But all this fails to give us a clear insight into the relationship between altruism and egoism.
As regards the problem of freedom, Černyševskii's materialistic determinism leads him to deny the freedom of the will, and this denial is based upon a general denial of the existence of the will (or rather of "willing," for on this occasion Černyševskii uses more concrete language). In earlier days, we read in The Anthropological Principle, man's actions were explained as the outcome of his "will"; he was said to "will" to do good or to do evil. But the anthropological principle teaches us that evil behaviour and good behaviour are not brought about by any moral (i.e. psychical) or material fact or combination of facts. "Willing is a mere subjective impression which in our consciousness accompanies the origination of thoughts, actions, or external phenomena."
I am well aware that, before Černyševskii wrote, the attempt had been made to refer will to the sphere of the intellect (Herbart), but Černyševskii does not make this endeavour deliberately. For him, the intrusion of the will into the affairs of the world of which the organism is a part seems inconvenient, for it disturbs his determinism, and will therefore becomes for him no more than a subjective "impression," a species of illusory epiphenomenon of the intellect, but an epiphenomenon also of actions and of external phenomena. Yet how, we must ask, do the thoughts and the actions arise, and how does willing accompany the "external phenomena"? Such questions as these, such questions as are inseparably associated with the problem of consciousness in general and with the problem of the separate psychical activities, are simply ignored by Černyševskii. Moreover, his materialism goes but half way. It is only the will which is a puzzle to him, and there is no difficulty about the determined intelligence! His teacher Mill, at least, was more consistent and thoroughgoing; so was Schopenhauer; so were all who have discussed the problem with full understanding.
To establish the principles of ethics upon firm foundations, to do this in the theoretical field with the aid of accurate epistemological criticism, is one thing; to live morally and to work practically on behalf of one's fellows is another. It has often been said of Černyševskii and of all the egoists of the sixties, that these men who were egoists in theory were the greatest idealists in practice. This is perfectly true. When
