I received permission to repost the deleted comment. For full context, please see the original user’s response to this message. This was edited after the fact.
Original Comment:
"I've enjoyed your three pieces on Stirner, though I may read him a little differently. It seems to me that too close of an association between Stirner and 'the ego' is based on an erroneous translation; the Byington translation, and other references, have his main work as 'The Ego andIts Own' or even worse, 'The Ego and His Own,' but it's better translated asThe Unique and its Property (title of the Landstreicher translation).
It's a mistake to think of his Unique as The Ego per se. Equating the Unique with the psychoanalytical Ego is problematic. I'm not saying you're doing that necessarily, but it sounds like that at times. Stirner emphasizes a non-conceptual, un-reified phenomenology of sorts that he called the Creative Nothing. One can of course point out that this sounds a little bit like a fixed idea, or a ground of being, but it seems empirical as well as intellectually defined, and I'd argue it's not wholly abstract.
As you point out in your first piece, people are not simply isolated, atomized individuals; they are realized in association, in intercourse or what might be called sociality. Stirner's comments on how people can recognize a common interest in appropriating the tools to make a bakery for themselves, and how they are realized through one another, even his reference to 'non-sacred socialism' makes him sound like what you called an 'extended egoist' already.
If there are contradictions and inconsistencies in his work, so be it; there are things I find useful and other things that don't really inspire me. As much as I appreciate Stirner I can see how his bias clouded his analysis of the socialist movements of his time, and drove his apparent dismissal of writers like Charles Fourier. And yet he could talk about 'non-sacred socialism' as something of interest to the Unique associations.Incorporating Stirner's criticisms of alienated and compulsory social forms and the ideologies that enforce them, might, to some degree, be achieved as part of a self-theory drawing from Fourier, Surrealism, and phenomenology, among other things.
To flesh out the social implications of his work, though problematically, maybe it could be said that, if there isn't something like anon-alienated or surrealist civilization in effect, Stirner's associations of unique ones will be that much more difficult. But he would never insist everything change to facilitate those associations: he'd urge us to form those associations anyway as a kind of threat by example, knowing that what is a burden to one person may not be a burden to another."
My Response:
Thank you for reading my work, I genuinely appreciate the time and care you’ve put into your response. I’m fully open to Stirner’s broader rendering of The Unique One, and you’re right that I tend to emphasize it through the idea of the ‘ego’. Your correction there is valid. Although my article reads like a critique, I hold deep respect for Stirner’s line of thought and the force with which he dismantles imposed abstractions.
My main difficulty with Stirner at the moment is that he seems to moralize even while claiming not to. The moment something is named, whether ‘Creative Nothing’, ‘Unique’, or otherwise, it becomes identifiable. Once identifiable, the mind can either reject it or follow it. To suggest that dissolving abstractions is preferable already leans normatively, even if subtly. I’m not claiming his concept is wholly abstract, but the idea that one can fully escape abstraction and its gravitational pull feels flawed. Abstraction seems inescapable once consciousness reflects on itself.
I also read Stirner as more of an ‘extended egoist’ than a cold atomist. Whether he would admit it or not, he clearly recognized the harm that rigid abstractions can exert over people. His sensitivity to that dynamic is something I value. Where I remain uncertain is whether following the path of the ‘Unique One’ reliably results in improved general living conditions. It may, I’m not denying that possibility, but it cannot be guaranteed merely by invoking uniqueness.
That said, I agree that Stirner remains useful. I give him some slack, it is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to speak about abstractions without using abstraction to do so.
Oh darn, I hadn't seen this when I deleted my comment, opting instead to send it to you as a private message. Sorry about that! I've saved a copy of my comment and would like to repost in a way that makes sense to readers. I can repost in the comment field above your reply, or you are welcome to include my comments before your own reply if that looks better on the page.
I received permission to repost the deleted comment. For full context, please see the original user’s response to this message. This was edited after the fact.
Original Comment:
"I've enjoyed your three pieces on Stirner, though I may read him a little differently. It seems to me that too close of an association between Stirner and 'the ego' is based on an erroneous translation; the Byington translation, and other references, have his main work as 'The Ego andIts Own' or even worse, 'The Ego and His Own,' but it's better translated asThe Unique and its Property (title of the Landstreicher translation).
It's a mistake to think of his Unique as The Ego per se. Equating the Unique with the psychoanalytical Ego is problematic. I'm not saying you're doing that necessarily, but it sounds like that at times. Stirner emphasizes a non-conceptual, un-reified phenomenology of sorts that he called the Creative Nothing. One can of course point out that this sounds a little bit like a fixed idea, or a ground of being, but it seems empirical as well as intellectually defined, and I'd argue it's not wholly abstract.
As you point out in your first piece, people are not simply isolated, atomized individuals; they are realized in association, in intercourse or what might be called sociality. Stirner's comments on how people can recognize a common interest in appropriating the tools to make a bakery for themselves, and how they are realized through one another, even his reference to 'non-sacred socialism' makes him sound like what you called an 'extended egoist' already.
If there are contradictions and inconsistencies in his work, so be it; there are things I find useful and other things that don't really inspire me. As much as I appreciate Stirner I can see how his bias clouded his analysis of the socialist movements of his time, and drove his apparent dismissal of writers like Charles Fourier. And yet he could talk about 'non-sacred socialism' as something of interest to the Unique associations.Incorporating Stirner's criticisms of alienated and compulsory social forms and the ideologies that enforce them, might, to some degree, be achieved as part of a self-theory drawing from Fourier, Surrealism, and phenomenology, among other things.
To flesh out the social implications of his work, though problematically, maybe it could be said that, if there isn't something like anon-alienated or surrealist civilization in effect, Stirner's associations of unique ones will be that much more difficult. But he would never insist everything change to facilitate those associations: he'd urge us to form those associations anyway as a kind of threat by example, knowing that what is a burden to one person may not be a burden to another."
My Response:
Thank you for reading my work, I genuinely appreciate the time and care you’ve put into your response. I’m fully open to Stirner’s broader rendering of The Unique One, and you’re right that I tend to emphasize it through the idea of the ‘ego’. Your correction there is valid. Although my article reads like a critique, I hold deep respect for Stirner’s line of thought and the force with which he dismantles imposed abstractions.
My main difficulty with Stirner at the moment is that he seems to moralize even while claiming not to. The moment something is named, whether ‘Creative Nothing’, ‘Unique’, or otherwise, it becomes identifiable. Once identifiable, the mind can either reject it or follow it. To suggest that dissolving abstractions is preferable already leans normatively, even if subtly. I’m not claiming his concept is wholly abstract, but the idea that one can fully escape abstraction and its gravitational pull feels flawed. Abstraction seems inescapable once consciousness reflects on itself.
I also read Stirner as more of an ‘extended egoist’ than a cold atomist. Whether he would admit it or not, he clearly recognized the harm that rigid abstractions can exert over people. His sensitivity to that dynamic is something I value. Where I remain uncertain is whether following the path of the ‘Unique One’ reliably results in improved general living conditions. It may, I’m not denying that possibility, but it cannot be guaranteed merely by invoking uniqueness.
That said, I agree that Stirner remains useful. I give him some slack, it is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to speak about abstractions without using abstraction to do so.
Oh darn, I hadn't seen this when I deleted my comment, opting instead to send it to you as a private message. Sorry about that! I've saved a copy of my comment and would like to repost in a way that makes sense to readers. I can repost in the comment field above your reply, or you are welcome to include my comments before your own reply if that looks better on the page.
good idea, I'll include it above my response 👍🏻