The LOve Ethic - Humanism versus Egoism

Author

Message

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 23 Feb 2005 10:52 pm Post subject: THE LOVE ETHIC: HUMANISM VERSUS EGOISM

Comrades I have been talking to my Comrade Dan Read, and he advised me to have a look at the www.loveethic.org site. I have had a look at this site, which is of course very interesting and would like to say a couple of things. Firstly, how is it possible to attempt to apply love in every situation in your life? Do you love the men who come to repossess your television? Do you love the police officer who violently arrests you for 'subversion' or' breach of the peace' (speaking on the platform etc)? Do you love those who do harm to you? Now, Vince talks of Erich Fromm,'s Art of Loving, which is a very nice book written in the 1950s I believe. What Fromm defined as love was not an EMOTION, but an ACTIVITY: the activity of acting for others in their best interests (economic, social and emotional). This is what I got out of Fromm anyway. What Vince is on about it seems, is nothing new. "If God is love, is not the essential content of this love man? Is not the love of God to man-the basis and central point of religion-the love of man to himself, made an object, comtemplated as the highest objective truth" (Essence of Christianity, p58). This is what Feuerbach wrote in 1841. And in 2005, we have Vince talking of love as the highest truth, the "sole absolute truth". Now, Vince denies that his love ethic is in any way religion, or in any way secular. Firstly, Feuerbach argued that the origins of the term religion lie in the term BOND, and that religion is simply a bond. In fact, in the Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, he argued that his humanism was the true religion. Feuerbach differentiated between religion and theology of course. Therefore, when Max Stirner came along, he wasn't actually saying anything new when he claimed that Feuerbach hadn't got rid of religion. Feuerbach said that the predicates of God are but the predicates of man abstracted from the limitations of the world. He said, that when we said God is love, what we were really saying was that love is divine. But this in itself is making something divine. Feuerbach did point out that love is divine simply because it is a predicate of man. But what that means is that love in itself means nothing, that it only means something because it is part of the nature of man. He pointed this out the other way, when he said that if we ought to be good because God tells us to be good, then there is no merit in being good in itself. What Stirner said was that the making of these predicates of God into predicates of man, and the divination of the predicates of man meant was that we were not in fact getting rid of God, and were not getting rid of alienation of ourselves, but were only transferring our masters. For we have simply moved our master from God to man. Am I man? Are you man? No. I am I, you are you, and I am more than man just as you are. The predicates of man cannot completely describe anybody, for people are unique (this being compatible with cause and effect relations, although Stirner's abstraction from these is one of his failures). Man devalued himself in religion, Feuerbach said. But he is still devaluing himself, still subjecting himself to external domination, only this time the domination comes from man, and not God. Humanism as conceived by Feuerbach was the HIGHEST point in the development of religion, because what it does is it abstracts the spirit of man from any individual, making it a spirit in everything. But it accepts that this spirit is HUMAN spirit, something Buddhism and other theories do not do. But, I have rambled. WHY do I love? Do I do it because it is divine? If it is divine, then why is it divine? Because my nature is divine? Then, that means love in itself is not divine, but that I am divine. So why should I make love divine, why shouldn't I make myself divine? Of course the nature of man emanates from social relations, and not from the abstract individual. This is central to Feuerbach's case. But I love others, for my own purpose? God has his own purpose, that of love for himself from others. Man has his purpose of love for the predicates of man for their own purpose. So why should I not have my own purpose? Why should I love for others, why not for me? Fromm talks about loving people as men, because they are men. But can we do this? Do you love your wife because she is a woman, because she is a human being? NO...you love your wife because she is a PARTICULAR woman, because she is of USE to you, because she pleases you (Stirner, Ego and Its Own, p291). And why not? I have no problem with loving others, but let's recognise that this love has a definite purpose: self-love, and in fact, just as man in community cannot transcend man to God (because God doesn't exist), I cannot leave myself. As Stirner said, we can lose our freedom, but not our ownness. A bit of a rant from me. Sorry about this. I think it is useful to talk about this though. Are we communists because we are humanists, or is it because we are egoists? I do not completely agree with either Stirner or Feuerbach, and I wish to discuss their work at length at some point in my political work. Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 23 Feb 2005 10:57 pm Post subject:

VINCE I started reading your sit from the bottom up (on the contents page at th side), so I only saw your have specific principles once I had already written this post. What I will do is read your principles carefully and let you know of my thoughts of them. I see the idea of complete love at all times you don't agree with, and it may seem that I have distorted your case when I refer to loving police and bailiffs etc. But I haven't, for what I am saying, even if it is possible to love such people, why should we? It is always possible to love at all times, Fromm seems to conclude, and so, if this is true, we should love at all times. It is an interesting idea you have though, and I would like to learn more about it. Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 09:35 pm Post subject:

Comrade BTW this article emphasises on Stirner. It was written before I had finished by second, and far more careful, reading of the Essence of Christianity, which is one of the best books I have ever read. What I think is the correct idea of love etc is a kind of fusion of Feuerbach and Stirner. A lot of what Feuerbach says is brilliant, but he doesn't realise that we are all individuals, and we cannot transcend this. Whilst I am really into love and so on I just dont think Feuerbach answers it all. But neither does Stirner. A kind of egoist love of making mutual use of one another is what I am like I suppose. Stirner's problem, one which could mean his whole system is flawed (it is to me), is that he considers that the individual does not need companionship, that he is complete in himself. This is nonsense of course, and the fact that people love one another demonstrates that: if love did not correspond to a certain need, then they wouldn't do it. Simple. And Feuerbach did not tell us to love each other because we are 'man'. This is one of Stirner's misinterpretations. He attacked the view that we ought to love one another because Jesus told us to love one another. Feuerbach said this means that we ourselves are meaningless to one another. I would like to talk at great length with people about Feuerbach, but there does not seem to be any Feuerbachians about, and the few that are about are academics. Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

PowerKord
Guest

Posted: 17 Apr 2005 11:10 pm Post subject:

null Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Jan 2006 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 20 Apr 2005 03:41 pm Post subject:

Vince As you can't send me the work as you said, but offered to send me some other stuff, could you please send me the other stuff? Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

PowerKord
Guest

Posted: 28 Apr 2005 07:27 am Post subject:

null Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Jan 2006 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 05 May 2005 07:38 pm Post subject:

Comrade Vince Thanks for your reply, there is no need to apologise for the delay: we are all busy with life! I think I have answered some of the points in my original post, so I will just answer the ones I think I haven't. You said we CAN practice love in every circumstance. You calim that calling a police officer a 'prick' or whatever, instead of beating him up is love. I don't think so. If we were to beat him up, we would be sure to find another 10 of them coming to beat us up! I think we are just accepting that calling him something is all we can do in the present case. Comrade, you seem to place emphasis on the view that we are all brothers and sisters. Now, yes we are from a biological standpoint, but in fact I have hit my brother in the past, and he has hit me in the past, despite the fact that this means, according to you, that we don't love one another. I think you are placing too much emphasis on people being related to one another. I think you have failed to recognise that in fact the idea of the family and so on is a mere "spook" as Max would say. You also say: "Perhaps the ultimate, and most elegant, answer is simply to assert the concept of the "unity of interests," the idea that the interest of the saver and the savee are one and the same." This is quite insightful in my viewm and I generally agree. I cannot live with myself not saving you in a burning building: but I save you not for you, but for me. This is what I am saying. I am saying that ultimately we cannot transcend ourselves: humanity is an abstraction, and even Feuerbach said that! The interest of the saver and the interest of the saved correspond. The interest of the saver is psychological, and the interest of the saved is psychical. Need to go now, talk later. Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

PowerKord
Guest

Posted: 05 May 2005 09:25 pm Post subject:

null Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Jan 2006 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 06 May 2005 08:24 pm Post subject:

Hi Vince So what you are saying is that the practice of love in our everyday lives in most scenarios, is only possible within Socialism, where there won't be any cops... About the brother and sister point. You are saying that we should try to act the way towards everyone the way in which we act towards our brothers and sisters. What this means is that you are saying that we should treat these people like our brother and sister. Now about the spook I mentioned. What I am saying is that you seem to think that we all treat our brothers and sisters in the same way, that we all love them etc because they are our brothers and sister. You say that we should love others like we love our brother and sister. But how can we do this without considering them to be our brother and sister. And what is it about being a brother which means you should love him? It is not what he is in himself, but what he is to you. What I am saying is that there is no way in which we 'ought' to relate to others, and that therefore 'brotherly ties' and such like are not sacred in themselves. You have a point about the transcendence of ourselves. But in 'transcending' ourselves, we are really not doing this at all, but are identifying ourself with the other person. In saving someone because we couldn't live with ourself if we didn't, we are uniting the emotional interests of ourself and the other person, the one who we save. It is about emotional fulfillment: one gets this fulfillment from helping the other. It is not about morality, about what is good in itself, although we may lie to ourselves that it is, but is about what is emotionally good for ourselves. What do you think? Cheers Richard P.S Interesting site. have you read much of Feuerbach? If not, you should. I am working my way through his earlier work at the moment, but I would suggest a thorough reading of the Essence of Christianity, which is a very good book. _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98

PowerKord
Guest

Posted: 07 May 2005 07:15 am Post subject:

null Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Jan 2006 12:23 am; edited 1 time in total

richard

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 08 May 2005 12:16 pm Post subject:

Hi Vince I am willing to accept that we are all part of one human family. What I am saying though, is that although there is nothing wrong with considering people to be our brother and sister, why is it that the brother and sister concept is sacred? Why should we treat our brother and sister in the particular way that makes you want to treat everybody this way? The word ought is a value judgement as you say, and that is the point. Why should so and so do something? What is it that means he 'ought' to do it, apart from your claim that so and so ought to do it? Nothing. Hitler cannot be immoral because morality is nonsense in itself In attaching value to things, we fulfil ourselves in doing these things etc. If we didn't attach a value to human life, for us, by this I mean emotional fulfillment in human life itself, then we wouldn't save other people's lives. Morality is a human construct and is based upon what people value. It does not exist independently of men. Richard _________________ "In religion man frees himself from the limits of life; he here lets fall what oppresses him, obstructs him, affects him repulsively; God is the self consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements" Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, p98