Book Description
Stirner's The Ego and its Own (1844) is striking in both style and content, attacking Feuerbach, Moses Hess and others to sound the death-knell of Left Hegelianism.The work also constitutes an enduring critique of liberalism and socialism from the perspective of an extreme eccentric individualism. Stirner has latterly been portrayed variously as a precursor of Nietzsche, a forerunner of existentialism, an individualist anarchist, and as manifestly insane. This edition includes an Introduction placing Stirner in his historical context. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (13)

Almost but not entirely !!!
To make this blunt and clear I have absolutely no problem with Max Stirners' philosophy (EGOISM). However, on one essential point Max Stirner seems to have travelled the road somewhat of nearly all 18th-19th century eurocentric racist. In PART FIRST: MAN, chp 2 Section 3 (THE HIERARCHY) Max Stirner unwittingly claims:

"The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race."

In conjunction with this racist statement by Max Stirner one is obliged to mention that Max Stirner himself wasn't certain about his very own claim concerning the historical development of the Caucasian. Max Stirner says:

"The historical reflections on our Mongolism which I propose to insert episodically at this place are not given with the claim of thoroughness, or even of approved soundness, but solely because it seems to me that they may contribute toward making the rest clear."

The reason I am writing this racial-review of Max Stirners' book is that I may point out to certain readers (African-Americans)that Max Stirner may seem like a racist but with further reading of his book it all becomes clear why Max Stirner presented his racial-analogue. Nevertheless, here is a weblink to a good article for African-Americans to read while also reading Max Stirners' book: [ http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/EthiopiaOriginOfCivilization.html ]

P.S.
I surely wish Max Stirner was alive to read the article up above. Maybe he would have changed his views concerning race.

Ayn Rand could have written this book.
But she didn't.Someone else did, nearly a century before anyone had ever heard of Ayn Rand.Yet somehow Ayn Rand got the credit for "originating" the philosophy in this book.

Perhaps Stirner's mistake was becoming an essayist instead of a novelist.

tossing away spooks
this is the most liberating book ever written, it frees the individual from such spooks as family, church, state, society, god. He was correct to note that feuerbach and the marxists were establishing their own religion, and this criticism applies to many of the secular religions of our day.He also destroys such chimeras as the 'social contract' and other nonsensical obligations.

Those rantings makes good eatin'
I'll dispense with the summary and just say that the book was interesting as a historical footnote.I certainly find it to be an awe inspiring book in its ability to inspire psuedo-anarchist rantings.Between this and Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread few books seem to have inspired so many middle-aged capitalists to forego their mid-life crisis Corvettes and dive into the selfishness of a fascism covered in the guise of anti-establishment philosophy.

Pesonally, I read it as historical precedent for the attack on systematic philosophies and a precursor to the nebulous nihilism of our day.As a left wing socialist 'kook', I found it to cast an interesting light on the internal war between our current passive, laissez faire nihilism and our more ideological desire to act (that was at least why I read it).

As any 'anti-whatever' book, it is more interesting to read then anyone who painstakingly creates a thoughtful thesis.Hegel may have been a genius but it certainly is less amusing to read then this or Nietzsche- that may be why we have so many undeveloped minds becoming anarchists or whatever, it's easy to read.

Interesting if abrasive food for thought!
"What is supposed to be my concern. First and foremost the Good Cause, then God's Cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of my mind. Only MY cause is never to be my concern. 'Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself.'"

In this, the first paragraph of his powerful book, Max Stirner sets the stage. His cause? 'Nothing.' His goal? To stop at nothing. In The Ego and It's Own (more literally translated to The Person and His Property) Stirner tries making the case for anarchism based on individualism, rebelling against the collectivist strand professed by Proudhon and Godwin before him.

When Stirner says he 'base[s his] cause on nothing,' what is meant. Simply, he takes nothing (even our supposed self evident truths like right to life) as givens. Everything is questionalbe; nothing immune. So really, this book is not for the squeamish. First, he takes apart religion for setting a 'transcendental' cause higher than the individual. Then he attacks the concept of the state- and socialism- for doing the same. Then he takes apart concepts of 'rights' becuase without a god to grant them and a state to inforce them, what right do I have to live if you kill me? To clarify, Stirner does believe in cooperation for each party's benefit; just not coerced in ANY way.

While Stirner is said to be a precursor to Nietzsche, there is no evidence that Nietzsche knew of him. In fact, the biggest influence he might've had (in print) is Marx's 300 page(!) critique of Stirner in his German Ideology. I've not read it, but it's clear that Marx has a lot to wrestle with.

Now for the subtracted star. Stirner, while being an egoist, is somewhat of an egotist. He repeats the same things many times and a reader would not miss much if she cut out 150 pages early. Secondly, and it must be said, Stirner is not profound because he is philosophically challenging. He is not; then again neither are most anarchists. He is profound because he has the gumption to say what no one else will. He even questions why it is considered bad to sleep with one's sister. Can we argue? Hmmm.... What are you staring at me for, read the book already! ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (3)

A necessary step towards freedom
At first glance, Stirner is infantile revolutionary extraordinaire. And he is -- by himself he is an utterly ridiculous muppet. But taken in the context of the great sexual revolt in the West that culminated in the work of Wilhelm Reich, et al. Stirner is concerned with freeing the passions -- his "ego" would better be identified with Freud's id.

Apart from being a sex-radical manifesto, "The Ego and His Own" is an critique of humanism and the Enlightenment, bringing up many a good point that would later be looked at more closely by future thinkers -- notably Nietzsche, tho also Georges Sorel, for instance.

Good stuff. Not to be read with a literalist mind or without a sense of humour!

The last book anyone should read
Read this book only after you have read books by Hayek, Marx, Nietzsche, Hume, Locke, Tocuquillve, then you will appreciate what this book is talking about, then you will understand why Marx and Nietzsche is equally wrong. This is the bible of a human being with right mind, or as someone says, this is the Bible of a Billionaire. This is what Euripides says in his play Cyclops, "Money is wise men's god, rest are just babbling".
It is the most refreshing book a man can ever find. Better than Nietzsche's.

Quirky but Intriguing Work
This is a most intriguing and quirky work; many will probably find it repellant. It may well be that this volume is the reason that Marx and Engels wrote "The German Ideology"; it may be that Stirner's magnum opus led to Marx fundamentally changing his philosophical perspective from more idealistic to materialistic.Nonetheless, it is a work that gets one's mind to working as one responds to the arguments being advanced.That alone makes this an interesting book to explore.

Max Stirner (born Johan Kaspar Schmidt) is one of the more interesting figures in 19th century political thought.The turgid prose of his one major work, "The Ego and His Own," stretches for several hundred pages and can be a formidable barrier to the reader.Stirner posits something like a war of each against all as the proper way of life and the proper way of allocating scarce resources.This competition with others is natural and ubiquitous.Stirner says: ". . .the egoistic man, who deals with things and thoughts according to his heart's pleasure. . .sets his personal interest above everything."

One major obstacle in the way of an individual's egoism is the existence of "spook notions" and coercive agencies, such as the state."Spook notions" are concepts viewed as superior to the individual, largely due to dominant values of a society inculcated into the individual; these concepts subsequently become reified.Among examples that he adduces: truth, right, chastity, the law, the good cause, the state, mankind, love, duty, obligation.In each case, people will come to accept these concepts as absolutes and then subordinate their own behavior to these reifications.Stirner contends, to the contrary, that humans should not allow themselves to become subjects to such "spook notions."Stirner argues that most people prostrate themselves before such "spook notions."As a result, so Stirner asserts, such people are possessed, just as surely as madmen may be possessed by their delusions.

If cut adrift from reified moorings, what next?Stirner asserts that one should be guided by one's self-interest, however one might define this.This self-interest, though, should not become superior to the individual, must not be rigidified into a reification.One should leave ends as open questions--remaining, always, the final judge of the ends' utility, since one, in Stirner's view, owns these ends.If one choose to believe in God and follow that deity's word, good.But one must continually recall that this is a matter of choice and that decision may be revoked at any time.The egoist "never takes trouble about a thing for the sake of the thing, but for his sake: the thing must serve him."

The ego and its own are intimately related.One's own can be other people, property, or ideas.The only things that are sacred are those which one declares as "sacred."One keeps all ends open and leaves the option of ultimate rejection of those values.The individual alone, of course, may be deficient in power to accomplish all that he or she would wish.Thus, one would find it expedient to form unions with others.As a result, one becomes strengthened and may do things that were previously beyond one's individual power.It is a union of convenience, based upon the extent to which individuals in the union can benefit from one another.This society, this union of egoists as Stirner describes it, is itself based upon egoism.Stirner says that: "Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies.I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this 'human society.' I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my own property and my creature; that is, I annihilate it and form in its place the Union of Egoists."

Most readers will reject Stirner's perspective, which departs from much of Western philosophical tradition.However, his ideas are thought-provoking and challenge us to look at sociality and ourselves in a very different way.Whether or not one might agree with him, these effects, in and of themselves, make this an interesting work to peruse.Being challenged can be very positive.
... Read more

Book Description
Humanism and Realism, the Egoist way. A classic essay from Stirner. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Bona Fide Learning vs. "Education Experts"
Henry L. Mencken (1880-1955) wrote "In all ages pedagogues (education experts) have been the bitterest enemies of all genuine intellectual enterprise (AMERICAN MERCURY, Feb, 1933) as quoted by James J. Martin in his eduction of THE FALSE PRINCIPLE OF OUR EDUCATION of the Libertarian Broadside Series. This quote is true and reflects a basic problem for teachers and students. Max Stirner (1806-1856)wrote the above essay to illustrate this point, and any discerning individual will have to come to terms with this essay.

Max Stirner wrote this essay c. 1835 thirteen years before the political convulsions of the 1848 revolutions. Stirner was a philosophy professor who understood teaching and learning as one who was personally involved and as an astute observer of the situation in German schools and universities. He was also keenly aware of the challenges faced by "traditional education" during a time of industrial, economic, and political revolutions.

Stirner saw the battle as between the humanists (those who valued Classical learning) and the realists who valued "practicle learning." Stirner offered criticisms of both types of learning as well as the merits of both. Stirner critisized Classical learning because of what he viewed as a false elitism and snobbish attitudes. Stirner claimed such learning without any actual thinking was a means of false authority and underserved power and prestiege. Stirner also critisized the Realists or those who emphasized practical learning for false conclusions. Stirner critisdized "practicle" learning because those who promoted it wanted "good" citizens and very obedient servents rather than thoughtful men and women.

Yet Stirner also saw advantages to both Classical learning and that of the Realists. Stirner argued that Classical learning had merit if men learned the lessons of history and philosphy to be free, independent, and responsible individuals. In other words, Stirner saw merit in Classical learning if students could wean themselves from masters and teachers and become creative, self assured individuals. Stirner also thought that the Realists had merit if their programs led men to be independent and responsible and especially if men were responsible for themselves. Stirner knew that what Classical learning or "practicle" learning could do if such learning meant unquestioned obedience to authority or service to the State.

Those who value bona fide learning (the operative words are bona fide)can appreciate this essay. Ideally teaching and learning should make students intellectually indpendent and to inspire them to study and learn what they enjoy and what will make students thoughtful. Such teaching and learning is a horror to modern "education experts" who know little and cannot think. For students to demonstrate intellectual prowess is an anathema to "education experts" who try to peddle the notion that students need "experts" to tell them what to do and how to do it.

There are terrible if amusing examples of such nonsense of "education experts." For example, a few years ago a Maryland high school English teacher introduced his students to the Classics and somehow got the students to take an avid interest in great literature and great ideas. His students did well on exams, but the teacher was fired because the Classics were not on the "offical curriculum" list of approved books. This belies intelligence and logic. The "experts" feared that students would actually learn something and be able to think for themselves. "Education experts" apporved a history text in which the authors and publisher had the equator running through Houston, Texas. Rather than make corrections and admit the blunder, the "experts" sent the books to the publisher to sell to another group of unsuspecting "experts."

Another amusing anecdote included a teacher who knew advanced physics, chemistry, and advanced mathematics beyond differential equations but was not considered qualified. This teacher took the fight to the "education experts." He first went to the local board "experts" with college physics, chemestry, and college calculus books and opened the books at random to problems which the "experts" (those who said this teacher was not qualified)could not solve. He next went to the state "experts" with the same result. His ultimatum was that his status change from not qualified to qualified or he would return with the same challenge with TV news crews to report on the results. Stirner would either die laughing at all the nonsense of "experts" or he would surrender in despair.

Stirner has a serious lesson for students and espeically young students. The lesson is that students should pursue learning for their own enjoyment and not to please "education experts" Readers may be surprised that Thomas Edison never finished high school. George Washington Carver, a botany genius, never went to college. Bill Gates never finished college. According to the "experts," their inventions and innovations do not work because these men did not adhere to phony curriculum and mindless programs that pass for education. Stirner would have been please to see this had he lived longer.

Stirner's trenchent essay is an assault on phony experts. His essay is not an assault on authenic learning, reason, and actual knowledge. One should remember that learning is based on what one knows and not how many diplomas one has acquired. ... Read more

Product Description
Max Stirner (1806-1856) was the philosopher of conscious egoism. His book Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (published in English in 1907 as The Ego and His Own) is the fundamental work of that philosophy and the philosophical basis of individualist anarchism. The German poet and anarchist writer John Henry Mackay (1864-1933) carefully researched Stirner's life and published his biography in 1897, with a third, definitive edition in 1914. Hubert Kennedy's translation is the first in English. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Mackay's Max Stirner in English at Last
John Henry Mackay's Max Stirner: His Life and his Work first appeared in German in 1898.There was no English translation until 2005, with the appearance of John Hubert Kennedy's translation of the third (1914) edition, befitting the obscure carreer of this unparalleled thinker Max Stirner.How could one invent a more poignant story, epic in its dimensions, than that of the rise and fall of Max Stirner?This is the only full account, and Mackay's recounting of the tribulations of his research into the life of Stirner is an epic saga in itself; he goes so far as to claim that if another twenty years had passed, even the meagre details of Stirner's biography he managed to turn up in a ten-year effort would have been irretrievably lost.Such was the power of the passing of fifty years.

Mackay's account is most interesting to me as he recreates the milieu Stirner inhabited in the decade between 1840 and 1850, when an intellectual struggle worthy of the Diadochi, as a young Karl Marx sardonically put it at the time, moved through its bewildering permutations.Begun in the hallowed halls of academia, in no less a bastion of scholarly endeavour than the University of Berlin, where Hegel had held court in a crucial period of intellectual history, it moved out into the more exoteric world of left-wing journalism and the informal, even raucous atmosphere of the tavern as the currents which culminated in the 1848 European revolutions took shape. The debates which would shake the intellectual foundations of Europe, in a seismic cataclysm which has still not abated, played out in one of these taverns primarily, a certain Hippel's Weinstube in central Berlin.Between 1842 and 1845, tendencies which had first seen the light of day in Ludwig Feuerbach's seminal Essence of Christianity (1841) rapidly mutated at the hands of this rather rag-tag band of erstwhile university instructors, fledgeling journalists, and various other sympathizers possessed with the urge for social change.As Mackay states at the outset of his description of this milieu, "To characterize 'The Free' in a few words is not very easy", since, for one thing, they never drew up any charters, and embarked on their meetings with no stated purpose.There was an inner circle, to which Stirner belonged, but its larger membership was according to Mackay "enormously large".Debates on the burning issues of the day typically began in the reading room at university, progressed to Stehely's stationery store and then on to Hippel's in the evening, every evening.And so it was in this atmosphere that Stirner formulated and composed his magnum opus, The Ego and Its Own (1844).Mackay relates some choice anecdotes about the nature of the gatherings at Hippels' where a game of cards often took precedence over anything resembling serious intellectual discussion, even and especially among the most prominent members of the inner circle of "The Free".

Notable also are the accounts of Stirner's formative years and that of his precipitous fall.After a brief and intense explosion on the intellectual scene, Stirner was plunged into one difficulty after another, financial and personal, and was already dead only 11 years after the appearance of The Ego and Its Own, at the tender age of 49.

Mackay's biography, though betraying a tendency towards hero-worship at times, is nevertheless an indispensable contribution to the understanding of this singular man and this crucial period in intellectual history. The translation is servicable, at times perhaps a bit too literal, but which, I believe, conveys essential elements of the flavor of the original.

It's about time!
I remember hearing once that Guglielmo Marconi (the inventor of the radio) believed that sound waves never completely die away--they just get quieter and quieter.He thought that, with a sensitive enough microphone, mounted in the appropriate position, and with the just the right amount of amplification, you could recapture events from history.It was his life-long dream, apparently, to record the sermon on the mount.When I sit and ponder this, for some reason it evokes in me a sense of desperate loss--a heart-wrenching, unquenchable longing for a past that is irretrievably gone.

There is something of that feeling in John Henry Mackay's biography of Max Stirner.The book is as much about Stirner as it is about the search for Stirner--or what paltry fragments of him remained, 40+ years after his untimely (and rather gruesome) death.Stirner left no progeny, and very few acquaintances were still living when Mackay began his research.Worst of all, Stirner's ex-wife refused to even discuss him, beyond answering a few basic questions.Meanwhile, other pathways in the search would appear to open up, only to reveal themselves as dead ends, for one reason or another.

I suppose, though, we ought to be happy that at least Mackay's search wasn't postponed another 5 or 10 years, for by that time Stirner's candle would have been completely extinguished.I see it as also very fortunate for us that it was a poet--rather than a philosopher or historian--who took up the cause of preserving the memory of Stirner.

As for the book itself, what really needs to be said?Without Mackay we wouldn't even know the name Max Stirner today.Mackay treats his subject with the respect and love that you would expect from a person willing to devote 25 years to it (What Mackay says of Stirner applies equally well to Mackay himself: "He did what he did for himself, because it gave him pleasure.He asks for no thanks, and we owe him none").Obviously, the work is indispensable for anyone with more than a passing interest in Stirner.

Mackay divides Stirner's life into three periods, which he designates as "rise, height, fall."The first includes his youth and his life up to the end of his teaching activity; the second his years in the company of "The Free" at Hippel's pub (Trivia: Stirner apparently chain-smoked cigars), which lead up to the publication of _Der Einzige_; the third, the "period of forgetfulness and solitude up to his death."

The one complaint that I have about this edition (the first available in English) is that, apparently for "technical reasons," all figures and photographs, and a number of appendices, have been left out.So, if you have a desire to see things like the facsimile of one of Stirner's manuscripts, as well as a complete bibliography of Stirner's known published works, you'll need to get a copy of the German edition.I certainly hope that Hubert Kennedy will have occasion to publish a definitive English edition in the near future, which will include all those items--and perhaps there's even reason to hope for a translation of Stirner's "Kleinere Schriften"! ... Read more

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

Customer Reviews (2)

A critical but thoroughly competent treatment of Stirner's philosophy
This is perhaps the best secondary source on Max Stirner currently available in book form.I learned more about Stirner in these 100 pages than anywhere else thus far.The author's treatment of Stirner is fair and incredibly enlightening.And because the author is critical of Stirner's philosophy, the sympathetic reader can proceed with the confidence that he will be able to anticipate in advance any criticism that will be levelled against Stirner, whether it be in metaphysics or ethics.

I would suggest that the interested reader begin here.Next, I would recommend Mackay's biography of Stirner, followed then by another book entitled "Individuality and the Social Organism."James L. Walker's book "The Philosophy of Egoism" is also highly recommended (the book which introduced me to egoism).

An anarcho-syndicalist view of Stirner
Clark is strongest when he is attacking the structure of Stirner's argumentation and logic, and weakest when he injects his own syndicalist socialism (which is, to Clark, the only example of "true" anarchism) into the discussion.Paradoxically, however, Clark's unique perspective adds significantly to the overall value of the book as a means for understanding both the philosophy of Stirner and anarchist thought in general. ... Read more

Book Description
The cultural logic contained within Emile Durkheim's work, specifically categories he puts forth in Suicide, creates the ground for Horrible Workers. This book is constructed to allow its readers to study the cases of Max Stirner, Arthur Rimbaud, Robert Johnson, and the Charles Manson Circle independently of one another or in a comparative fashion. Each case demonstrates in what ways particular social experiences lead to what have been perceived as unique forms of cultural expression. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A Portrait of the Normal World
Emile Durkheim asserted that a crime free society is impossible.Crime alerts people to structural dangers within the normal world that require attention.For this crime is essential. The sociological category "deviance" has become a moral category including both crime and creativity.We are led astray and miss both the warnings and the solutions.Nielsen begins his account of tensions within the taken for granted world with this:"Anomic suicide and progress, egoistic suicide and autonomy, altruistic suicide and moral self-transcendence, fatalistic suicide and order:these are four pairs of virtues and vices, inextricably wedded to one another.(p. 3)" Nielsen develops the notion of fatalistic suicide, which takes on a pivotal role, from Durkheim's footnote.The voices of many including Erving Goffman, David Riesman, Max Weber and Johan Huizinga are brought to bear on the dynamics of our everyday world.Nielsen finds an essential tension in this world.On the one hand society becomes structurally and morally rigid.In his discussion of Stirner he observes that "The main aim is to make oneself 'audible.'"(p. 22)On the other hand people are in constant movement, what Nielsen refers to as "vagabondage."In the Rimbaud chapter there is this comment:"Nomadism, vagabondage and adventurism are some of the central expressions of our contemporary anomism."(p. 42)He demonstrates the historic roots of both tendencies.Nielsen finds Durkheim's four categories interacting at the center of the society.He comments that ". . .all express the restless movement which has become a common feature of life for everyone in advanced industrial society. . ."(p. 99). ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

I'd say entirely worthless.
Stirner's work is clearly of an anarchist nature. Putting this in a series of Fascist authors is just intellectual dishonesty and distorted logic. Stirner's entire argument is that the individual should not be subordinated to any state, God, etc.; it is a call for autonomy in line with other individualist/anarchist writings.

Look for other editions of this book if you have any interest in Stirner or his ideas.

Almost worthless for the study of Stirner's ideas...
The underhanded way that this book tries to place even the smallest bit of responsibility for the "70 million...dead through war, revolution and famine in Europe and Russia between 1914 and 1945" (page 7) at the feet of Stirner--while at the same time omitting any hint of Marx's responsibility--is patently disgusting.

I say this book is "almost worthless" because I think any honest intellectual pursuit requires examining varying perspectives--if for nothing else, then at least for gaining a clearer understanding of your own.Considered in this way, the worth of this book consists in how it reveals the intellectual vacuum that is Marxism.

Pointing out that Stirner's preferred method of social change is insurrection and self-liberation--as opposed to the political action and violence preferred by the left--Carroll, in his introduction, asserts, "Stirner has by default Rightist tendencies."Furthermore, that Marxists, therefore, have the "right" to make the argument favored by demagogues and ideologues throughout history: "He who is not with us is against us." (page 13)

What such an argument reveals, without even meaning to, is the fundamental inadequacy of the right-left spectrum.Carroll can sense this (on page 16, for example, he says "Stirner is one of the men who defy political classification; the orthodox categories break down."), but he apparently doesn't have the ability to break free of it.It would seem that, to him, our only choices are the dictatorship of the proletariat on the left hand, or the dictatorship of the total state on the right.The autonomy of the individual is out of the question.It takes the one-dimensional thinking of an authoritarian Hegelian to posit such a false dichotomy, as if fascism and socialism were our only options.

Carroll then tries to tie Stirner to Italian Fascism with a couple of vague, inconsequential quotes from Mussolini: "And these summits of the spirit are called Stirner, Nietzsche..." (page 13); "Leave the way free for the elemental power of the individual...Why shouldn't Stirner become significant again?" (page 14).That's all Carroll has in support of his thesis that Stirner had an influence on Fascist Italy???

Of course Carroll fails to mention the inconvenient (to him) fact that Mussolini also said Marx was his "spiritual father" and that "If the 19th century has been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism), it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State."Il Duce certainly didn't get such thoughts from Stirner.So much for this line of argument!

Next, Carroll draws some vaporous connections between Stirner and Nazism.Afterwards he admits that Hitler probably never heard of Stirner.Once again, though, he neglects to discuss the much stronger Marxist influence on Nazism.For example, Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, wrote "The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism."Hitler himself is purported to have said, "The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx."Oops, another of Carroll's arguments goes up in smoke!

Carroll's attack on Stirner does end with the admission "that the case for including Stirner in `the roots of the Right' is not watertight." My question, then, is: Why publish the book?Carroll's answer appears to be that "many of [Stirner's] themes form a vital component of fascist ideology."However, as I pointed out above, a much stronger case (dare I say "watertight"?) can be made that Marxism, rather than individualism and egoism, is THE vital component of Fascism.

The one redeeming feature of this book would have been the words of Stirner himself.After all, I can think of no stronger argument against Carroll's thesis.Unfortunately, Carroll fixes that one, too.This is an abridged version of Stirner's work, with the selected excerpts chosen by Carroll.Given his agenda, as well as his tendency for excluding things that don't quite fit into his thesis, one has to wonder whether his choices can be trusted to paint an accurate picture of Stirner's philosophy.

If the ideas of Stirner truly interest you then don't discount this book entirely.However, it should be the last Stirner-related book you add to your collection. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Extremely helpful in the study of Stirner
Dematteis has done a wonderful service with his book.In fact, in the study of Stirner, I would probably recommend reading this book, along with Mackay's biography, _before_ actually tackling _Der Einzige_ itself.The reason is that both this book and Mackay's provide a context and a little bit of an explanation for, e.g., why Stirner is so concerned with the concept "Spirit".

At first I didn't think I was going to like this book, and, actually, the reason for that may also be a bit of a clue as to why Stirner is so little known today among the individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, who should hold him most dear.The reason is the first chapter, which is about Hegel. Yes, Stirner was a student of Hegel, so learning at least a little bit about Hegel is necessary if you want to fully appreciate Stirner--but what a bunch of crap!I still can't believe that Hegel's writings are anything more than the philosophical equivalent of a Rorschach test.

After the first chapter (which is still pretty good, I guess) the book gets really interesting.

Chapter 2 is a 44 page summary of Stirner's philosophy.

Chapter 3 is a summary of the Marxist criticism of Stirner, especially that found in _The German Ideology_, but including a little bit from a recent critic by the name of Helms.

Chapter 4 constructs some (to me, rather tepid) replies to the Marxist critics, and (again, I think more than a little timidly) concludes that the Marxist critiques failed.

So, in spite of a few minor flaws, this work deserves to be part of any Stirner fan's library. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A Valuable Contribution
This book takes a critical but respectful look at the person and philosophy of Max Stirner.

Paterson, in his introduction, says it was written "on the assumption that the philosophy of Stirner is intrinsically significant, that it has been mistakenly undervalued and neglected, and that it is worthy of serious and continuing consideration in its own terms." Paterson obviously doesn't subscribe to Stirner's philosophy (among other things, he calls it "desolate", and "an estrangement [from everything]"), and although he does an admirable job of trying to be as objective as possible (up until his conclusion, where he lets loose), he often fails in his efforts.

Sprinkled throughout Paterson's book, you get the sense that Paterson is a religious man who is disturbed and offended (and maybe even at times disgusted and horrified) by what he sees implied in Stirner's philosophy--in some places you can almost see him holding his nose as he writes.

The book begins with a biographical sketch of Stirner that is based on John Henry Mackay's work, which until recently was only available in a German language edition.There are hints, though, of Paterson's own bias throughout the text, and this becomes explicit on page 16 when he declares "...Stirner's life must be adjudged a failure." He does, however, later admit that "[j]udgements of failure require the adoption of criteria for success." Stirner would have undoubtedly rejected Paterson's.Mackay, in the introduction to his biography, exposes Paterson's comment for the cheap shot that it is, when he says Stirner's life "could not have been other than it was... [It was] the clear and simple expression of his final doctrine... He was an egoist, who knew that he was one!" (Even Mackay gets it wrong, though.Why must a person's egoism be a prescription for or against any particular kind of life--except maybe against a "pious" one?)It is an interesting exercise to compare and contrast Mackay's biography with Paterson's summary of it.

Chapter 2 is a brief overview of "The Matrix of the Nihilist"--or a sketch of the zeitgeist Stirner found himself in, and how it gave rise to his philosophy.

Chapter 3 is about the maturation and final crystallization of Stirner's thought that enabled him to write his magnum opus--Paterson gives this the melodramatic description, "Descent into the Vacuum."

Chapter 4 is devoted to laying out and summarizing the crux of the argument contained in _Der Enzige_.Actually I think this is an excellent chapter, because it quotes liberally from _Der Einzige_, juxtaposes points that are widely dispersed in the original, and the quotes seem to be Paterson's own translations instead of Byington's.

Chapter 5 discusses Stirner's influence on Marx's philosophy.He contends that Stirner probably had more of an impact that Marx would have openly admitted.

Chapter 6 considers Stirner's influence on the anarchists--in particular the individualist anarchists in the US in the last half of the 19th century.

Chapter 7 explores the contention that Nietzsche was profoundly influenced by Stirner.Paterson is skeptical of this (and I find his argument persuasive), but nonetheless he does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting their ideas, and he is willing to entertain the possibility that Nietzsche had more than a passing familiarity with Stirner.

Next, in Chapter 8, Paterson delves into Stirner's similarities with Existentialism, and philosophers such as Sartre and Heidegger.

Part III of the book is entirely devoted to a critical examination of Stirner's "Nihilistic Egoism", as Paterson calls it.In Chapter 10 Paterson discusses Stirner's "Total Atheism", in chapter 11, his Nihilism, chapter 12, his Egoism.

Chapter 13 is an exploration of Stirner's whole approach, which Paterson characterizes as "Philosophy as Play." I particularly liked this section, since I can't read the original German version and thus almost certainly miss out on much of the nuance that gets lost in translation.

Paterson concludes on a negative note (not so surprisingly, though, since Paterson seems insulted that Stirner doesn't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny), saying things like _Der Einzige_ "does not offer an abundance of metaphysical insights" and that Stirner's "conceptual resources are limited."Paterson does, however, say that _Der Enzige_ is "profoundly original" and "uniquely disturbing." ... Read more

Book Description
THIS 12 PAGE ARTICLE WAS EXTRACTED FROM THE BOOK: The Elect: Elbert Hubbard's Selected Writings Part 5, by Elbert Hubbard. To purchase the entire book, please order ISBN 0766103870. ... Read more