Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

mad max

Expand Messages
  • Siobhan
    Just as Nietzsche wanted to destroy the idols that hide God s death, Max Stirner before him wanted to all destroy all that substitutes or masquerades as
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Just as Nietzsche wanted to destroy the idols that hide God's death,
      Max Stirner before him wanted to all destroy all that substitutes or
      masquerades as subversive remnants of God. These benign imposturs -
      agnosticism, philosophy & science themselves, the arts, humanism,
      politics & economics, literature which invokes `spirit', and vague
      yearnings for Utopia, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, and Eternity
      itself - must all be destroyed. Nietzsche would see the light at the
      end of the dark tunnel, but Stirner refused any light except his own.
      There is some truth in his rebellion:

      "Even before Nietzsche, Stirner wanted to eradicate the very idea of
      God from man's mind, after he had destroyed God Himself. But, unlike
      Nietzsche, his nihilism was gratified. Stirner laughs in his blind
      alley; Nietzsche beats his head against the wall. In 1845, the year
      when "The Unique and Its Characteristics" appeared, Stirner begins to
      define his position. Stirner, who frequented the "Society of Free
      Men" with the young Hegelians of the left (of whom Marx was one) had
      an account to settle not only with God, but also with Feuerbach's
      Man, Hegel's Spirit, and its historical incarnation, the State. All
      these idols, to his mind, were offsprings of the same "mongolism" -
      the belief in the eternity of ideas. Thus he was able to write: "I
      have constructed my case on nothing." Sin is, of course, a "mongol
      scourge," but it is also the law of which we are prisoners. God is
      the enemy; Stirner goes as far as he can in blasphemy ("digest the
      Host and you are rid of it"). But God is only one of the aberrations
      of the I, or more precisely of what I am. Socrates, Jesus, Descartes,
      Hegel, all the prophets and philosophers, have done nothing but
      invent new methods of deranging what I am, the I that Stirner is so
      intent on distinguishing from the absolute of Fichte by reducing it
      to its most specific and transitory aspect. "It has no name," it is
      the Unique.

      For Stirner the history of the universe up to the time of Jesus is
      nothing but a sustained effort to idealize reality. This effort is
      incarnated in the ideas and rites of purification which the ancients
      employed. From the time of Jesus, the goal is reached, and another
      effort is embarked upon which consists, on the contrary, in
      attempting to realize the ideal. The passion of the incarnation takes
      the place of purification and devastates the world, to a greater and
      greater degree, as socialism, the heir of Christ, extends its sway.
      But the history of the universe is nothing but a continual offense to
      the unique principle that "I am" - a living, concrete principle, a
      triumphant principle that the world has always wanted to subject to
      the yoke of successive abstractions -- God, the State, society,
      humanity. For Stirner, philanthropy is a hoax. Atheistic
      philosophies, which culminate in the cult of the State and of Man,
      are only "theological insurrections." "our atheists," says Stirner,:
      are really pious folk." There is only one religion that exists
      throughout all history, the belief in eternity. This belief is a
      deception. The only truth is the Unique, the enemy of eternity and of
      everything, in fact, which does not further its desire for
      domination." (The Rebel, Camus)

      Siobhan
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.