Author of quotes: Max Stirner. Page 6

The critic instinctively assumes "true" when starting to work, and believing that it can be found, he seeks it. He wants to discover the true, and sees "good".
To assume means to set in advance an idea or to think about something before all things, and, based on this thought, to think anything else, you have to measure and criticize it by this measure. In other words, thinking must begin with something that is already conceived. If thinking started itself, instead of to be started, that is if it was a subject acting on their own personality, which is at least a plant, then of course it would be impossible to deny the fact that thinking must start with yourself. But it is the embodiment of thinking is the cause of countless errors. In the system of Hegel there is always talk as if thinking or "the thinking spirit", thinking and acting, but it is recognition of the individual in the thinking, thinking as a Ghost. Critical liberalism, for its part, will tell you that "criticism" does so-and-so, or "consciousness" is so-and-so. But if thinking is considered to be acting personally, then thinking should be premised; and if the criticism is considered to be such a thought must come before it. Thinking and criticism could be active only from themselves, they should be a prerequisite for its activity, as may not be active, not existing. But thinking as something premised, - an obsession, a dogma: thinking and criticism can come only from a dogma, that is, of thoughts, obsessions, background.

But I distinguish between criticism, which serves as anything from a private, or selfish. If I criticize, with the premise of some Supreme being, my criticism serves him and is for him; if I'm obsessed, for example, faith in the "free state", then I criticize everything related to it from this point of view - will it work to such state, or I love this state; if I criticize as a believer, it all falls apart for me in the divine and the diabolical, and all nature seems in my criticism in two faces, God and the devil, people - both believers and unbelievers; if I criticize while believing in man as the "true nature", then everything breaks down into human and non-human, etc. the Criticism was still a matter of love: we have always made it out of love to some entity. Any criticism, serving anything, is the product of love, obsession, and she does so, following the New Testament:
"Prove all things". "Good" - that is the touchstone, the criterion. The good, returning under a thousand names and types, is always a prerequisite, it remains dogmatically rigid point for these critics is an obsession.

Thinking, of course, will not stop, as well as feeling. But the power of thoughts and ideas, the rule of theories and principles, the primacy of the spirit, in a word, the hierarchy will continue as long as ruling priests, that is, theologians, philosophers, statesmen, Philistines, liberals, teachers, servants, parents, children, spouses, Prodany, George Sanda, Bluntschli, etc., etc.; a hierarchy will exist as long as they believe in the principles, think about them or even to criticize them, because even the most implacable critic, which buries all the usual principles in the end, too, believes in the principle as such. Criticizes everyone, but the criteria are different. So chasing the "true" criterion. This is the true criterion - the first premise. It is not a criticism, and dogmatic. Moreover, it is usually taken from the culture of a given time, for example, "freedom", "humanity" etc., Not a critic "discovered man," and "the man", was established as a dogmatic truth; critic, which, however, can be dogmatic, believe in this truth, in this dogma. In this faith possessed by this faith, he criticises. The secret of criticism is some "truth": here is the secret of its power.

No matter, none of the so-called higher interest of humanity, no "sacred cause" is not necessary that you serve him and for his sake had it; value it you can search only one: is it worth it that you gave him for yourself. Be like children - encourages biblical adage. But children have no sacred interest, they don't know anything about "good deeds". But they know very well what they tend, and considering all the forces as to succeed.

Near worldly goods should be depreciated and all the sacred sake.
Truth - not that other, as a phrase, ways of expression, speech (logos), it has been in a relationship, in order, they form logic, science, philosophy.
For thinking and speaking I need truths and words, as food for eating; without them I can neither think nor speak. The truth is a person's thoughts, expressed in words, and therefore existing as well as other reality, although they exist only for the spirit or for thinking. Is human and human beings, and if they are issued for the divine revelation, it still remains their property of strangeness for me, even as my own creatures they are already foreign to me after the act of their creation.
A Christian is a person who believes in thought, believes in the power of thoughts and wants to make the rulers of the so-called principles. A man explores the thoughts and none of them chooses without criticism of his Lord, but he is like a dog that sniffs people to find "his master"; he always seeks out the dominant idea. The Christian has too much to alter, as many may rebel, to destroy the idea, dominant for centuries - yet he will strive again and again to any new "principle" or new master again to rise higher or deeper truth, to create a new cult will continue to proclaim some kind of a spirit Lord's purpose will be to put some kind of law over all.
If there is at least one truth, which man would devote his entire life and his strength, because he is a man, he is some kind of rule, domination, law, etc., he is a servant. This kind of truth, for example - people, humanity, freedom, etc.

Christianity took from the earth only by his irresistible, made us independent of him. In exactly the same way I rise above truths and their power: I am super sensitive and swarkestone. The truth as vile and indifferent to me as things: they don't inspire, don't inspire. No truth, no right, no freedom etc. cannot have an independent existence from me, I can conquer. It's all words, only words, as for the Christian, all earthly - only "vanity". In words and truths (every word is the truth; Hegel argues that it is impossible to say lies) there is no salvation for me, as for the Christian, the earthly and vain. As the riches of this world cannot make me happy, and truth. Now the adversary is not Satan, but the spirit, and he tempts us with things of this world and thoughts, "the brilliance of ideas."

If thinking is not my thinking, it is only the deployment of the tangle of thought, slavery or work, "servants of the word." In my thinking not a thought is the beginning, but because I'm the target of it, and the whole process is only a process of my self-enjoyment; for absolute or free thinking, on the contrary, the thinking is beginning, and it is painful trying to set this beginning as the most extreme "abstraction" (such as Genesis). It is this abstraction, or this thought, is the beginning, and then it is only necessary to pull the thread until you unfold the whole ball.
Absolute thinking is the affair of the human spirit, and he is the Holy spirit. Therefore, this kind of thinking - the case of priests, they alone "understand" this, "realize the highest interests of mankind", the interests of the "spirit."

... Just as people have thought; like me - I'm out of ideas. Who can not get rid of thoughts, the only man, the slave of language, this product of people, this treasure of human thoughts.

Thinking, and, as already mentioned, faith is the same thinking as thinking the same faith, wished to bestow freedom; thinking, that is, both believers and reasonable, must be free for other people, freedom was impossible. But liberty-minded "freedom of the children of God" and at the same time the heartless hierarchy or domination of thought, for I submit to thought. If thoughts are free, I am their slave, I don't have authority over them and obey them. I want to use the ideas, I want to be full of thoughts, but at the same time want to be without thoughts and instead of freedom of thought want to be free from thoughts.

If the hierarchy has not penetrated so deeply into the heart of man, making it difficult to boldly pursue free, that is, to be displeasing to God thought that we would have freedom of thoughts is considered as empty a word as, for example, the freedom of "digestion".
The conviction of the people belonging to any shop, the thought was given me; for people open-minded, I'm looking for thoughts. For the first truth is found and exists, and I just have to accept it as the mercy of the giver; for the second the truth should be sought, and it is my lying in the future, the goal to which I should aspire.
In both cases the truth (the true thought) lies outside me, and I try to master it through the gift (grace) or acquisition (own merit). So: 1) truth is a privilege; 2) no, the path is open to all, and neither the Bible nor the Holy father or the Church or whoever it was does not possess it; but the possession of it to achieve a speculative way.
Both of these types of people do not possess the truth as the property of: they have it, or in the form of Lena (for "father", for example, is not the only one: the only thing is that Sixtus, Clement, etc., but as Sixtus, Clement, etc. he has no truth, and has it only as "Holy father", i.e. as a spirit), or as an ideal. As flax it exists for the very few (the privileged), as the ideal - for all (proprietary).

Then the thought becomes my property when I'm not afraid to put her in every moment of mortal danger, when the loss of it won't count as a loss to yourself and don't be afraid to lose yourself. My own thought becomes only when I can enslave myself but never Vice versa, when she can't bring me to fanaticism, make me an instrument of its implementation. So, freedom of thought exists when I can have all kinds of thoughts; but a property of thought will be made only when they are unable to become masters of me. In the era of freedom of thought is dominated by thoughts (ideas); but if I draw them to your property, they become my creations.

Members of the Department, or preferred, do not tolerate any freedom of thinking, then there are no thoughts that did not come from "the giver of all good", no matter how he called God, Pope, Church, or otherwise. If anyone has an illegitimate thoughts, he must tell it to my Confessor, and to be appointed Confessor bichevaya, while the whip slave will not become unbearable for free thought. As another way of keeping the Guild spirit that free thought does not arise; first of all - wise education. Someone sufficiently driven into the head of the principles of morality, that will never be freed from moral thoughts, and robbery, liepaaja, deception, etc. would be his obsessions, from which it will not protect any freedom of thought. His thoughts came to him "from above", and on this ground he stands firmly.

Feuerbach accuses Hegel is that he abuses words, understanding some expressions other than the understand usually, and yet, Feuerbach makes the same mistake, giving "sensual" such a wide sense in which this term is usually not used.
Well, of course, that Feuerbach stands for sensuality, but he expresses the materialism of his "new philosophy" in such forms that until now have been the property of idealism, the "absolute philosophy." People do not want to hear that you can live only one "spiritual", without bread, as little they believe that it is enough to be a sensual being, in order thereby to be all that is spiritual, thinking, etc.

... He remains in the grip of abstraction because "being" is abstraction, as the "I". Just me - not a simple abstraction, I all and in all, therefore, I - the abstraction or nothing; I am everything and nothing; I am not only a simple idea; I at the same time full of ideas I world of ideas. Hegel condemns the own, mine is "opinion". "Absolute thinking" is that thinking which forgets that it is my thinking that I am thinking and that it exists only through me. But, as "I", I re-absorb my own, become his master; it is only my opinion, which I can in every moment to change, that is, to destroy, to re-absorb and absorb. Feuerbach wants to win "absolute thinking" of Hegel as its overwhelming existence. But being I also overcame, and thinking. This is my "I am" and my "I think."