Probably one of the best explanations of Stirner on TH-cam to date. Thank you so much for taking the time to fulfill my request, I hope you found the book to be a somewhat enjoyable and thought provoking text and I am glad that you can see some ideas that relate to and parallel some of the topics you tackle on your channel which I had hoped when recommending this. It was a bit unfortunate to not see him mentioned in your history of German Literature video although he did not have many readers I think he definitely did impact many thinkers I am excited for and eagerly await the next video.
Thanks again for the request and apologies for not being able to produce the two videos sooner, as I wanted to have a little time to seriously consider the arguments of the text before providing a formal response to them. It was indeed interesting to see how many of his arguments overlapped with things Ellul and Kaczynski would predict a century later, despite the fact that Stirner never explicitly considered Modern Technology to be "the problem." Also, sorry that Stirner was left out of the German History video, as the historians of the movement tend to leave him out for perhaps political reasons
I like Max Stierner I still appreciate him after all these years. He also inspired Ernst Junger. Stirner's argumet is very simple & its very similar to Nietzche's they get compared a lot for that reason. It's a might makes right philosophy, it is also materialist, objective he goes on explaining that on a passage, that the ego is not free from the body.
Even for a German speaker, "der Einzige" is really quite a unique word to use, and it points to Stirner's intention to capture something that is distinct from anything we normally, casually understand as an individual. Funny enough, while nobody of sound mind should believe that the manosphere's concept of the sigma male is anything but a movie trope, Stirner's Einziger is probably the closest to what this meme label tries to describe: a person without community, with the potential to have one, but - and this is most important - with the rare insight into the sacrifice inherent in committing to the social reciprocity required to become a valued member of any group. It seems, oddly enough that in this calculated selfishness and the subsequent rejection of social connectedness, the idea of sigma may have initially been more than just Hollywood's mashup of the female sexual stereotpye of the pirate and the post-Vietnam reconciliation/glorification with/of male fighters who persevere against all odds, as best embodied by Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken.
Ah yes I remember that request and had it in mind as I finally got around to making this video a few years later than I originally intended. I do apologize for that delay due to various reasons and thank you again for calling my attention to a book I might have otherwise never heard of
17:44 "The self already has to be, before it can know who or what it is" Wait that doesn't follow it implies and commands that knowledge of essence is requisite for the existence of essence. What would be the counter to the position that an essence exists whether or not the self knows of it?
Max is not an individualist anarchist or a nihilist, he makes it clear in "Stirner Critics" also give that one a lecture afterwards its supplementary & it clears out so many assumptions people have about Max. It's just a simple well explained Might Makes Right ideology. I disagree especially with the association people make of him with Anarchism. I get why they do it he talks smack about the state a lot but in his opening you could say he is making a reasonable case for Authoritarians. Again thats why I say he has a Might Makes Right philosophy.
I agree that he wasn’t a nihilist, but he’s surely an individualist anarchist. His whole philosophy is about how there is nothing greater than the individual because he creates the world ex nihilo ie that anything which is superior to the individual implies that it was posited by said individual himself, an abstraction. Hence he must be against all governments and systems because they are the greater genus under which all individuals fall under as species.
@@immanuel_0697 "But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for “his people.” Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of “his people.” You sure about that? Individualist Anarchist? or Individualist Authoritarian? Might makes right.
@@ElDrHouse2010 This is only the case for the Sultan himself because he can express his egoism, but his people view him as abstraction and are unable to express their egoism. If we were to take Stirners philosophy to its logical conclusion and everybody were to become voluntary egoists, then anarchism would be its result. The relationship between the Sultan to his people is analogous to his earlier comparison between God and his followers, ie only the former are Unique and the latter are their property. So for Stirner, might makes right but only insofar as we consider it from the standpoint of the willer and not of the willed.
If my self-interest is to become an authoritarian A-hole, then I can! However, that would inevitably go against others’ self-interest! I think the guy above me said it better.
I think this is a pretty severe mis-understanding of what Max Stirner believed. The idea that Stirner would want us to blindly follow the commands of a higher power if that higher power happens to be right-wing is contrary to his entire message. Stirner was against the blind obedience of any fixed idea. Perhaps you think he was wrong and that your particular spook is worth following, but you'd have to justify that, not put words in Stirner's mouth
Im not sure if i should watch this.. Based on the comments it seems very spooky.. Just remember kids. Don't lick too much boot! "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" - Huge forhead guy
well anarcho capitalism hinges on the sacredness of private property, Stirner heavily criticized bourgeous mindset, the concept of privare property and rule of the law, but i don't see him being against money as a concept.
@@tastethecock5203 Stirner argued that the accumulation of capital and the pursuit of wealth were not natural human desires, but rather were imposed on individuals by the dominant social and economic system. He believed that this system created a false sense of individuality, where people were defined by their possessions and their social standing, rather than their unique qualities and desires. Stirner also criticized the idea of private property, which he saw as a tool used by the capitalist class to maintain their power and control over the working class. He argued that the concept of private property was based on the idea of exclusion and that it prevented individuals from freely expressing themselves and pursuing their desires. Regarding money, Stirner saw it as a symbol of power and domination, rather than a means of exchange. He believed that money was created by those in power to control those who did not have it, and that it was used to perpetuate social inequality and oppression. He argued that individuals should be free to pursue their desires without being constrained by the need for money and that a truly free society would be one where individuals could exchange goods and services based on mutual agreement, rather than on the exchange of money.
@@5minutesbreakdown I think you are reading his philosophy with too much socialist undertones. Stirner didn’t care about whether society was just or free; there are only individuals. Individuals who could voluntarily exchange just as easily as they could extort or rob from the other person. He was against private property, but only because it was held to be sacred and it was defined normatively (Ex: John Locke). He doesn’t necessarily have to be against money because he may be apart of a union of egoists who have decided that money had validity for them (as opposed to having validity in itself). It’s only peculiar to capitalism that money has a sacred fetishized character. Also, when you say that he was against private property because of exclusion; that isn’t true. Property only has a descriptive definition for Stirner. Someone’s property is whatever the Unique subjugates and is therefore just an extension of their power which means that it necessarily excludes other people.
Probably one of the best explanations of Stirner on TH-cam to date. Thank you so much for taking the time to fulfill my request, I hope you found the book to be a somewhat enjoyable and thought provoking text and I am glad that you can see some ideas that relate to and parallel some of the topics you tackle on your channel which I had hoped when recommending this. It was a bit unfortunate to not see him mentioned in your history of German Literature video although he did not have many readers I think he definitely did impact many thinkers I am excited for and eagerly await the next video.
Thanks again for the request and apologies for not being able to produce the two videos sooner, as I wanted to have a little time to seriously consider the arguments of the text before providing a formal response to them. It was indeed interesting to see how many of his arguments overlapped with things Ellul and Kaczynski would predict a century later, despite the fact that Stirner never explicitly considered Modern Technology to be "the problem." Also, sorry that Stirner was left out of the German History video, as the historians of the movement tend to leave him out for perhaps political reasons
Long time fan of you Chad, glad you decided to talk about one of my favorite philosophers. You and Stirner have made a great impact on my life.
Thanks a lot for following the channel, glad to hear that you have found it interesting to hear these ideas and thinkers discussed
Based and Stirner pilled. This man, despite being relatively unknown, has been a huge influence to me. Thanks for covering this
May I ask how he has influenced you?
@@thotslayer9914 Three Kingdoms, Zhunge Liang
I like Max Stierner I still appreciate him after all these years. He also inspired Ernst Junger.
Stirner's argumet is very simple & its very similar to Nietzche's they get compared a lot for that reason. It's a might makes right philosophy, it is also materialist, objective he goes on explaining that on a passage, that the ego is not free from the body.
Ah yes, "The" spookbuster himself. l approve.
YES! I LOVE Max Stirner’s ideas!
Even for a German speaker, "der Einzige" is really quite a unique word to use, and it points to Stirner's intention to capture something that is distinct from anything we normally, casually understand as an individual. Funny enough, while nobody of sound mind should believe that the manosphere's concept of the sigma male is anything but a movie trope, Stirner's Einziger is probably the closest to what this meme label tries to describe: a person without community, with the potential to have one, but - and this is most important - with the rare insight into the sacrifice inherent in committing to the social reciprocity required to become a valued member of any group. It seems, oddly enough that in this calculated selfishness and the subsequent rejection of social connectedness, the idea of sigma may have initially been more than just Hollywood's mashup of the female sexual stereotpye of the pirate and the post-Vietnam reconciliation/glorification with/of male fighters who persevere against all odds, as best embodied by Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken.
Based Stirner
watch what u say about manosphere u faggot
Great upload, looking forward to the next part!
Thank you so much for doing this I remember asking for this in the comments of one of your videos like 4 years ago and now it's here; thank you!
Ah yes I remember that request and had it in mind as I finally got around to making this video a few years later than I originally intended. I do apologize for that delay due to various reasons and thank you again for calling my attention to a book I might have otherwise never heard of
Great video
Thanks a lot, it was a lot of fun to read and discuss this highly-underrated text
17:44 "The self already has to be, before it can know who or what it is" Wait that doesn't follow it implies and commands that knowledge of essence is requisite for the existence of essence. What would be the counter to the position that an essence exists whether or not the self knows of it?
Stirner was a nominalist so I think he would say the self doesn't really have an essence beyond its own construction.
Max is not an individualist anarchist or a nihilist, he makes it clear in "Stirner Critics" also give that one a lecture afterwards its supplementary & it clears out so many assumptions people have about Max. It's just a simple well explained Might Makes Right ideology.
I disagree especially with the association people make of him with Anarchism. I get why they do it he talks smack about the state a lot but in his opening you could say he is making a reasonable case for Authoritarians. Again thats why I say he has a Might Makes Right philosophy.
I agree that he wasn’t a nihilist, but he’s surely an individualist anarchist. His whole philosophy is about how there is nothing greater than the individual because he creates the world ex nihilo ie that anything which is superior to the individual implies that it was posited by said individual himself, an abstraction. Hence he must be against all governments and systems because they are the greater genus under which all individuals fall under as species.
@@immanuel_0697 "But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for “his people.” Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of “his people.”
You sure about that? Individualist Anarchist? or Individualist Authoritarian? Might makes right.
@@ElDrHouse2010 This is only the case for the Sultan himself because he can express his egoism, but his people view him as abstraction and are unable to express their egoism. If we were to take Stirners philosophy to its logical conclusion and everybody were to become voluntary egoists, then anarchism would be its result. The relationship between the Sultan to his people is analogous to his earlier comparison between God and his followers, ie only the former are Unique and the latter are their property. So for Stirner, might makes right but only insofar as we consider it from the standpoint of the willer and not of the willed.
It could be taken many ways, I think!
If my self-interest is to become an authoritarian A-hole, then I can! However, that would inevitably go against others’ self-interest! I think the guy above me said it better.
I think this is a pretty severe mis-understanding of what Max Stirner believed. The idea that Stirner would want us to blindly follow the commands of a higher power if that higher power happens to be right-wing is contrary to his entire message. Stirner was against the blind obedience of any fixed idea. Perhaps you think he was wrong and that your particular spook is worth following, but you'd have to justify that, not put words in Stirner's mouth
capitalism is a spook, socialism too
Im not sure if i should watch this.. Based on the comments it seems very spooky.. Just remember kids. Don't lick too much boot!
"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" - Huge forhead guy
But Max Stirner was quite anti of capitalism. How can his philosophy lead to the anarcho-capitalism ?
The same reason why stirner detested communism, yet there are anarcho communists who were inspired by him
Exactly! Max Stirner was against money and the state! His philosophy wouldn’t naturally lead to anarcho-capitalism!
well anarcho capitalism hinges on the sacredness of private property, Stirner heavily criticized bourgeous mindset, the concept of privare property and rule of the law, but i don't see him being against money as a concept.
@@tastethecock5203 Stirner argued that the accumulation of capital and the pursuit of wealth were not natural human desires, but rather were imposed on individuals by the dominant social and economic system. He believed that this system created a false sense of individuality, where people were defined by their possessions and their social standing, rather than their unique qualities and desires.
Stirner also criticized the idea of private property, which he saw as a tool used by the capitalist class to maintain their power and control over the working class. He argued that the concept of private property was based on the idea of exclusion and that it prevented individuals from freely expressing themselves and pursuing their desires.
Regarding money, Stirner saw it as a symbol of power and domination, rather than a means of exchange. He believed that money was created by those in power to control those who did not have it, and that it was used to perpetuate social inequality and oppression. He argued that individuals should be free to pursue their desires without being constrained by the need for money and that a truly free society would be one where individuals could exchange goods and services based on mutual agreement, rather than on the exchange of money.
@@5minutesbreakdown I think you are reading his philosophy with too much socialist undertones. Stirner didn’t care about whether society was just or free; there are only individuals. Individuals who could voluntarily exchange just as easily as they could extort or rob from the other person. He was against private property, but only because it was held to be sacred and it was defined normatively (Ex: John Locke). He doesn’t necessarily have to be against money because he may be apart of a union of egoists who have decided that money had validity for them (as opposed to having validity in itself). It’s only peculiar to capitalism that money has a sacred fetishized character. Also, when you say that he was against private property because of exclusion; that isn’t true. Property only has a descriptive definition for Stirner. Someone’s property is whatever the Unique subjugates and is therefore just an extension of their power which means that it necessarily excludes other people.
underrated :)