EGOISM OF THE NOBLE SOUL

(This is my comment on Nietzsche’s Jenseits 265.)

I must be a terrible judge of character, and especially of my own. Even now, I am convinced that there is no more accomplished altruist than I am, or, at least, if altruism is going a bit too far, that there is not a single selfish bone in my body. And yet, I have been called an egoist by a caring and loving person, and no matter how loudly I have always protested this characterization, she has not changed her opinion.

It is easy to be stubborn and keep denying the charges, but what does a philosopher do when he thinks that he is right, but the whole world tells him otherwise? Mind you, we are not discussing the shape of the earth, or any other fact of science, where history tells us that one man can be right against the whole world, until the whole world accepts his revolutionary theory, at which time another man stands up, saying that, in fact, everything believed to have be right before him is wrong, and so on, and so forth. But in our case there are no stubborn facts, nor revolutionary theories. We are in the realm of personal opinions, and disagreements about opinions are mostly caused not by different tastes, but by varying and imprecise definitions of words, and especially those words which we have chosen to argue about.

Back to the word “egoism” now, and to its definition, or, rather, its interpretation by the genius of Nietzsche in his Jenseits 265---

At the risk of displeasing innocent ears, I propose that egoism belongs to the nature of a noble soul, I mean that unshakable faith that to a being such as “we are” other beings must be subordinate by nature and have to sacrifice themselves. The noble soul accepts this fact of its egoism without any question mark, without a feeling that it might contain hardness, constraint, or caprice, but rather as something that may be founded in the primordial law of things: if it sought a name for this fact it would say ‘it is justice itself.’ Perhaps it admits under certain circumstances, which, at first, make it hesitate, that there are some who have rights equal to its own; as soon as this matter of rank is settled, it moves among these equals, with their equal privileges, showing the same sureness of modesty and delicate reverence that characterize its relations with itself--- in accordance with an innate heavenly mechanism, understood by all stars. It is merely another aspect of its egoism, this refinement and self-limitation in its relations with its equals--- every star is such an egoist--- it honors itself in them, and in the rights it cedes to them; it does not doubt that the exchange of honors and rights is of the nature of all social relations, and thus also belongs to the natural condition of things.

The noble soul gives as it takes from that passionate and irritable instinct of repayment that lies in its depth. The concept of grace has no meaning or good odor inter pares; there may be a sublime way to let presents from above happen to one, as it were, and to drink them up thirstily, like drops, but for this art and gesture the noble soul has no aptitude. Its egoism hinders it: quite generally it does not like to look “up,” but either ahead , horizontally and slowly, or down: it knows itself to be at a height.

Rereading this passage, in one of my introspective moods, I was greatly surprised and privately shocked, to find so much of my inner hidden self in Nietzsche’s description. If this is egoism, I say to myself, then I am an egoist… but then, once if we have pushed our refined psychology this far, if we push it farther still, then every single person, both noble and a slave, can be interpreted as a consummate egoist, as long as we bend our definitions to fit each particular case. But if everyone just turns out to be an “egoist” by definition, then the term itself loses its meaning, for the reason of its triviality, and must be redefined…

So, here is the key to the problem of defining egoism. Perhaps we ought to dismiss as inadequate the usage of this term in application to the slave, the oaf, the brute, the animal? Perhaps, the word egoism must itself become refined, selective, delicate, subtle, esoteric? Let us, then, abolish all its coarse uses, and keep it as a delicacy of sorts, both linguistically and philosophically speaking. In that case, there is only one definition of the word egoism, egoist, worth adopting, and it is indisputably Nietzsche’s definition in Jenseits 265.

And in that case, and in that case only, I confess to being one, and accept the title of egoist, and from now on, I’ll refuse to have any qualms about being called such an unpleasant name… Unpleasant?.. That is, until Nietzsche comes forth, and resolutely makes it pleasant.