Max Stirner, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
My concern is neither the divine nor the human — not the true, the good, the just, the free — but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but unique, as I am unique.1 That sentence already answers the question, but let me press it further, because the word "egoism" misleads almost everyone who picks it up. Mr. Fischer, for instance, found in it a dogma, a "categorical imperative," a seriously meant should — as if I were commanding you to be selfish the way Feuerbach commands you to be human.2
But "egoism" in my usage is the last possible phrase, appropriate precisely for bringing the rule of phrases to an end; it is not a new moral catechism erected in place of the old one.3 Cut the categorical imperative out of Feuerbach's humanism and what remains? The bare fact that I am what I am, that no abstraction — Mankind, species-being, the Human — has prior claim on me.
Feuerbach is the clearest case to examine. He thought he had overcome Christianity by relocating its predicates from God to Mankind. He had not. He forgot that "the human being" doesn't exist, that it is an arbitrary abstraction, and so he set it up as an ideal — and the moment he did that, a should crept in: you should be the human being.4
The "inhuman monster" is born as the category of condemnation, the heretic of the new secular faith. But an "inhuman monster" is and remains an actual human being, encumbered with a moral anathema.5 The theological structure is perfectly preserved; only the idol has changed. Against this terrorism of humanity I oppose what you might call the terrorism of the I.6
Not because I want to deny everything universal or hide myself in a cocoon — that misunderstanding is no less awkward than mistaking Börne's remark about the king's nose for a proposal to make noses into crimes against democracy.7 Rather: I refuse to let my uniqueness be dissolved into the model you have drawn of what I ought to be. The philosophical precision matters here.
Fichte said the ego is all — which sounds close to my position. But there is a chasm between us. It is not that the ego is all; the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the finite ego is really I.8 Fichte spoke of the absolute ego; I speak of me, the transitory ego. Feuerbach made the same error from the other direction: for him "man" designates the absolute ego, the species, not the transitory individual.9
The species is nothing — and if I lift myself above the limits of my individuality, that is precisely my very self as an individual, not the realization of some higher essence. So: I am my species, without norm, without law, without model.10 It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. Whether I look to "humanity" in order to strive toward that ideal, or to God and Christ with like endeavor — where is the essential dissimilarity?
At most the former is more washed-out than the latter.11 I am nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.12 Nothing is more to me than myself.13
My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is—unique, as I am unique.The Ego and His Own
If Mr. Fischer had read the article, he would not have come to this comical misunderstanding, finding in Stirner's 'egoism' a dogma, a seriously meant 'categorical imperative,' a seriously meant 'should.'The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
There Stirner referred to 'egoism' itself as a 'phrase'; but as the last possible 'phrase,' it is appropriate for bringing the rule of phrases to an end.The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
But having gotten this far, he forgets that 'the human being' doesn't exist, that it is an arbitrary abstraction. He sets it up as an ideal. It's no wonder, when it becomes an impersonal, mysterious species being, that it behaves as polytheistically as the Greek gods of Zeus. Consequently, a 'should' comes in; you should be the human being.The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
An 'inhuman monster' is and remains an actual 'human being,' encumbered with a moral anathema, cast out by the human community with a feeling of disgust — who call him 'inhuman monster.'The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
And aren't I as right with the terrorism of my I, which pushes back everything human in just such a way, as you with your terrorism of humanity, which immediately brands me as an 'inhuman monster' if I sin against your catechism.The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
Certainly, this misunderstanding is no less awkward than that of the German liberals and conservatives who still today are outraged by Börne's remark: 'If you don't like your king's nose, he'll hunt you down for it,' as if it had ever occurred to Börne to make a king's nose into a crime against democracy.The Philosophical Reactionaries, p. 4
But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the—finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the 'absolute' ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.The Ego and His Own
How natural is the supposition that man and ego mean the same! and yet one sees, e.g., by Feuerbach, that the expression 'man' is to designate the absolute ego, the species, not the transitory, individual ego.The Ego and His Own
I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, and the like.The Ego and His Own
Whether I look to 'humanity,' the species, in order to strive toward this ideal, or to God and Christ with like endeavor, where is the essential dissimilarity? At most the former is more washed-out than the latter.The Ego and His Own
I am nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.The Ego and His Own
Nothing is more to me than myself!The Ego and His Own