Page 61

100

THE EGO AND HIS OWN

into the foreground. But even here all might yet re-
solve itself into a personal interest, each of the par-
takers reflecting that he must concur in the punish-
ment of the thief because unpunished stealing might
otherwise become general and cause him too to lose
his own. Such a calculation, however, can hardly be
assumed on the part of many, and we shall rather
hear the cry that the thief is a " criminal." Here we
have before us a judgment, the thief's action receiving
its expression in the concept " crime." Now the
matter stands thus : even if a crime did not cause the
slightest damage either to me or to any of those in
whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless de-
nounce it. Why ? Because I am enthusiastic for
morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is
hostile to it I everywhere assail. Because in his mind
theft ranks as abominable without any question,
Proudhon, e. g., thinks that with the sentence
" Property is theft " he has at once put a brand on
property. In the sense of the priestly, theft is always
a crime, or at least a misdeed.

Here the personal interest is at an end. This par-

ticular person who has stolen the basket is perfectly
indifferent to my person ; it is only the thief, this con-
cept of which that person presents a specimen, that I
take an interest in. The thief and man are in my
mind irreconcilable opposites; for one is not truly
man when one is a thief; one degrades Man or
" humanity " in himself when one steals. Dropping
out of personal concern, one gets into philanthropism,
friendliness to man, which is usually misunderstood as
if it was a love to men, to each individual, while it is

MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 101

nothing but a love of Man, the unreal concept, the
spooks. It is not ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? , men, but ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? , Man, that the philanthropist carries in his
heart. To be sure, he cares for each individual, but
only because he wants to see his beloved ideal realized
everywhere.

So there is nothing said here of care for me, you,

us; that would be personal interest, and belongs under
the head of " worldly love." Philanthropism is a
heavenly, spiritual, a--priestly love.

Man

must be

restored in us, even if thereby we poor devils should
come to grief. It is the same priestly principle as
that famous fiat justitia, pereat mundus ; man and
justice are ideas, ghosts, for love of which everything
is sacrificed; therefore the priestly spirits are the

" self-sacrificing " ones.
He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out

of account so far as that infatuation extends, and
floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is
not a person, but an ideal, a spook.

Now, things as different as possible can belong to

Man and be so regarded. If one finds Man's chief
requirement in piety, there arises religious clericalism ;
if one sees it in morality, then moral clericalism raises
its head. On this account the priestly spirits of our

day want to make a " religion " of everything, a " re-

ligion of liberty," " religion of equality," etc., and for
them every idea becomes a " sacred cause," e. g. even
citizenship, politics, publicity, freedom of the press,
trial by jury, etc.

Now, what does " unselfishness " mean in this

sense ? Having only an ideal interest, before which