"Man qua man"? Tautology qua tautology!
What could it possibly mean to live as a "man qua man"? That doesn't seem to be the right question. Assuming that one is a man to begin with, how could one possibly not live as a "man qua man"? Now that is the question!
And yet this just begs the question: what do you mean by "man"? Is "man" an ideal form - the "absolute spirit" of man? If that is the case, I must inform you that noone lives as a "man qua man". Your "man" is a spook!
But oh, you sly ones, do you then claim to bring us "the superman"? Away with your "superman"! I know nothing of it. "The superman" is alien to me. You dare insinuate that "the superman" is above my ego?
My ego consumes "the superman" and takes it for its own. I transvaluate your transvaluation, for I am all in all. I no longer am possesed by either "man qua man" or "the superman". I am neither man or superman.
I am unique! Unique qua unique!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, I am partially intimidating our resident Neitzscheans :)
ReplyDeleteSo if I am not "man" or "superman", then what am I? If this is asking for an essence, then I am nothing. "What am I?" is not the question, "Who am I?" is the question. And that question can only be answered by you yourself - you determine who you are. In this sense, you are a creative nothing - nothing in the sense of essence and perpetually self-created in the sense of identity and personality. But the extent of self-creation and the degree to which you are aware of your own creation is up to you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, man qua man is just a tautology. It adds nothing new and appears to be a meaningless thing to say! You may intimidate the resident Nietzscheans, but will attract the Sartreans.
ReplyDeleteOh you mean with the article you linked. I think the similarities are interesting. We don't have enough egoists, so Stirner really should be embraced!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it that one is 'Man' always by choice? Therefore, it is an ideology, something not attainable, but instead acted out. A choice, so therefore a way of Being and inhabiting the world that is fundamentally how one is, or tries to Be (not just what one is). The same goes for the over-man, we create something beyond themselves, an ideological and a transcendent which we hold over high. It is to provide a way for one to move forward, create projects and exist, a mode of Being and inhabiting the world and not just a type of Being as a static state of affairs. However, as an ideology it can be see as the Das Man (Heidegger's 'The they') and therefore an inauthentic way of existence...a nothingness!!
ReplyDeleteSymph: sort of. For Stirner though, he wants to critisize the use of "man" in any fixed sense, but the future doesn't matter as much to him as perhaps it did to Neitzsche. Stirner proclaimed that in a sense people are "possessed" by "man", so that it not always purely a concious choice. He wants to do away with such predicates altogether in a sense, or to aknowledge such concepts as "man" as something possessed by him rather than him being possessed by them. He emphasizes uniqueness to the point of basically saying that he is undefinable by our language, and that is another sense of his "nothingness".
ReplyDeleteSartre has a similar view. Man creates his own essence! Being is projected beyond the present, we think what we will be.
ReplyDelete