ceclark at students.wisc.edu
Mon Oct 11 20:28:28 CEST 2010
Someone wrote me off-list and egged me on to more comments. :)
I think acting in one's own interests and not foreclosing (Erikson) on
someone else's script or moral behavior/philosophy is indeed the
bedrock of personal independence and freedom-to-be, perhaps Egoism
1.0; alliances perhaps constitute Egoism 2.0, but such distinction
would be a false split in a mixed and interactive world. One can't be
"all" 1.0 until they achieve 2.0, in my view.
I concluded after several graduate seminars in moral philosophy that
one big reason there is so much moral philosophy in western culture
has to do with philosophers being even less skilled than painters or
profitable as secular writers. They had to be supported by religious
people or royalty or wealthy others and much of their "task" was to
either justify the established order or to gently introduce (without
losing their meal ticket) ethical issues within the order of the rich
and regal. So you write about god and morality apart from right-
living by any sane and grounded standard.
Stirner might well have been sh-out-of-luck in previous centuries, or
printed and circulated on the sly, but since he came out of the "Young
Hegelians" I believe he solidly addressed the twin evils of moralism/
altruism (which is not moral or altruistic in societal function,
people acting as they do) and the second evil of opposition to class
analysis in industrializing societies. In other words, acting in
one's interest in natural conflict with the 19th century order was
"immoral" according to the church. Acting as a laborer and selling
his labor at a better price "ought" to have been immoral under
feudalism, but definitely not desirable in the new order to old-order
Marxians in my view tended to neglect the role of the individual,
preferring the tidiness of a categorical "class analysis" which to me
is valuable, but classes are clearly made of individuals and a class
label does not tell or encompass "all" about its members, in the
finite world. (A class of nines defines totally all 9's as members,
but that's the world of ideas.)
So _Scientific Socialism_ wasn't even published in English until the
20th century and communists often turned into moralists and took
completely sane laborers who wanted to empower themselves into middle
class-thinking moralists rather than materialists.
American Marxist leaders have been particularly guilty of being middle-
class and vested in old-order thinking. They managed to neglect and
ignore the role of individuals acting in their interest as producers,
unionizing for their benefit/gain, and rejecting the notion that they
should suffer in the world and eat pie in the sky. That liberalism
(not unlike the Feuerbach (sp) of TEAIO exegesis) leads people to
reject or neglect their own and collective interests --down many bad
It seems the Randanistas picked up on Stirner somehow and jumped the
fence regularly between what's in their own interest and what's in
everyone else's within a fixed or supposedly "free" order. And somehow
Stirner became their darling. Yet, egoism remains the pariah. I
think it could use some scholarly defense, myself.
:) That should offer enough bait for discussion, if anyone is game.
On Oct 11, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Emeka Nweze wrote:
> Hi Carmen. My friends call me Vee. I am new to nonserviam.
> I concur with your feelings towards the negative bias of the word
> egoist. Svein shared the same thoughts on the subject as well.
> Personally, I don't use it anymore to avoid confusion.
> Well, it was pleasant perusing your comments.
> "the key to joy is disobedience. there is no guilt and there is no
> shame" -batwings by coil.
More information about the nonserviam