r/fullegoism

Except for that article by David Leopold on Stanford wiki?

My country has banned Stanford, so I can't cite it.

Any of you guys in new york? Looking to hang out and chat with egoists or anarcho-egoists.

Is Max Stirner a viable choice to be added to a core Western political philosophy canon?

For one of my classes, the assignment is to choose a Western political philosopher who is not already part of the eight core thinkers we’re studying and argue why they should be added. The current list is Plato, Aristotle, Thomas More, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Marx/Engels.

I chose Max Stirner, but I’m curious what people here think before I fully commit to the argument. (I would like to preface that I am not asking for help specifically on the assignment)

Do you think Stirner is a viable choice for this kind of assignment? Does he deserve to be taught alongside those thinkers, or is he too niche compared to them?

My basic thought is that even though Stirner is not popular with the general public, egoism raises a hard question people need to face: how much of what we do is really for ideals, morality, society, or the state, and how much of it is rooted in our own self-interest?

Would Stirner be a strong way to introduce that conversation in a political philosophy class? Why or why not?

I don’t mean like Goldman’s egoism, i mean classic stirnerite egoism and illegalism… how does production and logistics work in there? who does sewage treatment, water filtering, electricity production etc.? Did he ever explain that in the book?

Just imagine that this guy defeated marxism by non existing. This has some incredible magical powers beyond ordinary human capacity, I don't dare to say übermensch, since Nietzsche is a spooked cuck.

Power won’t disappear because subjectivity itself is constituted relationally. One cannot stand outside networks of language, desire, labor, history, biology, social production, etc. Political matter is not a means of emancipation, but a negotiation between unavoidable entrapment. The subject then is to be conditioned, produced, and infiltrated, being dependent on forces placed above itself. No method of rebellion could ever step outside of power because it never had legs to stand on. Additionally, resistance itself would already be traced by the systems it opposes. The subject cannot be sovereign, it is detrimentally restricted. Again, it is a being desperately daring to escape capture without succession. No matter how the subject aspires to be its author, it stagnates into such a site of conflict–so then the only plea to be proposed is as a matter of conscious abandonment.

Under these conditions, even Max Stirner’s exceptionally charming “Unique” loses its novelty. The ‘ego’ starts to look less as an independent proprietor capable of navigating itself and the world because it is conflicted by the entanglement from a default imposition; deluding that it, too, isn’t a dressed up model that designs a fragile process struggling against forms of capture that can never be entirely maintained—not to imply that Stirner asserts it can be absolved. Surely, the “Unique” has the ability to filter “spooks”and utilizes constructs as disposable means if sought. The takeaway is that the “creative nothing” can never completely pilot itself because it never had the opportunity nor a chance to be self-originating; nonetheless, there’s emphasis on the methodology proving to be a productive corrosive response to fixed ideas. Where it falls short is it represents liberation “for the individual” opposed “from fixed individuality itself”. The egoist unknowingly opens the door to the dissolution of the ego they wanted to liberate. Once all transcendent foundations are relinquished, the “Unique” itself doesn’t evolve into a sovereign atom, but more so a shifting field of forces and desires. In actualization, the “self” is already a ruminating crowd. After all, desire is not centered in a rooted ego–it can’t be. Rather, it is distributed across social and machinic processes. In other words, the unconscious is not a theater starring a “me”; it is a factory producing connections. 
Thus a question arises: “After the deconstruction of those holier than thou, what new forms of life emerge?” If your answer is not swayed, reformulate your beloved ego to free the flows trapped inside the ego. Then consider this “self” as not “property”, but a temporary arrangement of intensities to use. May your ‘permanent essence’ eventually transition into a shifting constellation of drives and appropriations. In sentimental regards, redirected questions dawns introspection: “Who is being liberated? Who desires? Who refuses?  Who appropriates experience?” Singularity aren’t simply be reduced to systems of production or social machinism. “If the “Unique” is then perceived as an event, or an ephemeral crystallization of forces, not an identity, could this allow singular beings to exist without becoming metaphysical essences? That perhaps a “self” is real precisely because it is created and not discovered, never finished. Something composed through action, desire, and tactility.” Since it’s logical to say: “I am this,” without believing that identity is eternal. Besides, if desire belongs to no transcendent order, then is where the “self” could be looked as a creation rather than property, continually composing from forces, desires, encounters, and refusals: A “self” that treats itself as art rather than ‘essence’. Consider this a conceptual theory that holds zero scrutiny since the irony of the synthesis recenters the subject precisely where it was trying to decenter–or better put, a creative outburst for you to or not to contemplate.

Mine is that Max Stirner wrote his work in an arrogant manner with sole purpose to troll Marx.​​​

It's been a while since I last read Stirner, but I keep remembering some sentences that don't seem to go together, especially with my relationship with others.

For exemple, in "Human Liberalism", he says "I do not count myself as anything especial, but as unique. Doubtless I have similarity with others; yet that holds good only for comparison or reflection; in fact I am incomparable, unique. My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind.” So here you can't be me and I can't be you, cause your "properties" (flesh and mind here) aren't my properties.

But in "My intercourse" he says "Let’s therefore not strive for community, but for one-sidedness. Let’s not seek the broadest commune, “human society,” but rather let’s seek in others only means and organs that we use as our property! As we don’t see our equals in trees, in animals, so the assumption that others are our equals arises from a hypocrisy. No one is my equal, but I consider him, equally with all other beings, as my property." Here, if I understand well, Max says that I don't consider you as a "good" or "bad" human or a "good" or "bad" thinker and so on, but as my special object that I "use" when I feel like it, as my property.

For now the two are pretty compatible, but what if I were my own property ?

"My power is my property.

My power gives me property.

My power am I myself, and through it I am my property." (The Unique and its Property, Chapter 2, The Owner)

So, if you are my property, and if the world is my property, are you a part of me and am I a part of you ?

Also, if I am nothing and you are, as well, nothing, what is the difference between you and me in the substance ? And even if after that we are not the same by our creations (cause after all this isn't Nothingness but Creative Nothingness), is there still no differentiation between you and me at our core ? (Or when we return to Nothingness by destroying our creations.)

I also heard that there was a differentiation between who you are and what you are in Der Einzige, so maybe its linked.

They're on both sides of the coin too. Its half "top ten egoist characters" garbage that doesn't understand anything Stirner taught, or even the characters being mentioned, and the other half is comprised of shitty phonk edits of Stirner by people who pretend to like philosophy to seem interesting, and then there's the idiots going on rants about how Stirner was evil because he doesn't fit into their predefined box of ideals. Both the people who pretend to like him, and the people who say they hate him are the same species of morons.

Yea, I know that his ideas drive the way to the fking ancapitalism, but I still think that what he say was a little bit far from that