Max Stirner and the Ego and Its Own
Anarchism is a philosophy about humans as members of society that brings benefits to all. In essence, the demurrer is if they have never been ruled or live in shackles of the domain. Max Stirner, the individualism’s anarchism figures, is the German romantic system’s space. He presents anarchism in the form of individualism. Its nature is extreme and also egoism. He called for a free crowd of individuals working together to enlarge freedom equally. To clarify, Stirner is valuing a critique of individualism’s anarchism. He became state socialism as the foremost basis of anarchism.
In 1844, Max Stirner wrote The Ego and Its Own. Ultimately, it defines work to the sword law of the nation. In contrast to Max Stirner on individualism’s anarchism, it analyzes the demand for anarchism in its culture. It is quite distinct from other treatises at the end of the 19th century on anarchism. On the other hand, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and William Godwin tried to accept the anarchist stance’s mystical basis. Basically, this helps protect people’s feelings. Instead, Stirner oddly holds the stance of anarchy against individualism. With their people, he retains the ego as the division’s benchmark. Hegelians and Marxists have also criticized his method. He is the anarchist opposite of individualism ideas in general.
People often saw Stirner as a deification for the Hegelians themselves. He is also discussed as part of the Hegelians. From the 19th to the 20th century, Hegel’s essays on philosophy deeply forced political thought. The concourse of Stirner with the Hegelian tradition itself is equivocal. Nonetheless, this was due to his mistrust of the public and the reign. Thinkers such as David McClelland also argue with such. In short, the pupil and last Hegelian were Stirner. Conversely, philosophers such as Karl Lowith and Fredrich Engels saw the work of Stirner. They stated Stirner’s work as the crest idea of the intellect and the absolute.
The Nation and the Enemy
A prominent force in the cultivation of nihilism and existentialism is The Ego and Its Own. Moreover, after individualism and post-left anarchy, it is a policy of clamor. Stirner tends to have the same reciprocal as other theorists of chaos. Indeed, he is firmly opposed to humanism, imperialism, and other forces. Stirner sees much of that on the level of individual human beings. He is not otherwise impacted. Stirner did not oppose the fight for the leadership of an ideology like socialism. Nonetheless, he opposed legal abstraction and trust strongly.
The nation is the enemy. All individuals lead more sacrifices. Regardless of their position, they are prime officials, government, or even the Regina. For Stirner, the government needs money. The elitists took the property, work, and throne. They turned them into dazed slaves. Besides, Max Stirner said that such individualism’s anarchism supposed the nation. He claimed that the nation is humans’ main enemy at the start. It also happened when the swelling of social practices was born in a classless sheet. When Stirner spoke of liberalism, he addressed only the calumny of the nation.
The image is outward. It makes all individuals become their dependents using the civics proof. In the case of civic, liberalism creates such ideas. Stirner makes people believe in a mirror of the nation’s concept itself. He asserts liberalism and socialism produce such thought. For instance, the government has a body. The body itself is a soul. If the body does not exist, only the brain, it has no value. Stirner tried to write off the concept of self. He replaces it with a general construct. All human beings must pledge constancy directly or imply to the nation.
Stirner’s attitude to the Western philosophical tradition shall be analyzed when viewing his study of power. He saw the Western picture idea as an old tendency. It transforms ancient Greek culture in the current era. The way to live is reason or clarity. It is the pillar of the ancient philosophers. When interacting with nature, reasons generated truth. Except, constant change and fluidity reflected such goals. The right itself must be in a steady state of transition.
For philosophers, its nature is never definite. Stirner showed impotence to seek a permanent but eternal truth. Therefore, these traits become the crucial weaknesses of the main human character. Revamp has lost its contact and context with Stirner’s tradition as oversight and lack of confidence. Max Stirner defines individualism’s anarchism of him as vice aspects of human character. Ethical norms or standards as selfhood are his keys. They are not subject to authentic status. Stirner calls this a world of ignorance in the neoteric age.
Bedrocks become permanent ideas for people when they come up with ideas about the divine. The individual’s spirit is self-defense in every human body, embracing character, physical existence, and transcending the body. He teaches individuals not to respect what each individualism has. On the other hand, they regard the ego image itself as eternal essence. The faith divine is reflected in the fixed philosophical search. Humanism, in simple terms, is the latest transform of insight. For Stirner, Kant is an escapist. He describes what Stirner has always found offensive. For Kant, the testament of reason’s aptitude in thought beyond natural incentive is steadily evolving through the milieu. It works the same way where reason can tell the sensory impressions of an object. Basically, like living beings, they have an extension, space, and time.
Life is a dissection idea if approaches remain vaguely total. It generates confidence in depiction and stable hope. In short, it is a central feature of human nature. Just as Stirner always meant by humans’ general concept, so is the notion of objective harmony. Derrida said that epitome’s process transforms the world of unique selves into materials for producers. They are food and pedestal camps. Stirner rejects the potential that the concept of the full-scale human being can do justice to each individual’s uniqueness. Patency perfection conditions in the public arena are the benchmarks of delving the roots. Suppose truth is an old construct and does not have standard induction. In that case, the substance structure can never separate from its place of origin.
The nation maintains a general yet deified concept. People, like it or not, have to adapt. It must be opposed, while the power attaches the selfhood to the society itself. Foucault concludes that if the real state struggle does not relate to the content of truth; it is false but also faithless. State struggles neither produce nor elicit an answer from the truth itself. However, it is perilous when the outlining of reality utilizes as a case and resistance to realness. In his idea, Stirner rejects the fixed idea that the nation applies to code, actions, order, and oaths to society. Also, normalcy is the idea of the most general concept of every individual. All the plus ruined themselves, which is when the nation, demanded by humanist culture, still places a “burden” on each body.
The pinnacle of Hegelian tradition, for Stirner, is unsound. Stirner said that the fantasy drift implies to justify control. To put it simply, he did not like the last Hegelian as a title, but he much preferred to be called anti-Hegel. It is also hard to know that Stirner is the first post-structuralist. Linearly, it resists self-love without having to be controlled by puppets. However, what perspective is Stirner truly? What do human rights mean if the nation still has contact with the “body”?
The idea of broad yet permanent truth has replaced the dynamic of censure. Dullness has always featured Western philosophy. However, hip post-structuralists, lastly, are like this. To clarify, the truth is plural, dynamic, contingent, and lovely. There is the grip embodied of certain groups. Liberal humanism concluded if feud equal to “rights.” Firstly, what are the cause and the effect of the severe idea? Secondly, the body is opposed only to the brain itself. Thirdly, isn’t that suicide? Primarily, each’s interests carried out as much as possible to achieve the poses of truth. Uniquely, it does not matter when the system kills itself.
To sum up, it is just the body. It is a matter of everything. But, it is not the brain as well.
- Derrida, J. (1992). Derrida and Negative Theology. SUNY Press.
- Kant, I. (1949). The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant’s Moral and Political Writings. PhilPapers.
- Koch, A. M. (1997). Max Stirner: The Last Hegelian or the First Poststructuralist?. The Anarchist Library.
- McLellan, D. (1969). The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx. PhilPapers.
- Stirner, M. (1995). Stirner: The Ego and its Own. Cambridge University Press.