Summary
Written in 1844, Max Stirner aimed to stir-ner the pot. While teaching at a school for girls by day, he was a revolutionary writer by night. His publication of “The Ego and Its Own” necessitated his resignation from teaching, but earned him a spot among influential German thinkers. As a young man, Stirner attended lectures by Hegel before joining the ‘Young Hegelians’, a group that included Marx and Engels but eventually imploded due to disagreements - a common issue among philosophers. In “The Ego and Its Own”, Stirner seeks to open the reader’s eyes to the world’s workings. He argues that we are born into a body limited by materialistic constraints - we can’t fly, we need to eat, we must stay warm, etc. However, as we mature, we discover a limitless internal mind. This internal world, unbeknownst to us, has been populated with “spooks” or “ghosts” by society, religion, parents, etc. Since we are unaware of the origins of these ideas, we feel they are inviolable and real. Stirner aims to demonstrate that these are not real (in the sense of natural laws) and that surrendering our autonomy to these ideas is a mistake. He argues that all our ideals are egoists, working only for their advancement. Stirner poses the question: why work for another egoist when you can act independently? Beyond this, he suggests that human behavior, when examined, is ultimately driven by egotism. For example, why did person A donate to an orphanage? If you probe deeply enough, it appears that actions are motivated by perceived personal benefit. Stirner posits that there are only two ways to live: either as a conscious egoist or as one who believes they aren’t. Recognizing one’s egoism, according to Stirner, allows a person to cast off any “spook” or ideal like humanity, nation-states, etc., as soon as it no longer serves the individual. He argues that we are more than concepts and should not submit to them when they cease to serve us. Unlike Ayn Rand, he does not elaborate on what this approach might entail in practice.
Thoughts
I should have researched more about the book before reading it. I knew it was influential, advocating radical individualism with ties to anarchism, but was unaware of how it fit into the zeitgeist of the day or the movements and thinkers it would inspire. The writing style is unique, filled with allusions to Hegel and other German scholars, which I often missed. The insights and criticisms of these insights have become so mainstream in philosophy that they seemed almost redundant. This might be due to the book’s influence, or the direction philosophical thought has taken since. Thinkers like Nietzsche further developed this line of thinking, attempting to reintroduce ideals in a positive way. My primary critique of the book lies in its assumption that one can take oneself as a given. While liberty and other ideals might not exist in reality, Stirner assumes our existence without question. In practice, unraveling the self, finding its borders and contingencies, is more challenging than Stirner portrayed. Additionally, Stirner seems to underestimate the critical role others play in shaping our pursuit of a good life, a fact more explicitly recognized in later media theories and psychoanalytical findings. Overall, I found the book not very engaging and would not recommend it unless for its historical value. The style was frustrating and dry, and I was relieved to move past it.