Egoism

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Egoism is a

normative forms.[1][2] That is, they may be interested in either describing that people do act in self-interest or prescribing that they should. Other definitions of egoism may instead emphasise action according to one's will rather than one's self-interest, and furthermore posit that this is a truer sense of egoism.[3]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states of egoism that it "incorporates in itself certain basic truths: it is natural for man to love himself; he should moreover do so, since each one is ultimately responsible for himself; pleasure, the development of one's potentialities, and the acquisition of power are normally desirable."[4] The moral censure of self-interest is a common subject of critique in egoist philosophy, with such judgments being examined as means of control and the result of power relations. Egoism may also reject that insight into one's internal motivation can arrive extrinsically, such as from psychology or sociology,[1] though, for example, this is not present in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Overview

The term egoism is derived from the French égoïsme, from the Latin ego (first person singular personal pronoun; "I") with the French -ïsme ("-ism").

Descriptive theories

The descriptive variants of egoism are concerned with self-regard as a factual description of human motivation and, in its furthest application, that all human motivation stems from the desires and interest of the ego.[1][2] In these theories, action which is self-regarding may be simply termed egoistic.[5]

The position that people tend to act in their own self-interest is called default egoism,

selfish gene theory holds that it is the self-interest of genetic information that conditions human behaviour.[9]

Normative theories

Theories which hold egoism to be normative stipulate that the ego ought to promote its own interests above other values. Where this ought is held to be a pragmatic judgment it is termed

]

Normative egoism, as in the case of Stirner, need not reject that some modes of behavior are to be valued above others—such as Stirner's affirmation that non-restriction and autonomy are to be most highly valued.[11] Contrary theories, however, may just as easily favour egoistic domination of others.[12]

Theoreticians

Stirner

Stirner's

the self can adequately describe the fullness of experience. Stirner has been broadly understood as containing traits of both psychological egoism and rational egoism. Unlike the self-interest described by Ayn Rand, Stirner did not address individual self-interest, selfishness, or prescriptions for how one should act. He urged individuals to decide for themselves and fulfill their own egoism.[13]

He believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this—as willing egoists—could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not—as unwilling egoists—will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion. Power is the method of Stirner's egoism and the only justified method of gaining
natural rights to property and encouraged insurrection against all forms of authority, including disrespect for property.[13]

Nietzsche

The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has been linked to forms of both descriptive and normative egoism.

slave morality.[6][15]

The word "good" is from the start in no way necessarily tied up with "unegoistic" actions, as it is in the superstition of those genealogists of morality. Rather, that occurs for the first time with the collapse of aristocratic value judgments, when this entire contrast between "egoistic" and "unegoistic" pressed itself ever more strongly into human awareness—it is, to use my own words, the instinct of the herd which, through this contrast, finally gets its word (and its words).
On the Genealogy of Morals

In his

On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche traces the origins of master–slave morality to fundamentally egoistic value judgments. In the aristocratic valuation, excellence and virtue come as a form of superiority over the common masses, which the priestly valuation, in ressentiment of power, seeks to invert—where the powerless and pitiable become the moral ideal. This upholding of unegoistic actions is therefore seen as stemming from a desire to reject the superiority or excellency of others. He holds that all normative systems which operate in the role often associated with morality favor the interests of some people, often, though not necessarily, at the expense of others.[15][17]

Nevertheless, Nietzsche also states in the same book that there is no 'doer' of any acts, be they selfish or not:

Jonas Monte of Brigham Young University argues that Nietzsche doubted if any 'I' existed in the first place, which the former defined as "a conscious Ego who commands mental states".[18]

Other theoreticians

Relation to altruism

In 1851, French philosopher

antonym for egoism.[29][30] In this sense, altruism defined Comte's position that all self-regard must be replaced with only the regard for others.[29]

While Friedrich Nietzsche does not view altruism as a suitable antonym for egoism,[31] Comte instead states that only two human motivations exist, egoistic and altruistic, and that the two cannot be mediated; that is, one must always predominate the other. For Comte, the total subordination of the self to altruism is a necessary condition to both social and personal benefit.[29] Nietzsche, rather than rejecting the practice of altruism, warns that despite there being neither much altruism nor equality in the world, there is almost universal endorsement of their value and, notoriously, even by those who are its worst enemies in practice.[15] Egoist philosophy commonly views the subordination of the self to altruism as either a form of domination that limits freedom, an unethical or irrational principle, or an extension of some egoistic root cause.[1]

In evolutionary theory,

selfish gene theory are examples of this division.[8][9] On biological altruism, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense."[9] This is a central topic within contemporary discourse of psychological egoism.[2]

Relation to nihilism

The history of egoist thought has often overlapped with that of

Russian nihilism, shortly giving birth to rational egoism. Nihilist philosophers Dmitry Pisarev and Nikolay Chernyshevsky were influential in this regard, compounding such forms of egoism with hard determinism.[3][25][20]

Political egoism

Since normative egoism rejects the

moral obligation to subordinate the ego to society-at-large or a ruling class, it may be predisposed to certain political implications. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
states:

Egoists ironically can be read as moral and political egalitarians glorifying the dignity of each and every person to pursue life as they see fit. Mistakes in securing the proper means and appropriate ends will be made by individuals, but if they are morally responsible for their actions they not only will bear the consequences but also the opportunity for adapting and learning.[1]

In contrast with this however, such an ethic may not morally obligate against the egoistic exercise of power over others. On these grounds, Friedrich Nietzsche criticizes egalitarian morality and political projects as unconducive to the development of human excellence.

anarchist movement, this became the foundation for egoist anarchism
.

Stirner's variant of

property theory is similarly dialectical, where the concept of ownership is only that personal distinction made between what is one's property and what is not. Consequentially, it is the exercise of control over property which constitutes the nonabstract possession of it.[34] In contrast to this, Ayn Rand incorporates capitalist property rights into her egoist theory.[26]

Revolutionary politics

Egoist philosopher

assassination of Tsar Alexander II eight years before his death in 1889.[20][35] Dmitry Pisarev was a similarly radical influence within the movement, though he did not personally advocate political revolution.[25]

Philosophical egoism has also found wide appeal among anarchist revolutionaries and thinkers, such as John Henry Mackay, Benjamin Tucker, Émile Armand, Han Ryner Gérard de Lacaze-Duthiers, Renzo Novatore, Miguel Giménez Igualada, and Lev Chernyi. Though he did not involve in any revolutionary movements himself, the entire school of individualist anarchism owes much of its intellectual heritage to Max Stirner.

Egoist philosophy may be misrepresented as a principally revolutionary field of thought. However, neither Hobbesian nor Nietzschean theories of egoism approve of political revolution. Anarchism and revolutionary socialism were also strongly rejected by Ayn Rand and her followers.

Fascism

The philosophies of both Nietzsche and Stirner were heavily appropriated by

proto-fascist ideologies. Nietzsche in particular has infamously been represented as a predecessor to Nazism and a substantial academic effort was necessary to disassociate his ideas from their aforementioned appropriation.[12][36]

At first sight, Nazi totalitarianism may seem the opposite of Stirner's radical individualism. But fascism was above all an attempt to dissolve the social ties created by history and replace them by artificial bonds among individuals who were expected to render explicit obedience to the state on grounds of absolute egoism. Fascist education combined the tenets of asocial egoism and unquestioning conformism, the latter being the means by which the individual secured his own niche in the system. Stirner's philosophy has nothing to say against conformism, it only objects to the Ego being subordinated to any higher principle: the egoist is free to adjust to the world if it is clear he will better himself by doing so. His 'rebellion' may take the form of utter servility if it will further his interest; what he must not do is to be bound by 'general' values or myths of humanity. The totalitarian ideal of a barrack-like society from which all real, historical ties have been eliminated is perfectly consistent with Stirner's principles: the egoist, by his very nature, must be prepared to fight under any flag that suits his convenience.[12]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Moseley, Alexander. "Egoism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  2. ^ a b c d e Shaver, Robert (2021). "Egoism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  3. ^
    JSTOR 3654018
    .
  4. ^ Dalcourt, G. J. "Egoism". New Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 11, 2020 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  5. ^ "egoistic". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). 2011. Retrieved August 18, 2020 – via Dictionary.com.
  6. ^ a b Jason, Gary (2015). "Portraits of Egoism in Classic Cinema III: Nietzschean Portrayals".
  7. S2CID 145330319
    .
  8. ^ .
  9. ^ a b c Okasha, Samir (2020). "Biological Altruism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  10. Lexington Books
    .
  11. ^ a b c d e Leopold, David (2019). "Max Stirner". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.
  12. ^
    W.W. Norton and Company
    . pp. 137–138.
  13. ^ .
  14. ^ Wilkerson, Dale. "Friedrich Nietzsche (1844—1900)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  15. ^ a b c d e Brian, Leiter (2021). "Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.
  16. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals.
  17. ^ Anderson, R. Lanier (2021). "Friedrich Nietzsche". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.
  18. ^ Monte, Jonas (2015). "Sum, Ergo Cogito: Nietzsche Re-orders Decartes" (PDF). aporia.byu.edu. Brigham Young University. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 2, 2022. Retrieved September 17, 2016.
  19. ^ a b May, Joshua. "Psychological Egoism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  20. ^ a b c "Chernyshevskii, Nikolai Gavrilovich (1828–1889)". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved August 11, 2020 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  21. ISSN 2041-9511
    .
  22. ^ "Arthur Desmond in Explanation | Ragnar Redbeard". www.ragnarredbeard.com. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  23. ^ Vandenberg, Phyllis; DeHart, Abigail. "Bernard Mandeville (1670—1733)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  24. ^
    S2CID 30410740
    .
  25. ^ a b c "Pisarev, Dmitry Ivanovich". Encyclopedia of Russian History. Retrieved August 11, 2020 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  26. ^ a b Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2005). "Ayn Rand (1905–1982)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  27. ^ "Max Stirner's Dialectical Egoism: A New Interpretation : John F. Welsh : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming". Internet Archive. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  28. Lexington Books
    . pp. 54–55.
  29. ^ a b c Brosnahan, Timothy (1907). "Altruism". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 19, 2020 – via New Advent.
  30. ^ "Altriusm (ethics)". Encyclopædia Britannica.
  31. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. KSA. 9:11[7]
  32. ^ Pratt, Alan. "Nihilism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  33. .
  34. ^
    OCLC 47758413. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on December 7, 2010. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
  35. ^ "Narodnaya Volya (Russian revolutionary organization)". Encyclopaedia Britannica.
  36. ^ Ansell-Pearson, Keith (1994). An Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker: The Perfect Nihilist. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34.
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: Egoism. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.Privacy Policy