Max Stirner denies almost all abstractions as applicable to the human condition, so his denial of the possibility of rational knowledge about anything (Is he a German Taoist whose skepticism is extreme epistemological pessimism, or a fairly pure epistemological Irrationalism? Initially, at least, that is what I am concluding.).
Since we, according to Stirner, cannot make dogmatic statements about human nature, or what it is, he would totally refute my assertion about basic human nature as a fixed, unchanging biological given or existential constant. If his egoistic ethical system--moving target that it is--is nonaristotelian (anti-logical and anti-linear), then by contrast, my egoist ethics is quite aristotelian and logical, albeit with some fuzzy logic tossed into the cooking pot.
If a view of human nature comes from the Bible, then, by Stirner's lights, the concept of unchanging, basic wicked human nature is a rationalized concept, a universal idea, an abstraction attributed wrongly to all people--of course I deny that reading.
If the ultra-conservative belief in a basic human nature governing all people all their lives is an abstraction, then Western thinking stems from two logical sources from Greek thought, and Hebrew metaphysics.
No comments:
Post a Comment