Posts
Max Stirner's great book, 'The Ego and His Own' was published in 1844, the year of Nietzsche's birth.
Stirner is often mentioned dismissively by philosophers, which is unfair as his ideas are well-developed and well-argued.
He is radical, he is an innovator - but Marx and Engels polemicised against him, and so he was eventually buried by the whole crushing weight of Communist propaganda.
Combine this misfortune with the general modern trend of the 'half-educated' to read 'books ABOUT books', rather than the plain texts themselves ... and it is no wonder that the anti-Stirnerite prejudice persists.
The prejudice is not that he said 'God is dead' before Nietzsche, but that he was a solipsistic anarchist of little substance.
Indeed, in many 'Anarchist' readers he is quoted in snippets as a precursor of that movement; but Stirner was no more an Anarchist than was Nietzsche!
The arguments of Anarchists like Proudhon are given short-shrift by Stirner in his book.
Stirner called himself an 'Egoist', and we might say that he was a 'Free Spirit' a la Nietzsche - although he would have disliked the term 'Spirit' as it evoked 'spooks' to him.
So Stirner was in some ways more radical than [the early] Nietzsche.
Stirner is often mentioned dismissively by philosophers, which is unfair as his ideas are well-developed and well-argued.
He is radical, he is an innovator - but Marx and Engels polemicised against him, and so he was eventually buried by the whole crushing weight of Communist propaganda.
Combine this misfortune with the general modern trend of the 'half-educated' to read 'books ABOUT books', rather than the plain texts themselves ... and it is no wonder that the anti-Stirnerite prejudice persists.
The prejudice is not that he said 'God is dead' before Nietzsche, but that he was a solipsistic anarchist of little substance.
Indeed, in many 'Anarchist' readers he is quoted in snippets as a precursor of that movement; but Stirner was no more an Anarchist than was Nietzsche!
The arguments of Anarchists like Proudhon are given short-shrift by Stirner in his book.
Stirner called himself an 'Egoist', and we might say that he was a 'Free Spirit' a la Nietzsche - although he would have disliked the term 'Spirit' as it evoked 'spooks' to him.
So Stirner was in some ways more radical than [the early] Nietzsche.
I say that he is useful because he is a genuine non plus ultra [before one hits the buffers of Nihilism].
Nietzsche said that it is good to have one's antipodes; to that end, every nationalist/patriot should read Stirner to find their opposite.
He is useful for philosophers as he provides a kind of cleansing; after reading him one is kind of put back to zero and ready to start again.
Also, he provides an attack on all -isms; so whatever -ism we want to attack, Max provides some ammunition.
Independence is the main philosophical virtue, and Stirner teaches that.
Of course Stirner WORKS only for Stirner, and that's as should be.
He is philosophical colonic irrigation; similar to de Sade.
The problem with all egoism and individualism is that it is 'bad programming'!
Familial and racial intra-altruism is 'good programming' and makes for the survival of the race.
The 'selfish- gene' knows nothing of race/nation/tribe etc.,
All it knows is its own survival.
If a gene COULD know anything of race, then it may even consider the Mongolian race as the most successful gene-carrier!
Egoism and Racialism are far from being synonymous.
An arch egoist like Ayn Rand is at least right when she said that Racialism was a form of Socialism.
Racialism is the Socialism in 'National Socialism'.
So egoism must entail a REJECTION of racialism AND nationalism.
Now, to argue that an Egoist could USE racialism and nationalism to achieve his egoistic ends is a piece of sophistry because a feature of true Egoism is its inability to compromise. [And racialism which allowed itself to be so used would be subverted anyway].
A true Egoist [cf., Rand] would have no truck with any kind of Socialism [just as nationalists would reject egoism].
Egoism is a very purist slant.
An arch egoist like Ayn Rand is at least right when she said that Racialism was a form of Socialism.
Racialism is the Socialism in 'National Socialism'.
So egoism must entail a REJECTION of racialism AND nationalism.
Now, to argue that an Egoist could USE racialism and nationalism to achieve his egoistic ends is a piece of sophistry because a feature of true Egoism is its inability to compromise. [And racialism which allowed itself to be so used would be subverted anyway].
A true Egoist [cf., Rand] would have no truck with any kind of Socialism [just as nationalists would reject egoism].
Egoism is a very purist slant.
Our whole intellectual/ sensual/ cultural life is built up from concepts such as race and ethnicity; thereby they 'exist' as such and are vital to our survival.
_____________
No comments:
Post a Comment