{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 322/1920-09-28/p011","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"Now, if we turn on the other hand to consider something that is not so obviously descended from Hegel but can be traced back to Hegel nonetheless, we find still within the first half of the nineteenth century, but carrying over into the second half, the “philosopher of the ego,” Max Stirner. While Karl Marx occupies one of the two poles of human experience mentioned yesterday, the pole of matter upon which he bares all his considerations, Stirner, the philosopher of the ego, proceeds from the opposite pole, that of consciousness. And just as the modern world view, gravitating toward the pole of matter, becomes unable to discover consciousness within that element (as we saw yesterday in the example of du Bois-Reymond), a person who gravitates to the opposite pole of consciousness will not be able to find the material world. And so it is with Max Stirner. For Max Stirner, no material universe with natural laws actually exists. Stirner sees the world as populated solely by human egos, by human consciousnesses that want only to indulge themselves to the full. “I have built my thing on nothing”—that is one of Max Stirner's maxims. And on these grounds Stirner opposes even the notion of Providence. He says for example: certain moralists demand that we should not perform any deed out of egoism, but rather that we should perform it because it is pleasing to God. In acting, we should look to God, to that which pleases Him, that which He commands. Why, thinks Max Stirner, should I, who have built only upon the foundation of ego-consciousness, have to admit that God is after all the greater egoist Who can demand of man and the world that all should be performed as it suits Him? I will not surrender my own egoism for the sake of a greater egoism. I will do what pleases *me*. What do I care for a God when I have *myself*?","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"Lecture II","site_heading":"Hegel, Marx, and the Limits of Conceptual Thinking","site_heading_note":"A heading the site wrote for this unit from a summary of it; not in the edition, and not the words of Rudolf Steiner or of the translator. Cite the unit by its title and locus, never by this heading, and do not quote it.","date":"1920-09-28","location":null,"word_count":325,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/322/1920-09-28/p011","alignment_confidence":"high","alignment_reason":"beads:length","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"established","translator":"Frederick Amrine and Konrad Oberhuber","identified_edition":"AP1983","book_title":"The Boundaries of Natural Science","publisher":"Anthroposophic Press","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA322/English/AP1983/19200928p01.html","evidence":"lecture_list_row","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["English"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"de","edition":"original","edition_basis":null,"is_original":true,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/322/1920-09-28/p011"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/322/1920-09-28/p011","paragraph_aligned":true}],"record":{"record_type":"unknown","scope":"volume","note":"How this text was taken down (shorthand transcript, listeners' notes or manuscript) is not on record here. Unknown is not an assurance of a stenogram: check the edition's own notes before resting an argument on one word.","evidence":null,"evidence_translation":null,"evidence_source":null},"german_anchor":{"de_prefix":"1920-09-28","de_passages":[{"locus":"GA 322/1920-09-28/p010","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/322/1920-09-28/p010"}],"bead_confidence":"high","pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false,"length_check":{"de_words":358,"en_words":325,"ratio":0.91,"partial":false},"correspondence":"established","note":"English passage numbering is edition-relative, so the same number need not name the same paragraph in the German. The German original passage(s) above are the edition-invariant anchor — fetch them (lang='de') to verify wording before quoting across editions."},"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 322/1920-09-28/p010","passage_number":10,"text":"Nun, sehen wir nach einer andern Seite hin, nach etwas, was zwar nicht so sehr betont hat, daß es aus Hegel stammt, was aber nichtsdestoweniger historisch ganz gut auf Hegel zurückgeführt werden kann, so finden wir den Ich-Philosophen noch aus der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, aber herüberragend in die zweite Hälfte, wir finden Max Stirner. Während Karl Marx den einen Pol des menschlichen Anschauens, auf den wir gestern hingewiesen haben, die Materie zur Grundlage seiner Betrachtung macht, geht Stirner, der Ich-Philosoph Max Stirner, aus von dem andern Pole, von dem Bewußtseinspol. Und gerade deshalb, weil die neuere Weltanschauung, indem sie nach dem materiellen Pol hinzielt, das Bewußtsein nicht aus ihm heraus finden kann, wie wir gestern an dem Beispiel Du Bois-Reymonds gesehen haben, so wird auf der andern Seite die Folge sein, daß eine Persönlichkeit, die sich nun ganz nur auf das Bewußtsein stellt, die materielle Welt nicht finden kann. Und so ist es bei Max Stirner. Für Max Stirner gibt es im Grunde genommen kein materielles Weltall mit Naturgesetzen. Für Max Stirner gibt es nur eine Welt, die einzig und allein bevölkert ist von menschlichen Ichen, von menschlichen Bewußtseinen, die ganz und gar nur sich ausleben wollen. «Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf nichts gestellt», das ist so eine der Losungen Max Stirners. Und von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus lehnt sich Max Stirner selbst gegen eine göttliche Weltenführung auf. Er sagt zum Beispiel: Da fordern gewisse Ethiker, gewisse Sittenlehrer, wir sollen nicht aus Selbstsucht irgendeine Tat begehen, sondern wir sollen sie begehen, weil sie Gott gefällt; wir sollen auf Gott hinschauen, indem wir eine Tat begehen, auf das, was ihm gefällt, was er anordnet, was ihm sympathisch ist. Warum sollte ich das —- meint Max Stirner -, der ich meine Sache lediglich auf die Spitze des Ich-Bewußtseins stellen will, warum sollte ich zugeben, daß Gott nun der große Egoist sei, der verlangen kann von der Welt, der Menschheit, daß alles so gemacht werde, wie es ihm gefällt! Ich will nicht um des großen Egoismus willen meinen persönlichen Egoismus aufgeben. Ich will die Dinge tun, die mir gefallen. Was geht mich ein Gott an, wenn ich nur mich habe.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":358,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/322/1920-09-28/p010"}],"english":["GA 322/1920-09-28/p011"],"method":"length","confidence":"high","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":358,"en_words":325,"ratio":0.91,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":0.99,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":3924,"original_word_count":3967,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Frederick Amrine and Konrad Oberhuber","identified_edition":"AP1983","book_title":"The Boundaries of Natural Science","publisher":"Anthroposophic Press","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA322/English/AP1983/19200928p01.html","evidence":"lecture_list_row","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"entity_parity":{"status":"ok","checked_against":["GA 322/1920-09-28/p010"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"high","note":"Every load-bearing name in the German counterpart appears in this English passage. That is a check on NAMES only: a translation can keep every name and still reverse who acts on whom, change a number, or soften a claim. Read the German for anything you intend to rest an argument on."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}