L'únic i la seva propietat
- Idioma:
- anglès
- Completesa:
- Obra completa
- Autoria:
- Escrita per l'autor
- Estat del text:
- Amb errors d'escaneig (mesura automàtica sobre tot el text, no revisada a mà) · 2 passatges il·legibles, exclosos de les respostes
- Extensió:
- ~160.000 paraules · 774 passatges
Cita aquesta obra
- APAMax Stirner. (n.d.). The Ego and His Own [L'únic i la seva propietat]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own
- MLAMax Stirner. The Ego and His Own [L'únic i la seva propietat]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own.
- ChicagoMax Stirner. The Ego and His Own [L'únic i la seva propietat]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own.
Referència de l’edició reproduïda. SigPhi és la reproducció digital, no l’editor. S’hi inclouen l’any, l’editorial i el traductor quan consten; «n.d.» indica que no consta l’any. La responsabilitat d’un pròleg o d’una nota es determina segons el passatge citat.
De què tracta
L'atac de Stirner del 1844 contra tota causa que demani sacrifici a l'individu —Deu, l'Estat, la humanitat, la moral—, en nom d'un jo que no reconeix res per damunt seu.
Context i història
El titol alemany es «Der Einzige und sein Eigentum», i «l'unic» no vol dir excepcional: vol dir irrepetible, no subsumible en cap categoria. Stirner sosté que la Il·lustracio no va acabar la feina: va treure Deu i hi va posar l'Home, l'Estat i la Moral, que son fantasmes igual d'exigents. La traduccio anglesa de Byington del 1907 diu «The Ego and His Own», que despista: no parla de l'ego psicologic. El llibre va provocar «La ideologia alemanya» de Marx i Engels, que hi dediquen centenars de pagines a respondre, i es una de les fonts de l'anarquisme individualista.
Context editorial, no una font citable: a diferència dels passatges de l'obra, aquestes dades no es poden contrastar amb el corpus.
Not the spirit, then, which has to do with absolutely nothing unspiritual, with no _thing_, but only with the essence which exists behind and above things, with _thoughts_,--not that did the ancients exert, for they did not yet have it; no, they had only reached the point of struggling and longing for it, and therefore sharpened it against their too-powerful foe, the world of sense (but what would not have been sensuous for them, since Jehovah or the gods of the heathen were yet far removed from the conception "God is _spirit_," since the "heavenly fatherland" had not yet stepped into the place of the sensuous, etc?)--they sharpened against the world of sense their _sense_, their acuteness. To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, have got no farther; and with all the subtlety and strength of their prudence and understanding, which easily becomes master of things and forces them to obey it, they cannot discover _spirit_, which _takes no account whatever of things_. The Christian has spiritual interests, because he allows himself to be a _spiritual_ man; the Jew does not even understand these interests in their purity, because he does not allow himself to assign _no value_ to things. He does not arrive at pure _spirituality_, a spirituality such as is religiously expressed, _e. g._, in the _faith_, of Christians, which alone (_i. e._ without works) justifies. Their _unspirituality_ sets Jews forever apart from Christians; for the spiritual man is incomprehensible to the unspiritual, as the unspiritual is contemptible to the spiritual. But the Jews have only "the spirit of this world." The ancient acuteness and profundity lies as far from the spirit and the spirituality of the Christian world as earth from heaven.