El único y su propiedad
- Idioma:
- inglés
- Estado:
- Obra completa
- Autoría:
- Escrita por el autor
- Estado del texto:
- Con errores de escaneo (medición automática sobre todo el texto, no revisada a mano) · 2 pasajes ilegibles, excluidos de las respuestas
- Extensión:
- ~160.000 palabras · 774 pasajes
Cita esta obra
- APAMax Stirner. (n.d.). The Ego and His Own [El único y su propiedad]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own
- MLAMax Stirner. The Ego and His Own [El único y su propiedad]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/es/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own.
- ChicagoMax Stirner. The Ego and His Own [El único y su propiedad]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/max-stirner/the-ego-and-his-own.
Referencia de la edición que reproduce SigPhi: SigPhi es su reproducción digital, no el editor. El año de la edición no consta en los metadatos (por eso «n.d.») y el traductor solo aparece cuando consta.
De qué trata
El ataque de Stirner de 1844 contra toda causa que pida sacrificio al individuo —Dios, el Estado, la humanidad, la moral—, en nombre de un yo que no reconoce nada por encima de sí.
Contexto e historia
El título alemán es «Der Einzige und sein Eigentum», y «el único» no significa excepcional: significa irrepetible, no subsumible en ninguna categoría. Stirner sostiene que la Ilustración dejó el trabajo a medias: quitó a Dios y puso en su lugar al Hombre, al Estado y a la Moral, fantasmas igual de exigentes. La traducción inglesa de Byington de 1907 dice «The Ego and His Own», lo que despista: no habla del ego psicológico. El libro provocó «La ideología alemana» de Marx y Engels, que le dedican cientos de páginas, y es una de las fuentes del anarquismo individualista.
Contexto editorial, no una fuente citable: a diferencia de los pasajes de la obra, estos datos no se pueden comprobar contra 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.