u/Baxpk77

Despite what some people claim, Stirner and Nietzsche are not philosophical brothers but rather philosophical nemeses. They certainly share a few observations, but that's where the similarities end.

First of all, Nietzsche is fundamentally a builder and an artist, whereas Stirner is purely a destroyer. Nietzsche wants to create a new society in which the strong rule over the weak (because that's supposedly the law of Nature), and he urges us to establish new values. Stirner takes the exact opposite approach:

>"When Fichte says, “the I is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my statements. But it’s not that the I is all, but the I destroys all, and only the self-dissolving I, the never-being I, the—finite I is actually I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” I, but I speak of me, the transient I."

(The Unique and Its Property, Part II, "The Owner")

This difference naturally leads to opposing attitudes toward the emerging proletariat. Nietzsche fears the uncontrolled masses, whereas Stirner explicitly calls on the proletariat to embrace violence.

Secondly, although both philosophers are thinkers of becoming, they are not concerned with the same kind of becoming. Nietzsche is a philosopher of what I would call future-becoming, whereas Stirner is a philosopher of present-becoming.

Future-becoming is centered on progress. This is reflected in Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch and in his famous injunction, "Become who you are." It is always a destination—one that is never fully reached.

Present-becoming, by contrast, is about perpetual flux and constant change. It is the becoming of Heraclitus: "No one ever steps into the same river twice." Stirner expresses the same idea in Stirner's Critics:

>"because you are you only in the moment, only in the moment are you actual; as a “universal you,” you would instead be “another” in each moment"

Another major difference concerns morality. Nietzsche distinguishes between slave morality and master morality and openly despises the former. This contempt reveals just how deeply Nietzsche remains attached to Nature. Why should the morality of the strong be inherently superior to that of the weak, if not because Nature supposedly says so?

Stirner also argues that religion originally serves as a weapon of the weak:

>"I safeguard my freedom against the world to the extent that I make the world my own, i.e., “win and take it” for myself, by whatever force it requires, by force of persuasion, of request, of categorical demand, yes, even hypocrisy, fraud, etc.; because the means that I use for it depend upon what I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like those mentioned above, but which are still good enough for a considerable part of the world."

(The Unique and Its Property, Part II, "Owness")

Unlike Nietzsche, Stirner has nothing against the weak as such.

Furthermore, Nietzsche is ultimately a humanist, whereas Stirner writes against Man itself. That may sound surprising, since Nietzsche relentlessly attacks the humanism of his own era, but he merely replaces it with another form of humanism.

For Nietzsche, humanity stands between the animal and the Übermensch. Since Nietzsche clearly ranks them as Übermensch > Human > Animal, he still attributes an intrinsic value to Man. Humanity—and especially the Übermensch, the destiny of the "higher" humans—remains a privileged category.

Finally, Stirner completely dismantles Nietzsche's central idea before Nietzsche had even formulated it.

He writes:

>"A human being is “called” to nothing, and has no “mission,” no “purpose,” no more than a plant or a beast has a “calling.” The flower doesn’t follow the calling to complete itself, but applies all its forces to enjoy and consume the world as best it can, i.e., it sucks in as much of the earth’s juices, as much of the ether’s air, as much of the sun’s light, as it can get and accommodate. The bird doesn’t live up to any calling, but it uses its forces as much as possible: it catches bugs and sings to its heart’s delight. But the forces of the flower and the bird are small compared to those of a human being, and a human being who uses his forces will intervene in the world much more powerfully than a flower or a beast. He has no calling, but he has forces that manifest themselves where they are, because their being consists solely in their manifestation and can no more remain idle than life, which, if it “stood still” for even a second, would no longer be life. Now, one could call out to human beings: “use your force.” But the meaning would be put into this imperative that it is the mission of the human being to use his force. It’s not so. Rather, everyone actually uses his force without first looking at this as his calling; at every moment everyone uses as much force as he possesses."

(The Unique and Its Property, Part II, "The Owner", "My Self-Enjoyment")

This, in my opinion, is the central criticism:

> Now, one could call out to human beings: “use your force.” But the meaning would be put into this imperative that it is the mission of the human being to use his force. It’s not so.

For Stirner, there is no duty to realize one's potential. Human beings already use whatever power they possess at every moment. Turning that simple fact into a moral imperative is precisely the kind of spook that Stirner rejects.

I don't know Nietzsche very well but I'd want to know if being an Ubermensch is possible for him or if it's just a concept in the become