This translation makes available to the Anglophone world, for the first time, what is possibly Max Stirner’s final reply to his critics, entitled ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’ (1847). The article was signed ‘G. Edward’, and its authorship has been disputed ever since John Henry Mackay ‘cautiously’ attributed it to Stirner and included it in his collection of Stirner’s lesser writings. If it is indeed Stirner’s final reply, then some of the main traits of Der Einzige und sein (...) Eigentum are restated and posited against those whom Stirner scornfully refers to as ‘the philosophers’. Since it was written almost three years after his magnum opus, it would offer a unique insight into Stirner’s own appraisal of the book in the wake of the ultimate demise of Young Hegelianism. Other than its obvious historical-philosophical significance, the text bears witness to Stirner’s own ‘spectrality’. The controversy over Stirner’s authorship is related to the inherently idiosyncratic nature of his thought. Stirner defies – and indeed mocks – all philosophical and theoretical conventions or categorizations. Yet, perhaps the controversy over Stirner’s authorship of ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’ need not be settled after all: the mystery surrounding it only affirms the spectrality of the thinker who, in the words of ‘Edward’, one can ‘go crackers’ on. (shrink)

Humanism and Realism, the Egoist way. A classic essay from Stirner.

Now, as soon as man suspects that he has another side of himself Jenseits] within himself, and that he is not enough in his mere natural state, then he is driven on to divide himself into that which he actually is, and that which he should become. Just as the youth is the future of the boy, and the mature man the future of the innocent child, so that othersider Jenseitiger] is the future man who must be expected on the (...) other side of this present reality. Upon the awakening of that suspicion, man strives after and longs for the second other man of the future, and will not rest until he sees himself before the shape of this man from the other side. This shape fluctuates back and forth within him for a long time; he only feels it as a light in the innermost darkness of himself that would elevate itself, but as yet has no certain contour or fixed form. For a long time, along with other groping and dumb others in that darkness, the artistic genius seeks to express this presentiment. What no other succeeds in doing, he does, he presents the longing, the sought after form, and in finding its shape so creates the - Ideal. For what is then the perfect man, man's proper character, from which all that is seen is but mere appearance if it be not the Ideal Man, the Human Ideal? The artist alone has finally discovered the right word, the right picture, the right expression of that being which all seek. He presents that presentiment - it is the Ideal. 'Yes! that is it! that is the perfect shape, the appearance that we have longed for, the Good News - the Gospel. The one we sent forth so long ago with the question whose answer would satisfy the thirst of our spirit has returned!' So hail the people that creation of genius, and then fall down - in adoration. (shrink)

Über Schulgesetze -- Christentum und Antichristentum -- Gegenwort -- Über B. Bauers "Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts" -- Das unwahre Prinzip unserer Erziehung -- Kunst und Religion -- Über die Verpflichtung der Staatsbürger zu irgendeinem Religionsbekenntnis -- Einiges Vorläufige vom Liebesstaat -- Über "Die Mysterien von Paris" (Eugène Sue) -- Rezensenten Stirners -- Die philosophischen Reaktionäre.

Max Stirner was one of the most important and seminal thinkers of the mid-nineteenth century. In the shadows of Hegel, Stirner developed possibly the most radical and devastating critique ever of the discourses of modernity, incurring the ire of Marx, prefiguring Nietzsche, and having a major (though often unacknowledged) impact on diverse streams of thought, from existentialism to anarchism and autonomism, literary and artistic avant-gardes, and postmodern theory. This edited volume investigates Stirner's impact on critical thinking and (...) social and political thought, exploring his radical and contemporary importance as a political theorist. In unmasking the religiosity lurking behind discourses of humanism and rationalism, and the domination of the individual immanent within liberal modes of politics, Stirner demolished the ontological foundations and universal grand narratives of our modernity. His thought has implications for contemporary questions of ideology, power, subjectivity, ethics and action, and opens the way for entirely new forms of politics. (shrink)

This title correlates with the author's thesis (doctoral) entitled: "Die Thematik des 'Eigners' in der Philosphie Max Stirners: sein Beitrag zur Radikalisierung der anthropologischen Fragestellung", published in 1979 by Bouvier, Bonn.

Max Stirner is generally considered a nihilist, anarchist, precursor to Nietzsche, existentialism and even post-structuralism. Few are the scholars who try to analyse his stands from within its Young Hegelian context without, however, taking all his references to Hegel and the Young Hegelians as expressions of his own alleged Hegelianism. This article argues in favour of a radically different reading of Stirner considering his magnum opus “Der Einzige und sein Eigentum” as in part a carefully constructed parody of (...) Hegelianism deliberately exposing its outwornness as a system of thought. Stirner's alleged Hegelianism becomes intelligible when we consider it as a formal element in his criticism of Bauer's philosophy of self-consciousness. From within this framework it becomes quite clear what Stirner meant with such notions as “ownness” and “egoism”. They were part of his radical criticism of the implicit teleology of Hegelian dialectics as it found according to him its highmark in Bauer. In short, this article puts the literature on Stirner into question and tries for the first time in 30 years to dismantle Stirner's entire undertaking in “Der Einzige und sein Eigentum” by considering it first and foremost a radical criticism of Hegelianism and eventually the whole of philosophy while fully engaged in the debates of his time. ☆ The author would like to thank Douglas Moggach for corresponding with me on the idea of the comic and for not sparing me his “critical criticism” in general. I'm also indebted to William Desmond and Lawrence Stepelevich for their comments on earlier drafts of this text. (shrink)

Max Stirner (1806-1856) est l'auteur de L'Unique et sa propriété, paru en 1844. Il occupe une place singulière dans l'histoire de la pensée philosophique en ce qu'il pousse celle-ci dans ses derniers retranchements et oppose à tous les systèmes politiques et sociaux la réalité de l'individu unique. Chantre de l'égoïsme mais prônant l'association, il s'en prend radicalement à toutes les doctrines fondées sur le sacrifice ou l'oubli de soi. Les deux textes qui composent le présent volume visent à dégager (...) la pensée de Stirner des contresens et légendes qu'a entrai nés une lecture biaisée de son oeuvre. Le Philosophe qui s'en va tout seul en propose une interprétation destinée à rendre Stirner accessible au lecteur d'aujourd'hui. Celui-ci y trouvera les grandes étapes de la vie de Stirner ainsi que la genèse et l'évolution de sa philosophie. Il assistera à la vigoureuse attaque menée par Stirner contre les idéaux – religieux, politiques ou moraux, qui asservissent l'individu concret. Or loin d'être apocalyptique, L'Unique fonde de manière dynamique un nouveau type d'individu et de relations sociales, qui s'oppose à tous les totalitarismes. De ce fait et par la postérité qu'il a eue (de Nietzsche et des anarchistes aux situationnistes), Stirner reste un des philosophes les plus actuels. Stirner a choqué nombre de lecteurs, à commencer par Karl Marx qui écrivit avec Engels L'Idéologie allemande pour le combattre: c'est cet éreintage "matérialiste" que dissèque Daniel Joubert dans Marx versus Stirner. Il éclaire l'antagonisme entre ces deux émules de Hegel, qui traça pour longtemps une fracture dans les rangs de la révolte et de la critique du monde marchand. Ces considérations, souvent malicieuses, ébauchent en outre la perspective d'un dépassement de l'opposition entre "l'Unique" stirnérien et "l'être générique" marxien. (shrink)

This book interprets Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own as a critique of modernity and traces the basic elements of his dialectical egoism through the writings of Benjamin Tucker, James L. Walker, and Dora Marsden. Stirner's concept of 'ownness' is the basis of his critique of the dispossession and homogenization of individuals in modernity and is an important contribution to the research literature on libertarianism, dialectics, and post-modernism.

In his book The Ego and Its Own Max Stirner describes what happens when individuals subordinate themselves to an absolute or a universal idea in order to reap the associated ‘rewards’. What he calls ‘involuntary’ or ‘unconscious’ egoism are faulty versions of practical reason because they involve alienation, the pursuit of something that can never be attained by the individual. These forms of egoism characterise the rationality of agents who submit themselves to an absolute. However, proper egoism, as understood (...) by Stirner, implies that the self-interested agent is acting in accord with reality, with how the world and the self actually are. Alienation is thereby avoided. In what follows I want to examine whether the proper egoist can remain authentic in this way and still effectively pursue her interests. Given the Stirnerian ontology, with its distinction between proper and other forms of egoism, can the Stirnerian agent engage in a meaningful form of individualism? (shrink)

En este artículo se quiere trazar una teoría política de la insurrección en el pensamiento de Max Stirner, en tanto alternativa ética y política a la revolución. Se mostrará cómo, según el pensador alemán, la revolución es en última instancia una estrategia fallida de emancipación en tanto en cuanto no libera al individuo de las formas de subjetividad que lo mantienen dependiente del poder. Más en general, se enseñará como el orden liberal post-revolucionario, detrás del lenguaje secular de los (...) derechos, las libertades y la igualdad, engendra técnicas más sutiles de gobernabilidad del individuo. La insurrección, en cambio, puede ser vista como un rechazo de las identidades y de los roles que disciplinan al individuo. Al respecto, se prestará una atención especial al concepto stirneriano de Eigenheit, como estrategia ética de auto-determinación y liberación de las formas rígidas de la subjetividad. En última instancia, se querrá mostrar cómo todo el proyecto político de la insurrección stirneriana se basa en un anarquismo ontológico que rechaza la lógica teleocrática del racionalismo moderno y pone en entredicho la misma noción de realización. The aim of this article to outline a political theory of insurrection in Max Stirner’s thought as an ethical and political alternative to revolution. I will show that revolution is ultimately a failed strategy of emancipation as it does not free the individual from the forms of subjectivity that keep her dependent on power. Insurrection, on the other hand, can be seen as a rejection of the identities and roles that discipline the individual. In this regard, special attention will be paid to the Stirnerian concept of Eigenheit as an ethical strategy of self-determination and liberation from rigid forms of subjectivity. Ultimately, I will show how the whole political project of the Stirnerian insurrection is based on an ontological anarchism that rejects the teleocratic logic of modern rationalism and calls into question the very notion of realization. (shrink)

Max Stirner has often been considered a Young Hegelian, or even the 'last Hegelian'. Such a reading implies that Stirner drew the logical conclusions of Hegel’s philosophy, thereby ignoring the way his thought marks a fundamental break with the philosophical tradition as a whole. Stirner’s notions of 'egoism', 'ownness' and 'Der Einzige' ('the ego') were not philosophical concepts but, in a Foucauldian sense, tools to dismantle the subject-object dichotomy and its social and political bearings in the wake (...) of modernity. It is argued, furthermore, that his ideas cannot be reduced to a traditional philosophy of the subject (existentialism). This chapter analyses both Stirner’s quest to 'dissolve' philosophy, as well as its radical implications for political theory as a whole. Stirner’s notion of Der Einzige not only questions the revolutionary subject in a strictly Marxist sense, but eventually any form of (political) subjectivity. Stirner’s radical criticism of the emancipatory claims of his contemporaries allows us to question and rethink the concepts of contemporary social and political theory, not only by criticizing the way political power is commonly conceived and by refraining from positing essentialist guarantees, but also by laying bare the problem of political subjectivity. (shrink)

From its first appearance in 1844, Max Stirner’s major work, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum ,[1] has produced little agreement among its many interpreters. The very first of these interpreters was Friedrich Engels, who suggested that Stirner’s doctrines would be quite compatible with Benthamite utilitarianism, which he then admired, and even saw in these doctrines the potential of benefiting communism.[2] Marx, in short order, corrected this optimistic deviation, and then—with a surely repentant Engels—set forth the orthodox gospel for (...) all future generations of communists: Stirner, or “Sankt Max,” was but the speculative spokesman for the petty bourgeois, a decadent Hegelian boasting over the unrestraint of his self inflated ego.[3] Sidney Hook echoed Marx when he condemned Stirner’s work as but the “social defense mechanism of a petty bourgeois soul.”[4] Others, unsatisfied with this “petty” status, elevate him to that of the Grand Bourgeois, or Fascist.[5] Still others, taking an opposite stance, see in Stirner the most articulate defender of individual liberty.[6] In between, he has been called a nihilist, an anarchist, an existentialist, a solipsist, an anti Benthamite, an intemperate capitalist, or—as we might now suspect—an anti capitalist.[7] At least two commentators, lost in the confusion, have managed to escape the need to classify Stirner within the ongoing political and ethical categories and simply declare him to be insane.[8] In short, the list of radically diverse interpretations.. (shrink)

This paper explores Max Stirner's political philosophy and its importance for contemporary theory. While our time is characterized by the breaking down and dislocation of essential and universal identities, little has been written on the philosophical roots of this phenomenon. I show the ways in which Stirner's ‘epistemological break’ with Enlightenment humanism, explicit in his critique of Feuerbach, lays the theoretical groundwork for this ‘politics of difference’. Indeed it anticipates many aspects of ‘poststructuralism’ thought. I argue here that (...) Stirner's critique of humanism, essentialist identity, rationality, and moral absolutism unmasks the subtle connections between identity, desire and politics. It also goes beyond the political imaginary of the Enlightenment and, in doing so, allows us to deconstruct accepted political and social identities and radically transform the notion of the political subject. However, Stirner's thinking is not a simplistic transgression of humanist categories. Rather he shows their discursive limitations and calls for a rethinking of these concepts in ways that are less abstract and oppressive. (shrink)

My aim in what follows is to provide and criticise a consistent account of Stirnerian egoism. Despite the many obscurities and complexities surrounding Stirner's conception of self‐interested action, a detailed examination of The Ego and Its Own does, I believe, offer us an interpretation that remains true to the overall aims of the book. My main concern throughout will be to focus on the interpretation of Stirner as a psychological egoist. I believe that the textual evidence in favour (...) of viewing Stirner's brand of egoism in these terms is overwhelming. The result of this exegesis is at the same time a reply to David Leopold's claim that, in The Ego and Its Own, the evidence for Stirner's commitment to this version of egoism is scarce and unconvincing. If my understanding of Stirner's book is correct, his advocacy of psychological egoism is an unwelcome consequence for the Stirnerian viewpoint, given the weaknesses of psychological egoism as a theory of human motivation. It is also damaging for Stirner's conception of selfhood. (shrink)

A major essay on the basis of individualist thought, with reference to the major influence of Stirner.

This paper clarifies Stirner’s relationship to his Left Hegelian contemporaries, Ludwig Feuerbch and Bruno Bauer, by showing how, in The Ego and Its Own, Stirner sought to exploit a fundamental contradiction that he perceived in the humanisitc atheism of Feuerbach and Bauer, and thereby to complete the critique of religious consciousness initiated by them. After having reconstructed Stirner’s position in relation to those of his contemporaries, the paper goes on to identify a significant weakness in it, and (...) to identify resources in Feuerbach’s program for a future philosophy that might be enlisted in response to Stirner. The author argues that the central claim underlying Stirner’s criticism of Feuerbach involves a misconception of Feuerbach’s notion of the Gattungswesen or species-essence. Furthermore, Stirner’s unmitigated epistemological relativism is ultimately incompatible with his materialist ontology. (shrink)

The Heythrop Journal, Volume 63, Issue 4, Page 817-827, July 2022.

Considéré comme la « bible » de l'anarchisme individualiste, L'Unique et la propriété de Max Stirner a été plus souvent évoqué que lu depuis sa parution en 1844. Or il n'a cessé d'exister, comme un bloc erratique, de s'imposer à la pensée, comme sa limite même : celle d'un Moi qui affirme d'entrée de jeu n'avoir « fondé sa cause sur rien » et qui s'abandonne à une « allégresse sans pensée ».

This book examines how, in a series of critical confrontations, Stirner rejected the efforts of his “Young Hegelian” contemporaries to recast Hegel as a revolutionary. For him, the various apocalyptic declarations of these “pious atheists” were only the expressions of adolescent dreams set upon the annihilation of real individuality.

The Heythrop Journal, Volume 63, Issue 4, Page 817-827, July 2022.

This work discusses the nihilistic approach to the philosophy of Max Stirner.

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion.