H. IBRAHIM TÜRKDOGANOmar Khayyam and Max Stirner
Translated by
Ulrike Hirschhäuser
![]() I Determined To Rely On Nothing !2)
The Inexpressible d) On
analyzing the words “And I will be godlike.”, we can render them in the
following way: Everybody is his own creator. God exists because he does not
exist above or outside the world, but in the world and therefore he lives in
each human being. God and I are identical beings. The unique Ego is a god beside other gods. However difficult the
interpretation of Stirner´s Ego and
Omar´s criticism of reason and any search for God may be, both philosophers´sceptical
attitude towards the human mind and intellect, towards authority and whatever
type of control of the individual does not only become manifest in their social
criticism but also in their mystic experiences. Stirner does not only criticize
the the forces controlling the
individual because of the antiliberal attitude implied in them and because they
are antagonistic towards the Ego. No, this is only the surface level of his
philosophy. Stirner considers each word to be a ghost,
since each word presents an obstacle to the creation of his ego. “The power of
language over morals, over the commonest human habits has never been analyzed as
furiously as by Stirner´s fiery speech in “The Ego and Its Own”.
To Stirner all abstractions,
truths, ideals, in fact all grand words are odious ghosts. He cannot help it, he
is forced to hate ... language, too. Those terrifying words, by which Stirner
aimed at something on a lower level primarily applies to language: ‘Digest the
host and you´ll get it out of your system’.
‘Digest language and you will be free from it; digest all logical thinking,
digest your own word.’[1]
Mauthner´s words evidently express great admiration for
Stirner, though he criticizes Stirner´s “dogmatic view of the Ego”: “The
objection that the Ego is an illusion would have severely damaged his edifice.”[2]
He even reproaches Stirner saying that Stirner does not
understand his own conclusion. “He did not understand his own conclusion while
laughing that coldly.”[3]To summarize Mauthner´s views: On the one hand Mauthner accuses Stirner
of not recognizing the ego as an illusion/ an illusionary one, although Stirner
views everything else in that way, on the other hand he accuses him of not being
aware of his mysticism. Before I try to prove Mauthner wrong, I would like to
mention that Mauthner´s assertions are due to the fact that at Mauthner´s time
Stirner was mainly regarded as an anarchist. On the other hand Stirner´s
emphasizing and conceiving the ego is
misleading, therefore Mauthner´s criticism and scepticism is intelligible. The
mortality and what is more the
transciency of Stirner´s Ego is the very sign of creating nothing. This Ego, this experiencing nothingness are
neither part of this world nor of a spiritual world, just because it has given
up the idea of its existence. The Ego does not mean anything, it is only an
expression of an experience of infinite attributes. It is alive and experiences
life. If man is obsessed with an idea, i.e. a fixed idea that is sickening, this
will be caused by the domination of one thought. All ideas that take control of
man are products of a mental disturbance. So what about the idea of the Ego?
“The most modern ruler of this kind is our nature.”[4]
Stirner´s Ego is neither an object nor an idea, but inexpressible.
Thus Stirner has got rid of his ghosts.
He relies on nothing, i.e. he is egoless.
Stirner´s identification of God and the Ego coincides with the elimination of
the distinction between the Ego and the world. That is the experience of the
nameless, the unique ego, the mystic. The Ego, God, has ceased to be an object.
No ideas and laws, no rules and commandments are valid anymore. For: “All
commandments impose laws at the same time, and each law implies the interdiction
to overstep limits.”[5]
So overstepping limits means all laws become
worthless. Omar
summarizes it in the following way: The
raindrop cries, “The sea! So far away!”
The ocean laughs, “Your grief! So very futile!” In fact we´re all identical, identical with God – It is only a tiny dot that separates us:- Time
- [6]
[1] F. Mauthner Die Sprache (Language) 1905, p. 83 [2] Mauthner p. 84 [3] Mauthner p. 84 [4] Stirner p. 400 [5] L. Klages p. 609 [6]
F. Rosen p. 30
|