”Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist … in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted," and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake… [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist. … As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself … just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you—an alien essence. … Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred."
(Max Stirner – The Ego and Its Own)
The egoists are not isolated individuals, but spend their time in ”uniting” relationships and implementing connections between them and other individuals and in the same time remain independent and self-determined. The core feature in such a form of organization is that is does not involve the subordonation of the individual. This type of authonomous union determines a constant shift of ”alliances” which makes possible the unification of individuals without loss of sovereignity, without being subdued to ONE. The association is more like a instrument as individuals pursuit their own goals and neither there is no shared final end nor the association is valued in itself.
Regarding love there are two main features that i think should be taken into analysis. First when the ”owness” is sacrificed and the second the ”egoistic” love which emphasise self-mastery. I mentioned them both because the ”egoistic” love is not a fix concept but more a dinamic one.
Basically egoistic love does not exclude the fact that the individual will do something in order to inhance the partener pleasure (therefore would sacrifice his owness) as long the result makes possible the enhacement of his own pleasure in return. So in such a context the initial sacrifice of the owness makes possible the existance of egoistic love as long as the object of the egoistic love remains the individual himself.
Therefore the sacrifice of authonomy and interests to another is not a goal per se, but just a way to share love as long as that love makes me happy, excluding this way any kind of ”commandment of love”.
(Max Stirner – The Ego and Its Own)
The egoists are not isolated individuals, but spend their time in ”uniting” relationships and implementing connections between them and other individuals and in the same time remain independent and self-determined. The core feature in such a form of organization is that is does not involve the subordonation of the individual. This type of authonomous union determines a constant shift of ”alliances” which makes possible the unification of individuals without loss of sovereignity, without being subdued to ONE. The association is more like a instrument as individuals pursuit their own goals and neither there is no shared final end nor the association is valued in itself.
Regarding love there are two main features that i think should be taken into analysis. First when the ”owness” is sacrificed and the second the ”egoistic” love which emphasise self-mastery. I mentioned them both because the ”egoistic” love is not a fix concept but more a dinamic one.
Basically egoistic love does not exclude the fact that the individual will do something in order to inhance the partener pleasure (therefore would sacrifice his owness) as long the result makes possible the enhacement of his own pleasure in return. So in such a context the initial sacrifice of the owness makes possible the existance of egoistic love as long as the object of the egoistic love remains the individual himself.
Therefore the sacrifice of authonomy and interests to another is not a goal per se, but just a way to share love as long as that love makes me happy, excluding this way any kind of ”commandment of love”.
I wonder what interests do you have writing this post.
RăspundețiȘtergereNone - as usual
RăspundețiȘtergereThe voices started to whisper again. The result of sacrificing owness. Pain is what makes you master yourself. Happiness induces a false sensation that the things are all in place, the wheels are spinning, covering you with a warm blanket, thoughts making you think good of yourself, creating a bubble around you. But as we live in a society, the general opinion about you might be in opposition with your opinion, thus, altering from outside the grounds on which you state your authonomy.
RăspundețiȘtergereI did choose that motto for a reason, please re-read it.
RăspundețiȘtergereOr in other words (a more informal example) .. what Clawfinger says:
There's no god for you to worship
No master to obey
No need for blind belief
No books to follow
No quotes to twist around
There's no need for false confessions
No more feeling guilt
No power lords to kneel before
No crosses being built
There are no rules for you too live by
There's no lesson you must learn
No opinions that collide
No more feeling shame
No sacrifices being made in someone else's name
sau mai scurt spus.. vs contextul lui Canibal - autonomy is within ourselves and it doesnt require any ground to sustain it.
RăspundețiȘtergereautonomy is by definition independent of all the "outside"
Just because one chooses to perceive himself as autonomous, it doesn't mean that one is really autonomous. Relational, we all generate spheres of influence. Example: x is the girlfriend of y, z is the friend of both. a certain amount of time passes. y is hanging with z, so is x. y breaks up with x on various reasons. y,x,z still hang out. a certain amount of time passes. y and z begin to hang out without x, and x and z begin to hang out without y. a certain amount of time passes. y avoids z because knows that z is hanging out with x. a certain amount of time passes. W is friend with y and z. w observes the trouble of y. w talks to z. z doesn't hang out anymore with x. z and y and w hang out again.
RăspundețiȘtergeremissed my point.won't enlarge.
RăspundețiȘtergere