through your interest, the worthwhile can be worthwhile
only by your giving it value. What is worth while despite you is
something despicable.
Fraudulent egoism consists therefore in the belief in an absolute
interest, in an interest that does not spring from the egoist, i.e. from
one who is self interested, but from an âeternal interestâ which is
imperious against the interest of the egoist and which firmly maintains
itself. The egoist is âfraudulentâ because his own interests, âprivate
interestsâ, are not just ignored, but even damned, but it remains
nonetheless âegoismâ because he takes up this alien or absolute interest
only in the hope that it will make him happy.â[25]
It is our own interest that creates our world, in that it springs from
our self-conscience. When we think, speak, feel, live, come into
existence, we create the world from our consciousness, i.e. from our
egoism. The world is therefore simply our property, open to our pleasure
and consumption. As far as weâre able to take it into our possession. As
far as weâre able to grasp it.
Stirnerâs dialectical critique of the absolute concepts leads him to a
vacuum, void of language. A nothingness. This creates the utter need for
an expression, a consciousness, a self. This unique self can then build
its world in its own image. Applying Hegelâs dialectics, it became
possible for Stirner to reach an unspeakable endpoint of not only
Hegelâs philosophy, but of philosophy and language as such.
Stirner does not have any rational explanation of this âcreative
nothingâ, which seems to be the end point of his thinking. Feuerbachâs
accusations of Stirner placing his âunique oneâ as âholy,
unapproachableâ is largely left unanswered, except for Stirnerâs remarks
on âthe holyâ as noted above. Stirner may in fact do precisely what
Feuerbach claims. When Stirner claims the undefinablity of the self, and
ânames name thee notâ, one could justifiably say that he takes the
attributes of God as his own, and becomes âunreachableâ by others. But
it seems to me that this is exactly the point. He is unreachable,
undefinable, incomprehensible. If people believe otherwise, theyâre
fooling themselves. He takes Godâs attributes as his own. But he might
throw them away again the next minute.
It seems that in the utter ability of change, of creation, of one thing
being fitting at one time, and restraining the next, there is no room
left for something sacred.
And it seems evident, that Feuerbach misses this point entirely. The
philosophical argument between Stirner and Feuerbach is, in Stirnerâs
terms, the struggle between a stagnant, if not slowly dying, Christian
idealism, and the incipient, ever adaptable, modern egoism.
Feuerbachâs ideas of a âbrotherhood of mankindâ gave nourishment to not
only the socialist thought and movement, but has been profoundly
influential to the humanist basis of âmanâ, which can today be found in
science, society, the church, legislation, and not the least, in the UN
and modern âholyâ wars for human rights. Stirner died in 1856 in the
shade of Marxism, but the force and cogency of his words hardly ever
die. The notion is no longer possible, that one should ever be able to
define, and thus subdue the single, unique individual.
But if philosophy in fact does draw to an end with Stirner, because one
can no longer base reason and argument on absolute concepts and
definitions, but on the individualâs own interest alone, what is left
then?
âOne has always flattered oneself that one was talking about the
âactual, individualâ man when one spoke about man. But was that possible
so long as one wanted to express this man through something general,
through a predicate? Doesnât one have to, in order to indicate a thing,
instead of taking refuge in a predicate, rather rely on pointing,
whereby the intention, i.e. what is unexpressed, is the main thing.â[26]
Here we get close to an explanation of the powerful philosophical
argument of an American blockbuster movie like The Matrix. Film can
reach beyond language, in a manner that closely resembles Stirnerâs
notion of âpointingâ. With the camera, one cannot define any truth, only
record a certain intent, when you point the camera at an object. There
is always a subject in a film, namely he who gets to decide the object
of the camera, its framing, and the direction of its movement. This
subject is indefinable, ever changing and recreating itself, as Stirner
has shown. One realizes the strength of this indefinability, this
âcreative nothingâ, when one sees that when these motion pictures are
shown, this subject is handed over to the audience.
The indefinable self becomes the essence of man.
Feuerbach, Ludwig : âThe Essence of Christianityâ, New York 1957.
Translated by George Eliot, with an introductory essay by Karl Barth.
Org. âDas Wesen des Christentumsâ, Berlin 1841, 1843.
Feuerbach, Ludwig : âThe Essence of Christianity in relation to The Ego
and his Ownâ. Translated by Frederick M. Gordon, Philosophical Forum
vol.8, issue 2â4, USA 1976.
Gordon, Frederick M. : âThe Debate between Feuerbach and Stirner : An
Introductionâ Philosophical Forum vol.8, issue 2â4, USA 1976.
Høffding, Harald : âPhilosophien i Tyskland efter Hegelâ, København
1872.
Stirner, Max : âDen Eneste og hans Ejendomâ, København 1902. Translated
by Axel Garde, with an introductory essay by Georg Brandes. Org. âDer
Einzige und sein Eigentumâ, Leipzig 1844.
Stirner, Max : âThe Ego and His Ownâ, New York 1907. Translated by
Stephen T. Byington.
Stirner, Max : âStirners Criticsâ. Translated by Frederick M.Gordon.
Philosophical Forum vol.8, issue 2â4, USA 1976.
Stepelevich, Lawrence : âThe First Hegeliansâ, Philosophical Forum
vol.8, issue 2â4, USA 1976.
Ahlberg, Yngve : âGudsbegrepp och SprĂĽkkritikâ, Stockholm 1967.
Arvon, Henri : âAux sources de lâexistensialisme : Max Stirnerâ, Paris
1954.
Guerin, Daniel : âAnarkismenâ, København 1979. Translated by Michael
Helms.
Huneker, James G.: âMax Stirnerâ, The Memory Hole.
http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/tmhframe.html
Lauritsen, Laurits : âAnarkismen og Syndikalismenâ in âPolitiske ideer
fra Platon til Maoâ, ed. Erik LangkjĂŚr, København 1972.
Mackay, John Henry : âMax Stirner : Sein Leben und sein Werkâ, Berlin
1910.
Marx, Karl og Engels, Friedrich : âDie Deutche Ideologieâ, Werke bd.3,
Berlin 1969.
Nyberg, Svein Olav: âMax Stirners Philosophyâ
http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner
Woodcock, George : âAnarchism. A History of Libertarian Ideas and
Movementsâ, Cleveland 1962, 1967.
[1] Directed by [Lana] and [Lilly] Wachowski, USA 1999.
[2] Danish edition âDen Eneste og hans Ejendomâ, København 1902.
Translated and reworked by Axel Garde, with an introductory essay by
Georg Brandes. This edition has been used throughout this article,
although excerpts have been replaced with the appropriate quotes from
the english edition, in the translation of Stephen T. Byington, âThe Ego
and His Ownâ, New York 1907.
[3] Ludwig Feuerbach (1804â1872)
[4] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770â1831).
[5] Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje: Filosofiens Historie, bd. 2,
p.108â109. Quotes translated from the Danish edition to English by the
author.
[6] The English edition has been used throughout this article. The
Essence Of Christianity (New York 1957). Translated by George Eliot.
[7] Frederick M. Gordon: âThe Debate Between Feuerbach and Stirner: An
Introductionâ, Philosophical Forum, vol.8, no. 2â4, USA 1976.
[8] The Essence Of Christianity is structured as a chain of different
arguments, which shows the contradictory positions of Christianity. All
do they lead to this new synthesis, that the divine attributes really
are nothing but the common, sensible qualities of man himself. The
dialectical model shown here is from Skirbekk and Gilje, Filosofiens
Historie, vol.2, p. 128.
[9] Feuerbach: The Essence Of Christianity, p. 281.
[10] The Ego and His Own, p. 202.
[11] The Ego and His Own, p. 40.
[12] The Ego and His Own, p.55â56.
[13] The Ego and His Own, p.42.
[14] Lawrence Stepelevich: âStirner As Hegelianâ, cited by Svein Olav
Nyberg in âMax Stirnerâs Philosophyâ.
[15] The Ego and his Own, p.490. The two sentences of the translator âIf
I concern myself with myselfâ and âAll things are nothing to meâ have
been replaced with the sentences of the notes, âIf I set my affair on
myselfâ and âI have set my affair on nothingâ, which I feel is the more
accurate translation, and without which the argument in point is
somewhat blurred.
[16] Henri Arvon, p.130, cited by Frederick M.Gordon in The Debate
between Feuerbach and Stirner.
[17] Otto Wigandâs Vierteljahrsschrift, 1845. Of Ludwig Feuerbachâs
Samtliche Werke. English translation by Frederick M.Gordon, âThe Essence
of Christianity in relation to the Ego and His Ownâ. Philosophical
Forum, Vol.8, No.2â4, USA 1976.
[18] âThe Essence of Christianity in Relation to the Ego and His Ownâ,
p.3.
[19] The Ego and his Own, p.4.
[20] Frederick M. Gordon: âThe Debate Between Feuerbach And Stirnerâ.
[21] Translated by Frederick M.Gordon. Notice that Stirner and Feuerbach
consequently speak of themselves in the third person.
[22] Max Stirner: âStirnerâs Criticsâ.
[23] âStirnerâs Criticsâ, p. 4.
[24] âStirnerâs Criticsâ, p. 5.
[25] âStirnerâs Criticsâ, p. 5â6.
[26] âStirnerâs Criticsâ, p. 1.