I think to really get into what more then hints at Stirner's apolitical/anti-political pathos it helps to read 'The False Principle of Our Education'. In that he uses the term 'Personalism' which is more fitting of his philosophy then egoism or individualism.
i can see Stirner making complete sense in the context of, self under siege, and even, society under siege; when he thinks of the precursur necessary to freedom, owning the self... / even a person in the extreme position of a slave, or in a temporary trapped situation, can find ownness of the self; and read in this way~ it doesn't seem so ridiculous as in egoistic and bombastic as it is usually posed in internet memes; but actually dead serious, as a combat strategy as it were.... a defensive 🦅 well... this is how i've come to interpret Stirner, not as a joke of adolescent-memed egoism. / But the ontological ground in fighting for basic human dignity~
ps... if we see what he says about the actors in society and how they can and do rob the individual self... i can also imagine a way to apply his ownness to the self defending against the seige upon their world... maybe in a case like gentrification sytematically and purposely destroying communities, especially intellectual and arts places within the larger city. / it may apply to a manifesto of many selves who raise consciousness and action against this capitalist overt operation... even seeing it as a version of colonialism... its a great idea... because usually people think of Stirner as rejecting community or..? a collective ( or at least that's what impression i had )
3... well... i tried to think of how stirner could be a group manifesto... but his breakthru was seeing how freedom is a spectre when it is an ideal which is reliant upon outer structures... and that, something like, the promise of revolutionary emancipation only conceals a deeper domination; so... he thinks that the dialog of liberty is therefore a trap... so.. i dont know how his thought would create a collective manifesto.. its a good question
@@mandys1505 Invert your reading to get to the manifesto. Rather than breaking meaningless laws to defend your individuality, impose meaningless laws on people you see as property. That's the dominating reading of Stirner used by Marinetti, Lewis, et al.
@@nonwaynefulyeah😮... those avant garde artists were nuts. even though, in spite of the political opinions... i still love ezra pound .... but its madness... from our vantage anyway... all of the antisemitism and the love of fascism. it makes no sense to me because their art is .... seemingly not involved. 😮😮😮😮 yikes. of course i heavily think of heideggers philosophy and then i look at stirner...so i'm in my own bubble🎉
Aren’t ideas like fascism and capitalism, inherently at odds with Stirner’s thought? He makes it pretty clear that private property is a fixed idea and holds no place in egoism. I would imagine a concept like racism would also fail to hold ground for Stirner.
Absolutely! Unfortunately it hasn't stopped people like Mussolini from using Stirner to defend all sorts of ideologies. As long as *I* don't hold my own ideology as sacred, I can, as an egoist, inflict all manner of ideals on those around me, who are, after all, my property.
@@nonwayneful Right. But then why are we wringing our hands in concern over the harms that bad faith interpretations of Stirner’s ideas have caused vs the harms caused by literally any other ideology for which harmful interpretations have existed? Christianity has been used to justify slavery and white supremacy but we aren’t fretting over the ways Christianity have been abused as if it were uniquely susceptible to that abuse.
@@heffelumpphotoco Not sure about anyone really wringing their hands. I'm an intellectual historian, so my interest is in the various ways Stirner's thought has been used and abused. Certainly no other philosophy can be used to defend virtually any position on an individual basis quite like Stirner's can!
@@nonwayneful hes probably the only philosopher who commented on the possibility of his works being used for anything, but rather then justify it, or defined himself, he simply aknowlages the possibility and his affirmation of himself (he will still write it No matter the Consiquence) I have yet to Read a philosophy which cant be used in any way one wishes, its especially cringe with religion. But i have yet to Read an author take the possibility seriously, and write his opinion on what one thinks of the Worst case scenario. Stirner is refreshing
Thanks for the upload. Audio is very uneven between you, I suppose you know. I never went as far as reading Stirner as saying other people may be made up. But okay, maybe something is in there that allows this reading. I'd like an elaboration why Marx would seem less innovative with his historicism in the light of Stirners individualism. Feels like a stretch as these are different, but I'd love to hear more of a justification. Is the commonality really more than just both of them reacting to Hegel?
I would suggest that the existence of other unique individuals has to be speculative or the broader logic of his argument about property collapses. The Marx question requires more space, but has to do with him effectively inverting Stirner's critique of Feuerbach to provide his own. I go into more length in the book. I think the sound issues might be a "chatting on other sides of the world" problem
Love the Stirner content. I don't know if he has much interest in public discussion of Stirner & anarchism anymore, but I'd love to see you have Alejandro de Acosta on. His essays "How the Stirner Eats Gods" and "Absolute Typhos" are worth checking out if you haven't.
The advocates of so-called “Ego Death” have yet to answer Max Stirner’s challenge; What did my Ego ever do to you, and why does it deserve to die?
I asked Timothy Leary
But he couldn't help me either
Remember when St. Max trolled Marx so hard that Karl wrote “The German Ideology” just to try and regain his composure?
The German Ideology is satire. St. Max was also a satirist, they were both in on the joke.
Would love see Saul Newman interviewed in the future.
I think to really get into what more then hints at Stirner's apolitical/anti-political pathos it helps to read 'The False Principle of Our Education'. In that he uses the term 'Personalism' which is more fitting of his philosophy then egoism or individualism.
Well said! I discuss this in my book
i can see Stirner making complete sense in the context of, self under siege, and even, society under siege; when he thinks of the precursur necessary to freedom, owning the self... / even a person in the extreme position of a slave, or in a temporary trapped situation, can find ownness of the self; and read in this way~ it doesn't seem so ridiculous as in egoistic and bombastic as it is usually posed in internet memes; but actually dead serious, as a combat strategy as it were.... a defensive 🦅 well... this is how i've come to interpret Stirner, not as a joke of adolescent-memed egoism. / But the ontological ground in fighting for basic human dignity~
ps... if we see what he says about the actors in society and how they can and do rob the individual self... i can also imagine a way to apply his ownness to the self defending against the seige upon their world... maybe in a case like gentrification sytematically and purposely destroying communities, especially intellectual and arts places within the larger city. / it may apply to a manifesto of many selves who raise consciousness and action against this capitalist overt operation... even seeing it as a version of colonialism... its a great idea... because usually people think of Stirner as rejecting community or..? a collective ( or at least that's what impression i had )
3... well... i tried to think of how stirner could be a group manifesto... but his breakthru was seeing how freedom is a spectre when it is an ideal which is reliant upon outer structures... and that, something like, the promise of revolutionary emancipation only conceals a deeper domination; so... he thinks that the dialog of liberty is therefore a trap... so.. i dont know how his thought would create a collective manifesto.. its a good question
@@mandys1505 Invert your reading to get to the manifesto. Rather than breaking meaningless laws to defend your individuality, impose meaningless laws on people you see as property. That's the dominating reading of Stirner used by Marinetti, Lewis, et al.
@@nonwaynefulyeah😮... those avant garde artists were nuts. even though, in spite of the political opinions... i still love ezra pound .... but its madness... from our vantage anyway... all of the antisemitism and the love of fascism. it makes no sense to me because their art is .... seemingly not involved. 😮😮😮😮 yikes. of course i heavily think of heideggers philosophy and then i look at stirner...so i'm in my own bubble🎉
Aren’t ideas like fascism and capitalism, inherently at odds with Stirner’s thought? He makes it pretty clear that private property is a fixed idea and holds no place in egoism. I would imagine a concept like racism would also fail to hold ground for Stirner.
Absolutely! Unfortunately it hasn't stopped people like Mussolini from using Stirner to defend all sorts of ideologies. As long as *I* don't hold my own ideology as sacred, I can, as an egoist, inflict all manner of ideals on those around me, who are, after all, my property.
@@nonwayneful Right. But then why are we wringing our hands in concern over the harms that bad faith interpretations of Stirner’s ideas have caused vs the harms caused by literally any other ideology for which harmful interpretations have existed? Christianity has been used to justify slavery and white supremacy but we aren’t fretting over the ways Christianity have been abused as if it were uniquely susceptible to that abuse.
@@heffelumpphotoco Not sure about anyone really wringing their hands. I'm an intellectual historian, so my interest is in the various ways Stirner's thought has been used and abused. Certainly no other philosophy can be used to defend virtually any position on an individual basis quite like Stirner's can!
@@nonwayneful hes probably the only philosopher who commented on the possibility of his works being used for anything, but rather then justify it, or defined himself, he simply aknowlages the possibility and his affirmation of himself (he will still write it No matter the Consiquence)
I have yet to Read a philosophy which cant be used in any way one wishes, its especially cringe with religion. But i have yet to Read an author take the possibility seriously, and write his opinion on what one thinks of the Worst case scenario.
Stirner is refreshing
Thanks for the upload. Audio is very uneven between you, I suppose you know.
I never went as far as reading Stirner as saying other people may be made up. But okay, maybe something is in there that allows this reading.
I'd like an elaboration why Marx would seem less innovative with his historicism in the light of Stirners individualism. Feels like a stretch as these are different, but I'd love to hear more of a justification. Is the commonality really more than just both of them reacting to Hegel?
I would suggest that the existence of other unique individuals has to be speculative or the broader logic of his argument about property collapses. The Marx question requires more space, but has to do with him effectively inverting Stirner's critique of Feuerbach to provide his own.
I go into more length in the book.
I think the sound issues might be a "chatting on other sides of the world" problem
Nietzsche is to Stirner what NIN is to Skinny Puppy.
Love the Stirner content. I don't know if he has much interest in public discussion of Stirner & anarchism anymore, but I'd love to see you have Alejandro de Acosta on. His essays "How the Stirner Eats Gods" and "Absolute Typhos" are worth checking out if you haven't.
oh yes, i saw dr. bradshaw on the young idealist, nice
Was hoping for another discussion on Max Stirner, looking forward to this.
Wayyyyynnneeeee ❤❤