You British ignorant, how can i reasonable lookup the pages if i read it in the german original! This is just a youtube comment, please do not worry, great video! Lets see what the algorithm makes of this one ;D
“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.” - Stirner’s Critics
Thank you for these videos. I have read the Ego and His Own myself, but just watched these to gain a better understanding of absolute Anarchist and Egoist thought from none other than the Godfather of it all, distilled wondrously into two concise yet informative videos. What I must say is Max Stirner, has followers and ideas are the exact opposite of my own beliefs, and while I essentially disagree with almost everything he says, his ideas are interesting nevertheless. It's important for us to always try and understand "the other side", and not block them out like deaf little children.
“When the person you love becomes terribly ill that they stop providing you with any benefits anymore, you should simply replace them with somebody else.” WTF LMAO 😂 Anyway, nice video 👍
I love how you wax eloquently about abstract and difficult topics for close to an hour, then abruptly end it by saying, “Okay, that’s it! Goodbye.” 😂 The juxtaposition is great. Stirner’s ideas are interesting. I had never really given anarchy much thought because I couldn’t imagine our species surviving in such a reality. But the idea of insurrection rather than revolution is something I hadn’t considered. Since the egoist is only concerned about their own well-being (and not some noble cause requiring self-sacrifice), it’s easy for them to go along with the status quo and not make any waves, if doing so is deemed to lead to the best personal outcome for the egoist-even if it results in negative outcomes for large numbers of other people.
A very fascinating video. Stirner is one of my favorite philosophers. But the correct pronunciation is ´Shtyrner´. In German "St" is pronounced like "Sht", except in some areas of northern Germany.
@@brendanfay5140 Ha! Ha! Ha! No, the name doesn´t derive from the English ´stern´ but from the German ´Stirn´ (German for ´forehead´). Stirner got this nickname because he had a high and broad forehead.
But I was talking about the German pronunciation which is in my opinion the only correct pronunciation since Max Stirner was German, and "Stirn" (forehead) is a German word. Imagine, Germans would pronounce the names "Hume", "Locke" or "Smith" the German way. Wouldn´t that sound terrible in your ears?
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not sure how ownness entails the collapse of the state, or necessarily many other specific institutions. I get that if ownness became widely accepted, we wouldn't be able to regard obeying the law as a categorical obligation, but there's also no obligation to oppose the state, or even to refrain from supporting the state if you judge that that's what's best for you. It seems to me that if ownness became mainstream, there would be some people who opposed the state because they felt that was best for them and some people who supported the state because they felt that was best for them, and the state would either disintegrate or survive depending of how many people fell into each group and how effective they were at imposing their will.
I share your concern on this point, though I think it should be stated a bit more carefully. What is meant by "supporting" the state? At most, the egoist might say that the state is doing particular things that are useful to her; but she would never recognize the state as having any authority over her, and even if, at the present time, none of the actions of the state are interfering with her interests, that can always change. So I do think Stirner's position entails that the state, no matter what exact form it takes, is an enemy. However, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's far less obvious that a world of egoists would be a world without a state. Losing its political authority doesn't entail losing its power to enforce its commands.
Stirner *isn't trying to abolish* the State, is the thing. He's trying to describe reality, and provide a framework with which to view it. Egoism isn't economic philosophy, it isn't obsessed with the material like capitalist or socialist philosophies. Egoism doesn't propose *any* "ought."
@@tonylawson2222 I believe Kane is more or less trying to propose how Stirner's philosophy could be applied *in* anarchist philosophy. Or at least mentioning its relevance to individual anarchists.
Proudhon talk mainly about land because its the most important type of property, what would you do with tools or machines without land to work on, he didn’t see private tools or houses as a danger to society like private monopolize land, he does want personal property with is a reasonable amount of land that you use and pay rent on to society
That wouldn't be "stirnerian" idea, because revolutionists would then need a proper cause to fight for, therefore they are fighting for a "spook" (even if it would fight for their cause). All spooks, authority etc. must be denied.
@@dell3502 in a sense. They're fighting for a release from all sacred - read: mandatory - causes in order to effect full freedom for and from their previous selves and society.
Many modern socialists skip over our proposed ragamuffin status, differentiating 'personal property' and 'the means if production'. Is one or the other version being dishonest?
I do already have a lot of videos on philosophy of biology, including videos that deal specifically with classification: The species problem 1 - th-cam.com/video/0yKIUwUpuDU/w-d-xo.html 2 - th-cam.com/video/6m6VohamMP4/w-d-xo.html Biological individuality 1 - th-cam.com/video/8pZ2cZdUA3o/w-d-xo.html 2 - th-cam.com/video/x0KO2VDeVKU/w-d-xo.html Natural kinds th-cam.com/video/BYcfPAvZjPE/w-d-xo.html Race 1 - th-cam.com/video/yrt6HV22Z3c/w-d-xo.html 2 - th-cam.com/video/LO8rulUo-M8/w-d-xo.html
Cole persuaded me to read Stirner. As for why I made these videos, I often create videos because writing the script helps me to learn the material. Stirner's book is wonderful, and full of interesting stuff, but its structure is seriously flawed in my opinion. The main problem is that it's organized around an unsupported psychological and historical theory - of a sort which, to be fair, I think is fairly typical of philosophy of that period - with the result that the shitty ideas seem to be central, while the interesting arguments are rather poorly presented. Stirner continually raises important points, then drops them, only to revisit them at seemingly random points later. For example, there is a section on political liberalism, but much of the critique of liberalism occurs over 100 pages later. So these videos came out of my attempt to organize the interesting parts of Stirner in a more comprehensible way, partly just for my own benefit.
@@KaneB partly agree with you, love me some "mad Max" but would really like someone to write a clear, straightforward modern presentation of his ideas, his style could get ennervating and extremely repetitive here and there
But, that's just it. Whatever fanciful language we choose to use, we are all in a union of egoists, our relationships to one another nothing more and nothing less than titles and an exchange - material, physical, psychological - between people. Here's an experiment: Think of someone in your life that you love and care for or despise - a parent, a lover, a marital partner, a sibling, a neighbor, a co-worker, a boss... Now, think of all that person is to you and all that person does for you or against you and ask yourself: "If they stopped doing the things they do for me or against me - would they still be that thing to me? Would I still choose to see them as someone I love and care for or despise?" The answer is probably no. The truth, as I see it, is that we are all who and what we are to each other because of what we do with and to, for and against one another, that is all. Everything else comes after.
What would Stirner say about people who can't (for various reasons, like trauma or because they are disabled) assert a sense of individuality? Also, he assumes that the strongest people would be the ones able to defend their ownership? Survival of the strongest?Also, he is assuming we can control our instincts and passions (does he explain how?), and what if egoism is one of those? What is his opinion about murder? He assumes we can find our purpose, but how?
I would think that Stirner would say that people would feel compelled to help based on psychological egoism. Feelings of empathy exist, and though it may not be altruistic would bring pain to one's own. There's a quote where he references concepts like love and pain as motivational factors for people's actions. As far as murder goes, well he doesn't limit himself to not being able to perform the act since that limits one to a moral code. However, he does reference the consequences of actions going against an individual's self-interest. If I murder Joe, Joe's friends and loved ones may murder me or my loved ones through retaliation. This plays pretty well into reciprocal altruism and game theory, tbh.
Stirner proposes you give into your passions, and that's why the ideology is very closely related to hedonism. As far as "finding purpose", I think he would refer to this a spook that controls you. His main premise is about finding yourself by chucking all the cultural and social dogmas, hence he says that the creative nothing can't be described and refers to individuals as being defined by their unique. "I am owner of my might, and I am so when I now myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: All things are nothing to me." The book is actually supposed to be, "The Unique One and It's Property (or Own)". The title was actually mistranslated.
I'm only about 16 min in and so far this is excellent, my nitpick comes from the very beginning of the video where you're laying the framework for Anarchism. I wouldn't equate the most common definition of anarchism with the most general. Traditionally anarchism arrives at a rejection of the state from a rejection of unjust hierarchies; I feel it would be more efficient to say that anarchists reject unjust hierarchies generally than just the state.
I think "rejection of unjust hierarchies" is an extremely misleading definition - especially in the context of Stirner. As I said in response to another commenter who made the same point as you: First, I don't agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust. Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on. Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
@@KaneB you could better define anarchy as a rejection of *all* hierarchies. unjust hierarchy is a chomskyian concept and is very ignorant about anarchist history. better to say " rejection of authority and command" tbh
I have recently read minarchist ”manifesto” Utopia, state and anarchy by Robert Nozick and its critique by Rotbard in an article from 1977 and also Rothabrds short essay called: the anathomy of the state. It is like in many parts has Stirner’s ghost talked through Nozick and Rothbard (with some small modifications), which is amazing. I would have liked if we could some day hash these connections out together. And in summary, I think in most ways Stirner is founder of the anarcho-capitalism (albeit some differences in details).
Definitely an interesting way of looking at it, but as others have pointed out Stirner himself was opposed to capitalism and would've been very against anarcho-capitalism as a concept. However, I definitely believe he may have played a hand in inspiring the thinkers behind anarcho-capitalism.
Why fight in wars to defend a country where you really don't own your own land? If 2/3rds of your annual property taxes go to pay for someone else's kids to go to school and if you don't pay, your land is taken away - why be loyal to such a system? Some of those neighbors may drive 2015 vehicles and you may drive a 1990 vehicle, but your house may still be taken away. Oh, society: my mental space and my time belong to me and I don't have to share it.
There is no reason to be loyal to such a system. It's a utopian fantasy and the people who dream up such things don't consider that people could be discontent in their ideal society. Either that or they intend to just force you to do what they want.
I’m rather confused by your claim that the “anti-statist” definition of anarchism is the more broad one. In my view, it is the more narrow. One thing linking all anarchists is the rejection of unjust hierarchies; the disagreement among them is about which hierarchies are unjust. This is the basis for most anarchists’ rejection of the state: it is an unjust hierarchy.
First, I'm not sure I agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust. Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is, as you note, plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on. Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
Kane B These are all very good points. “Unjust” was a poor choice of words on my part - perhaps I should have said “coercive”. (Although, even then, you’re right that it would not include all anarchists.)
I hope that's not the case, cause I still think she severely misunderstands anarchism. Kane's an independent thinker my guy. If she changes his mind I'm more sure than not it's because she's convinced him through argument to do so.
sad to hear you conflate anarchism with Anti-authoritarianism, why did you not stick to the litteral meaning of anarctist 'against hierarchie'? Which can result in being against government but is not the primary goal
Here is a list of page references for things I have said in the video. References are to "The Ego and His Own", Byington translation, 2014 Verso books edition ("Radical Thinkers" series).
7:44 - 93
9:43 - 93
9:55 - 97
10:24 - 100, 243
12:00 - 244
13:20 - 105, 244
14:35 - 105, 252
16:03 - 111, 246
18:35 - 107
19:14 - 232
20:27 - 112
21:13 - 108
21:50 - 113
21:57 - 109
22:18 - 240
22:56 - 234
23:31 - 233
23:56 - 113
25:33 - 231
25:39 - 239
25:58 - 234
26:04 - 240, 242
27:06 - 273
29:40 - 235
31:46 - 182
32:24 - 180
34:02 - 180
34:58 - 200
35:17 - 181
36:45 - 165
40:27 - 273
40:55 - 274
42:02 - 277
43:16 - 295
45:16 - 342
I would love to see more content on Max Stirner or egoism as I thoroughly enjoyed your two videos on him!
You British ignorant, how can i reasonable lookup the pages if i read it in the german original! This is just a youtube comment, please do not worry, great video! Lets see what the algorithm makes of this one ;D
“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.” - Stirner’s Critics
Again, by far the best philosophy channel on TH-cam.
Kane B is by far the #1 philosophy channel. I'm gunnin' for #2, tho ;)
I feel blissful seeing you here !!! Cheers
It's amazing what you can learn from two long videos.
F-- school n--a I’m a be on youtube
@@actualideas8078 no bap
Thank you for these videos. I have read the Ego and His Own myself, but just watched these to gain a better understanding of absolute Anarchist and Egoist thought from none other than the Godfather of it all, distilled wondrously into two concise yet informative videos. What I must say is Max Stirner, has followers and ideas are the exact opposite of my own beliefs, and while I essentially disagree with almost everything he says, his ideas are interesting nevertheless. It's important for us to always try and understand "the other side", and not block them out like deaf little children.
Ow my safe space!
“When the person you love becomes terribly ill that they stop providing you with any benefits anymore, you should simply replace them with somebody else.” WTF LMAO 😂
Anyway, nice video 👍
I love how you wax eloquently about abstract and difficult topics for close to an hour, then abruptly end it by saying, “Okay, that’s it! Goodbye.” 😂 The juxtaposition is great.
Stirner’s ideas are interesting. I had never really given anarchy much thought because I couldn’t imagine our species surviving in such a reality. But the idea of insurrection rather than revolution is something I hadn’t considered. Since the egoist is only concerned about their own well-being (and not some noble cause requiring self-sacrifice), it’s easy for them to go along with the status quo and not make any waves, if doing so is deemed to lead to the best personal outcome for the egoist-even if it results in negative outcomes for large numbers of other people.
A very fascinating video. Stirner is one of my favorite philosophers. But the correct pronunciation is ´Shtyrner´. In German "St" is pronounced like "Sht", except in some areas of northern Germany.
*sterner*
@@brendanfay5140 Ha! Ha! Ha! No, the name doesn´t derive from the English ´stern´ but from the German ´Stirn´ (German for ´forehead´). Stirner got this nickname because he had a high and broad forehead.
The correct pronunciation in ENGLISH is the pronunciation that conforms to ENGLISH phonetics NOT GERMAN phonetics.
But I was talking about the German pronunciation which is in my opinion the only correct pronunciation since Max Stirner was German, and "Stirn" (forehead) is a German word. Imagine, Germans would pronounce the names "Hume", "Locke" or "Smith" the German way. Wouldn´t that sound terrible in your ears?
Both of your videos on Stirner were fantastic. Thank you for making them! ❤️ Will definitely be sharing them with others.
I'm not an anarchist by any means, but I appreciate this video as a good overview of Stirner's thought.
Im not sure i totally agree when he gets to property but i really like his philosophy
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not sure how ownness entails the collapse of the state, or necessarily many other specific institutions.
I get that if ownness became widely accepted, we wouldn't be able to regard obeying the law as a categorical obligation, but there's also no obligation to oppose the state, or even to refrain from supporting the state if you judge that that's what's best for you.
It seems to me that if ownness became mainstream, there would be some people who opposed the state because they felt that was best for them and some people who supported the state because they felt that was best for them, and the state would either disintegrate or survive depending of how many people fell into each group and how effective they were at imposing their will.
I share your concern on this point, though I think it should be stated a bit more carefully. What is meant by "supporting" the state? At most, the egoist might say that the state is doing particular things that are useful to her; but she would never recognize the state as having any authority over her, and even if, at the present time, none of the actions of the state are interfering with her interests, that can always change. So I do think Stirner's position entails that the state, no matter what exact form it takes, is an enemy. However, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's far less obvious that a world of egoists would be a world without a state. Losing its political authority doesn't entail losing its power to enforce its commands.
Stirner *isn't trying to abolish* the State, is the thing.
He's trying to describe reality, and provide a framework with which to view it.
Egoism isn't economic philosophy, it isn't obsessed with the material like capitalist or socialist philosophies. Egoism doesn't propose *any* "ought."
@@tonylawson2222 I believe Kane is more or less trying to propose how Stirner's philosophy could be applied *in* anarchist philosophy. Or at least mentioning its relevance to individual anarchists.
@@definitivelylostcause yes. tucker also endorsed egoism and he was also an anarchist.
I think that ownness interferes with the state and it's position of the sovereign and therefore it's position of absolute authority.
Proudhon talk mainly about land because its the most important type of property, what would you do with tools or machines without land to work on, he didn’t see private tools or houses as a danger to society like private monopolize land, he does want personal property with is a reasonable amount of land that you use and pay rent on to society
Amazing and well explained
Im unique as you are unique
big like and a new subscriber!
this guy sounds so cool lol
Put can't a group of Egoists decide to run a revolution against the state then if won go off on their own? As in don't implement a new state...
That wouldn't be "stirnerian" idea, because revolutionists would then need a proper cause to fight for, therefore they are fighting for a "spook" (even if it would fight for their cause). All spooks, authority etc. must be denied.
@@ivan55599 but isn't the union of Egoist fighting for a cause?
@@dell3502 in a sense. They're fighting for a release from all sacred - read: mandatory - causes in order to effect full freedom for and from their previous selves and society.
It's unnecessary. We already have autonomy, we were born with it. It's not something a state can grant us.
@@ericvulgate I would argue that it's something that the state takes away from each of us.
Many modern socialists skip over our proposed ragamuffin status, differentiating 'personal property' and 'the means if production'.
Is one or the other version being dishonest?
Brilliant, thank you!
Can you start a series on biology and the classification of life similar to AronRA?
I do already have a lot of videos on philosophy of biology, including videos that deal specifically with classification:
The species problem
1 - th-cam.com/video/0yKIUwUpuDU/w-d-xo.html
2 - th-cam.com/video/6m6VohamMP4/w-d-xo.html
Biological individuality
1 - th-cam.com/video/8pZ2cZdUA3o/w-d-xo.html
2 - th-cam.com/video/x0KO2VDeVKU/w-d-xo.html
Natural kinds
th-cam.com/video/BYcfPAvZjPE/w-d-xo.html
Race
1 - th-cam.com/video/yrt6HV22Z3c/w-d-xo.html
2 - th-cam.com/video/LO8rulUo-M8/w-d-xo.html
"Stop thinking and end your problems" stop reificating
So what exactly prompted you videos on Stirner? You've rarely talked about individual philosophers, let alone modern era "continental" ones
Cole persuaded me to read Stirner. As for why I made these videos, I often create videos because writing the script helps me to learn the material.
Stirner's book is wonderful, and full of interesting stuff, but its structure is seriously flawed in my opinion. The main problem is that it's organized around an unsupported psychological and historical theory - of a sort which, to be fair, I think is fairly typical of philosophy of that period - with the result that the shitty ideas seem to be central, while the interesting arguments are rather poorly presented. Stirner continually raises important points, then drops them, only to revisit them at seemingly random points later. For example, there is a section on political liberalism, but much of the critique of liberalism occurs over 100 pages later.
So these videos came out of my attempt to organize the interesting parts of Stirner in a more comprehensible way, partly just for my own benefit.
@@KaneB partly agree with you, love me some "mad Max" but would really like someone to write a clear, straightforward modern presentation of his ideas, his style could get ennervating and extremely repetitive here and there
The egoist union you describe is absolutely terrifying. I cannot imagine having my partner see me as no more than an object for his own amusement.
Well Stirner's real life marriage was miserable.
@@nowhereman6019 makes sense
Wah
But, that's just it. Whatever fanciful language we choose to use, we are all in a union of egoists, our relationships to one another nothing more and nothing less than titles and an exchange - material, physical, psychological - between people.
Here's an experiment:
Think of someone in your life that you love and care for or despise - a parent, a lover, a marital partner, a sibling, a neighbor, a co-worker, a boss...
Now, think of all that person is to you and all that person does for you or against you and ask yourself: "If they stopped doing the things they do for me or against me - would they still be that thing to me? Would I still choose to see them as someone I love and care for or despise?"
The answer is probably no.
The truth, as I see it, is that we are all who and what we are to each other because of what we do with and to, for and against one another, that is all. Everything else comes after.
@@John-ir4idvery well put!
What would Stirner say about people who can't (for various reasons, like trauma or because they are disabled) assert a sense of individuality? Also, he assumes that the strongest people would be the ones able to defend their ownership? Survival of the strongest?Also, he is assuming we can control our instincts and passions (does he explain how?), and what if egoism is one of those? What is his opinion about murder? He assumes we can find our purpose, but how?
This isn't a direct answer, but maybe it will help:
Stirner rejects the concept of "should" and "ought." You can assume from there.
Weak must perish!
"he assumes that the strongest people would be the ones able to defend their ownership?" As opposed to who? Lol
I would think that Stirner would say that people would feel compelled to help based on psychological egoism.
Feelings of empathy exist, and though it may not be altruistic would bring pain to one's own.
There's a quote where he references concepts like love and pain as motivational factors for people's actions.
As far as murder goes, well he doesn't limit himself to not being able to perform the act since that limits one to a moral code. However, he does reference the consequences of actions going against an individual's self-interest.
If I murder Joe, Joe's friends and loved ones may murder me or my loved ones through retaliation.
This plays pretty well into reciprocal altruism and game theory, tbh.
Stirner proposes you give into your passions, and that's why the ideology is very closely related to hedonism.
As far as "finding purpose", I think he would refer to this a spook that controls you. His main premise is about finding yourself by chucking all the cultural and social dogmas, hence he says that the creative nothing can't be described and refers to individuals as being defined by their unique.
"I am owner of my might, and I am so when I now myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: All things are nothing to me."
The book is actually supposed to be, "The Unique One and It's Property (or Own)". The title was actually mistranslated.
Comment avoir la traduction en Français. .???
French .
I'm only about 16 min in and so far this is excellent, my nitpick comes from the very beginning of the video where you're laying the framework for Anarchism. I wouldn't equate the most common definition of anarchism with the most general. Traditionally anarchism arrives at a rejection of the state from a rejection of unjust hierarchies; I feel it would be more efficient to say that anarchists reject unjust hierarchies generally than just the state.
I think "rejection of unjust hierarchies" is an extremely misleading definition - especially in the context of Stirner. As I said in response to another commenter who made the same point as you:
First, I don't agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust.
Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on.
Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
@@KaneB you could better define anarchy as a rejection of *all* hierarchies. unjust hierarchy is a chomskyian concept and is very ignorant about anarchist history. better to say " rejection of authority and command" tbh
The state, by existing, is inherently an unjust heirarchy.
Proudhon recommended renting property from the society
23:03 haha marx just stole that apparently
I have recently read minarchist ”manifesto” Utopia, state and anarchy by Robert Nozick and its critique by Rotbard in an article from 1977 and also Rothabrds short essay called: the anathomy of the state. It is like in many parts has Stirner’s ghost talked through Nozick and Rothbard (with some small modifications), which is amazing. I would have liked if we could some day hash these connections out together. And in summary, I think in most ways Stirner is founder of the anarcho-capitalism (albeit some differences in details).
no. stirner is opposed to capitalism :)
Stirner is completely anti-capitalist.
Definitely an interesting way of looking at it, but as others have pointed out Stirner himself was opposed to capitalism and would've been very against anarcho-capitalism as a concept. However, I definitely believe he may have played a hand in inspiring the thinkers behind anarcho-capitalism.
Why fight in wars to defend a country where you really don't own your own land? If 2/3rds of your annual property taxes go to pay for someone else's kids to go to school and if you don't pay, your land is taken away - why be loyal to such a system? Some of those neighbors may drive 2015 vehicles and you may drive a 1990 vehicle, but your house may still be taken away.
Oh, society: my mental space and my time belong to me and I don't have to share it.
There is no reason to be loyal to such a system. It's a utopian fantasy and the people who dream up such things don't consider that people could be discontent in their ideal society. Either that or they intend to just force you to do what they want.
Loyalty is a spook
Society doesn't educate children to be nice to children, we do it bc in theory a more educated society is better for all of us.
LOUIS FERDINAND CELINE .....LIRE ''. MORT A CREDIT. et VOYAGE AU BOUT DE LA NUIT. ''
.LUCIDE ET CLAIRVOYANT.
I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
8:26
No one is “lucky” to be born to their own parents. That individual could only have resulted from the combination of their parents dna
I’m rather confused by your claim that the “anti-statist” definition of anarchism is the more broad one. In my view, it is the more narrow. One thing linking all anarchists is the rejection of unjust hierarchies; the disagreement among them is about which hierarchies are unjust. This is the basis for most anarchists’ rejection of the state: it is an unjust hierarchy.
First, I'm not sure I agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust.
Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is, as you note, plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on.
Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
Kane B These are all very good points. “Unjust” was a poor choice of words on my part - perhaps I should have said “coercive”. (Although, even then, you’re right that it would not include all anarchists.)
That girl has pulled the wool over your eyes and is now steering your intellectual endeavors
"Masculine conformity"
Not sure what you're talking about. In what way exactly has the wool been pulled over my eyes?
insulin pet
I hope that's not the case, cause I still think she severely misunderstands anarchism. Kane's an independent thinker my guy. If she changes his mind I'm more sure than not it's because she's convinced him through argument to do so.
@@prenuptials5925 no intention on being racist but y r u watching this shit?
sad to hear you conflate anarchism with Anti-authoritarianism, why did you not stick to the litteral meaning of anarctist 'against hierarchie'? Which can result in being against government but is not the primary goal