Egoism: Humanity's Lost Virtue

For a long time, acts of “moral excellence” had been understood as “virtue”: Courage, prudence, diligence, justice. All beautiful concepts of a high civilizing moral value. But I, and only I, affirm that the virtue of all virtues was deliberately forgotten and erased from the psyche and human nature, and through this article, I will try to make clear and explicit my call for the rehabilitation of the most natural of all virtues – egoism.

There are three "types" of egoism known to philosophy today, each with their respective characteristics in question to Man while Being, and they are:

Psychological Egoism – Man is motivated only by his own interest.

Rational Egoism – Man acts only rationally if this action is to carry out his own interest.

Ethical Egoism – Man is only ethical if he pursues his own interest.

However, I come to affirm my hypothesis that there is a fourth category of egoism that has not yet been recognized, but it is more important than all the others, and that in principle, it would be the causality of all humanity:

Natural Egoism – Man's egoism is the natural essence of “Being”.

After this tremendous statement, that not only does Man act egoistically, his nature conditions him to exist coveting his own interests, I owe a more detailed explanation of what would be more specifically this “Natural Egoism” that inhabits Man, and why I hypothesize that he was lost by our species as a whole.

Natural Egoism

I will begin my inquiry with a passage from Max Stirner in his 1845 book Stirner's Critics:

“Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. [...] It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word[1].”

I would like you to notice the issue that the Unique – the word used by Stirner to name the human ego – is left without depth, and is used as a simple dialectical statement for what Stirner would call "Own" – the individual as the ultimate property of the individual itself –. The concept is purposely vague as well, because even Stirner was not able to conceive the idea that I come to propose here. In defending his idea, Stirner seems to lack words based on any existing concepts of what the human ego is, and therefore ends up having to use tactics to make his argument irrefutable:

“What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable[2].”

Stirner claims to be a word, a thought, a concept, but at the same time it is not a word, nor a thought, nor a concept, and what he says is not what he means, because what he intends to say is unpronounceable. It seems like an idea that consists in the contradiction of his thoughts that when they affirm themselves, they cancel themselves, but when they cancel themselves, they affirm themselves, making the argument continue to be valid. The image, or rather, the conception that Stirner's equation lacked, was that all his thought is substantiated in the very essence of Being – the very egoism he defended so much –. Natural egoism arises together with the conception of the Being to existence, that is, the ego is part of what makes us beings of the form, way, way of being, and all perception, meaning, and existence, is felt through our free conscience towards the use of our own egoism. Does this mean that we are all already destined to do acts only for the sake of self-interest? Yes, however, how each individual will project his nature into existence, its a unique choice of each Being. Egoism is not a projection of our ideas, concepts, subjections, prepositions, languages, and not even of our consciousness of Being, but rather all of this arises from egoism that comes into existence with existence itself.

How Natural Egoism Works

The human essence is that of egoism, of individual fulfillment for the purposes conceptualized by the being itself, however, how does it arise towards existence? How does it become an idea, a concept, an abstraction? It is conceived from the moment in which the Non-Being becomes Being:



1 – Life; the concept of existing in time.

2 – Egoism; exists and is part of concept 1 over time.

3 – Emergence of life; when we are born, we are conceived, when we come to be independent of another being in order to exist.

4 – The conception of 3 also brings with it egoism, the nature of being the exclusive property of oneself during existence.

5 – The moment we start to feel existence – ex: when we take our first breath after childbirth –, we empower the individual, thus making the ego become prevalent in our Being.

6 – With the empowerment of egoism, the formalization of possibilities comes into existence – making everything possible to be idealized or conceptualized –.

7 – End of existence through death – life is finite –.

8 – However, individual egoism, even though it has the potential to act “independent of external effects”, ended through the death of life, it continues to exist through the external potency of other individuals – such as the legacy, for example –.

Egoism is the only way to exist that eternalizes something finite – like Being – in something infinite – in ideas and in the world outside the individual –. And one of the points that makes me write this, is that all this potentialization exists, and it comes with the individual human essence – when we pass from Not Being to Being –, and this is completely thrown on the margins of human intelligence with the argument that egoism is misleading and generally negative. How can human nature be viewed so pejoratively by humanity itself? Was this a consequence of the evolutionary-civilizing process? Or was it humanity's own effort in the struggle to maintain the natural hierarchical structure, through the sedentary-civilizing process?

Devirtuation through Civilization

Friedrich Nietzsche would already give us a clue as to when we started to distort the concepts of virtue and human essence in his 1887 book Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic:

“...the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination - their prophets fused "rich", "godless", "evil", "violent", "sensual" into one, and were the first to coin the word "world" as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for "poor" as a synonym for "holy" and "friend") that the significance of the Jewish people resides: With them, there begins the slave revolt in morals[3].”

Nietzsche makes use of the attack on Christianity more specifically, however, it was a very precise attack on the concept of the hierarchical structure of power that we – humans – developed with the civilizatory process – religion –. However, Nietzsche had lived in a time when pre-classical history was still the subject of many questions and doubts, and it is understandable that he only returned until approximately 500 BC. However, in the contemporary world, it is now possible to study and assimilate content prior to 500 BC, going back to the very beginning of the Bronze Age – around 3300 BC –. Before an extremely complex social structure like the contemporary one, the first civilizations were structured through theocratic leaders and religious officials, as Samuel Noah Kramer himself would say in his work The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character:

“Before the beginning of kingship in Sumer, the city-states were effectively ruled by theocratic priests and religious officials. Later, this role was supplanted by kings, but priests continued to exert great influence on Sumerian society. In early times, Sumerian temples were simple, one-room structures, sometimes built on elevated platforms. Towards the end of Sumerian civilization, these temples developed into ziggurats—tall, pyramidal structures with sanctuaries at the tops[4].”

Therefore, the civilizatory process had already started with the divine hierarchy, where few – elite – would be in power to maintain the divine will of the gods – a metaphysical idea, of hope for something other than this world – under an intellectually inferior majority, and that often had no idea on how the structure of society worked. If we are free beings, who covet individual fulfillment, why then would we be imprisoned in coded structures? Some will say that it was done so that the achievement of the majority could be achieved, or at least the order sufficient for the individual to fullful his purpose, but I disagree. The hierarchical structure is the incision into the world of the concept of the denial of the ego, and I will explain why:

With the development of agriculture, and therefore, of the sedentary process that would soon follow, the human being, being a natural egoist, would create purposes that would not only facilitate the advance – technological, social and cultural – of his civilization, as they would evolve intellectually, however, here I focus on the fact that all men would be able to fulfill their individual desires without any restriction or denial of when, how, and where to conceive that same purpose; with the first steps of civilizatory development, Man still had some poor hope of being able to be his maximum, however, at some point in the past – I hypothesize that between 10,000 BC and 7500 BC. Between the end of the Neolithic and the end of the Chalcolitic – in some society in an embryonic state, the concept of hierarchy had been created, and I believe it was developed – Hypothesis A – by people who were of the resentful masses who had not accomplished their purposes and who seeing the accumulated power of some of the members of their community, who had been successful in the individual mission of the purpose, concluded that in order for them to be successful – the weak – the strong – those who could achieve individually – and their ways of thinking – placing the individual ego as the greatest virtue, for they had already conceived the idea that human nature was egoist, but in a way that becomes productive through virtue – outside the concept of power, and thus creating a structure capable of stratifying the population and making the control of whoever achieved this “consummation of the ego” be ordered, or – Hypothesis B –, the community elite – the victorious, good, strong, conscious egoists – became aware of the fact that without a structure, society – and its population – would be able to realize themselves individually, and one of these achievements could lead the elite to be removed from their post as elite, causing them to create the organism of hierarchy to remain in power, and by means of doublethinking, distort the basic virtue, egoism.



Here I pass a representative image of both sets of virtues, one where egoism was still seen as natural and being used as a tool for individual and consequently collective improvement – through individual achievements the lives of other beings are indirectly affected – where humanity was not contextualized through cultures, classes, languages and hierarchies, and through virtues – such as courage, confidence, creativity, honesty and power – here understand “power” not as something controlling, but as something motivating to reach your goals – – sought to achieve egoism – the realization of individual purpose –. Egoism was doubly seen as the purpose and the motivating tool. In the second image, we can see the representation of civilizatory society that we developed against the will to realize the individual purposes of each Being, with the creation of hierarchical and dividing concepts – such as culture, state, and above all, religion – that facilitated the stagnation of the achievement of others in exchange for a stabilization of the central power in the hands of a few – the elite that (1) or was of the resentful portion that did not reach their goals and then developed all this idealistic stratification charge to make it impossible for others also managed to achieve and to use it, they transvalorizated it with new and "better" virtues – such as kindness, empathy, piety, charity, etc ... – or (2) was the creation of a group of people who had already reached their achievement peak and with the knowledge that others, when fullfiled, could affect them negatively, deconstructed their own values and transformed them into negative points that an individual could have, raising to the position of purpose therefore, points that would weaken and content the masses who, thus, would comfortably establish themselves in their positions in the newest inaugurated structure of the hierarchy. Along with this, the elite would now also have to participate in this same structure that it had created, because above them, the concept of the metaphysical absolute was the purposeful maxim – God –. It is noteworthy that both hypotheses that how egoism "fell from grace" of humanity, and how the organism of hierarchy was created are practically identical, however, this comes from the fact that one - the devaluation of egoism - caused the other - the stratification of society – – who would now worship an unreached divinity to legitimize their stay in the high caste of society without infuriating their subjects. That said, it is notworthy that for thousands upon thousands of years, like other cases of the creation of hierarchical organisms within our history, egoism would continue to have its pejorative weight that, it still maintains today.

A doctrine permanently established in the human mind can prevent a truth from ever being seen, as the one I propose, that egoism is the true and purest human nature, and that its real function has been completely distorted and forgotten...

Revaluation of Egoism

What, then, should we do? You ask me. Well, my answer can be seen as being a little pessimistic after this long speech about how we lost our true essence with the construction of the civilizatory process, but the reality is that returning – completely – to this real nature of humanity is an absurd proposition. After thousands of years, even the most enduring of ideas vanish, and egoism was no different. The feeling, the conception of egoism as a characteristic existence with the being is lost, however, its idea and concept still remain, and we must work with that to build a new idea of existence as individuals.

1º Realize that you are the center of your Universe, and that all things are possible egoistic purposes:

Life must be valued as something intrinsically finite, however, with the vision of someone who will make eternity in the infinite as its primary objective; seek the realization that being “Being”, infinite possibilities will be potentialized as opportunities of purpose.

2º To conceive that difficulties are only impasses placed in the individual mind by slave morality:

A current difficulty, is nothing more than the potentiation of the weaknesses that were raised to the rank of virtues by those who were ressentful and, built the structure against egoism; letting egoism take over in times of difficulty will make them smaller, and more bearable in the long run; through purpose, increase the conceptions of “master's morality”.

3º Individualize the perception of life:

Make your ego, your individual, become the most precious and valuable thing in this existence, without focusing on the lives of others, and take them as external to your purpose – just making it clear that, if the individual achievement of a certain person will help the next, it does not do less or more than others. Your focus on purpose will only be to indirectly affect other individuals. Here I focus on just worrying about individual own life that everything else will be just consequence –.

4º Assume egoism as your greatest virtue:

Acting like a egoistic person, in principle, would be: Being honest, trustworthy, strong, noble, powerful, etc.… and devirtualize the current “virtues” structured in the human mind and in society – as kindness – Not being good, does not make someone immediately bad –, pity, compassion, empathy, etc ... –.

The synthesis of all these points would be the creation of a new society with its basis on contemporary society where the individual would be the most valuable property, where the "purpose" would be the new "metaphysical concept" – if I may put it so – and the evolution and "progress” of mankind would no longer be due to direct human interference, but would be completely dependent on the consequence of the individual acts of each being in existence, which would act through its egoism focused solely on realizing itself.

An Adaptation of the ego would be the best choice – remembering here again, that the original state of human egoism cannot be completely recovered in terms of the distortion and change of the human psyche over the millennia. What we have to achieve is to approach egoism, and adapt it to what natural egoism would be –.

In terms of how to apply this mode of consciousness in the already established structure of the state, one question must be placed in front of all the others: – How can a concept of order be applied in accordance with “all” – and here I strengthen affirmation of "all"; without exception – individual purposes? I cannot give a theory of style of government, because the question of a egoist society transcends any current concept of government and state – a concept on how to project has not yet been created for something like what I idealize – however, I have my propositions that something orderly could be developed and that would be in accordance with all individual egos – A society where the relations that would establish a state have been completely atomized, and that would pass through each individual and their purposes? – because order does not necessarily have to be brought about by force and aggression against people. It can arise regardless of a vehicle by which to settle. Some might suggest Max Stirner's “Union of Egoists”, so let's look at it:

“Stirner also proceeds to give specific examples of what he would consider Unions of egoists: "It would be another thing indeed, if Hess wanted to see egoistic unions not on paper, but in life. Faust finds himself in the midst of such a union when he cries: "Here I am human, here I can be human" — Goethe says it in black and white. If Hess attentively observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at this very moment, some children have come together just outside his window in a friendly game. If he looks at them, he will see a playful egoistic union. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a beloved; then he knows how one heart finds another, as their two hearts unite egoistically to delight (enjoy) each other, and how no one "comes up short" in this. Perhaps he meets a few good friends on the street and they ask him to accompany them to a tavern for wine; does he go along as a favor to them, or does he "unite" with them because it promises pleasure? Should they thank him heartily for the "sacrifice," or do they know that all together they form an "egoistic union" for a little while[5]?"

Here Stirner says that a “Union of Egoists” would be something voluntary, but right after that, he says that if one of the egoists feels no longer represented, the union has degenerated into something else:

“If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else[6].”

Stirner already develops his concept wrong, when he assumes that anguish, or as he puts it, “suffering”, are situations that can come to exist, and end up ending the union. If it was created through the voluntariness of its participants, if they, those who suffer, remain in the union, they are not true egoists, because true egoists would withdraw to (1) fullfil themselves in another union, and (2) not hinder the purpose of those who still remain members of the union. Not to mention that a union of egoists as conceived by Stirner, looks more like the interactions between individuals in a stateless land that would work in “egoistically unity” so that society still existed. My question focuses much more on how to maintain order in a society where egoism is the reborn virtue, and whether that order can be established without needing a vehicle of force to establish it. Any theory of egoist government must be conceived without its weaknesses, because if not, the focus will no longer be on how to make it work, but on how to not let it collapse; practically, how the state works.

In Conclusion

Natural Egoism, as it was conceived by primordial humanity, was completely corrupted and distorted to what is currently seen as something negative, bad, rotten by the construction of hierarchical structures, such as religion, civilization, and all these points were committed by a resentful minorty, that in order to establish themselves as superiors, and to lower their best, developed an entire complex stratification organism where the best human virtues would be made the worst, and vice versa, making this doctrine of slaves establish and last until the days of today, completely shaping and modifying the human mind and perception of the universe around it. Nevertheless, through individual effort, perhaps it is possible to rescue these lost values, and the greatest virtue of all, egoism, so that, finally, we could establish a properly human society where humanity would no longer repudiate its essence, but rather, would use it as the motivational and fulfilling purpose of its existence, even if doubts such as what kind of government would succeed the concept of state after egoism was established, or whether we would still have any perception of the idea of state. At any rate, the end would still be the same, the egoistic Man, again, would see itself as becoming human...

There is no denying the importance of the ego, and the concept of egoism in creating the idea of individuality and its potentialization. The discussion about egoism is one that is often seen with taboo, but if studied with a slightly more open mind in terms of virtues and not virtues, it is possible to see completely different versions and realities from those already established, and that for many sometimes it will bring much more convincing and intimate arguments to its readers.

The discussion that I try to bring up with this paper is that if we really judge egoism in the right way, and not in the weakest and morally wrong way because we have a mentality that comes from the beginning of sedentary civilization, and that is of a out of disgust with our essence – egoism – many psychological and philosophical horizons can be reached, but that in the end, are left in the dark by prejudice.

We must also ask ourselves, why the "Academy" and all its renowned thinkers simply ignore the fact that the ego is one of the strongest candidates for an "essence" of humanity.

“For me, I’m my own, and the Universe is my own, and with everything in me, only the ego can become purpose.”

Gus Lamarch

Footnotes:

[1] Stirner, Stirner's Critics, p.7
[2] Stirner, Stirner’s Critics, p.7
[3] Nietzsche, Friedrich (1973), Beyond Good and Evil, p.118, London: Penguin Books.
[4] Kramer, Samuel Noah (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. The Univ. of Chicago Press.
[5] Stirner, Stirner's Critics, p.29
[6] Nyberg, Svein Olav, "The union of egoists" (PDF), Non Serviam, Oslo, Norway

References:

Sanders, Steven M. "Is egoism morally defensible?" Philosophia. Springer Netherlands. Volume 18, Numbers 2–3 / July 1988
Shaver, Robert (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Egoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.)
Slote, M. A. (1964). "An Empirical Basis for Psychological Egoism," Journal of Philosophy
Amélie Kuhr. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC. p. 9.
Killebrew, Ann E. (2013), "The Philistines and Other "Sea Peoples" in Text and Archaeology", Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and biblical studies, Society of Biblical Lit, 15, p. 2
Morelle, Rebecca (21 June 2019). "old stone tools pre-date earliest human". South African History Online.
Pearce, Mark (2019-09-01). "The 'Copper Age'—A History of the Concept".