What Stirner Offered

 

From the 2023 article in the New World Encyclopedia, I want to quote and respond to some things of interest: “Stirner offered an approach to human existence which depicted the self as a creative existence.  He claimed that all religions and ideologies, as well as the authoritative institutions of society, such as the state, legislation, the church, and educational systems, rested on empty concepts. Stirner’s method of self-liberation was opposed to any kind of ‘dogmatic presupposition.’ He advocated an insurrection brought about by ‘insurgents’, people rising above personal, social, political, and ideological limitations, to ‘walk their own way,’ and bring about the enlightenment and welfare of others by demonstration and example.”

 

My response: human existence at its best as objective egoists, individuating, is a creative existence. The life of the subjective egoist and especially the subjective altruist is more chaos than creative, building onto the cosmos or originating a new cosmos. We need our axioms, our presuppositions to live by and identify with, but we must not worship them or allow them to turn us into fanatical myrmidons.

 

We do best influence other by insurrection rather than revolution, and by example not force.

 

 

Let me quote further down under the section on Thought and Works: “In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner launched a radical anti-authoritarian and individualist critique of contemporary Prussian society, and modern western society. He offered an approach to human existence which depicted the self as a creative non-entity, beyond language and reality.”

 

My response: This quote shows why the postmodernists love this guy. The self to Stirner was a creative nothing, but not a non-entity, unless entity means a self that is defined by a rational type, idea or identity. When Stirner refers to the willing egoist as a creative nothing, he also considers this individual to be Unique and singular, a very distinctive if indefinable non-entity.

 

Further down the author writes this lovely, clear passage: “Individual self-realization rests on each individual’s desire to fulfill his or her own egoism. An ‘unwilling’egoist is ‘possessed by an empty idea and believes that he is fulfilling a higher cause., usually unaware  that he is only fulfilling his own desires to be happy or secure. A ‘willing egoist,’ in contrast, is a person who is able to freely choose his actions, fully aware that they are only fulfilling individual desires. A voluntary egoist is the possessor of his concepts; an involuntary egoist is possessed by concepts. Only when the individual realized that all sacred truths . . . are nothing other than artificial concepts, and not to be obeyed, can he act freely. For Stirner, to be free is to both be one’s own ‘creature’ (in the sense of ‘creation’) and one’s own ‘creator’ (dislocating the traditional role assigned to the gods).”

 

My response: The unwilling egoist is either deceived and serving an empty idea, or his guru that he follows has hollowed out and radicalized a good idea, and it is now a fetish or fixed idea worshiped by true believers. One can serve a higher cause and should, if it is a good idea, and one does it as an individuating objective egoist, that is moderate not fanatical about the ism that he favors and fights for. Primarily the willing egoist is to pursue his own desires, but the desires of God and others must be considered to, and his workable plan is how to prioritize these competing claims on his time and resources.

 

The maverizer is devoted to his ideals, but not possessed by them unless his allegiance is fanatical. The maverizer will own and modify his concepts, while also being shaped by living in accordance with them.

 

One more quote from this article, from the section entitled The Self: “Stirner’s definition of ‘fixed ideas’ and absolute concepts (termed ‘spooks’ of contemporary philosophy) led him to a concept of the self that is like a nameless void, impossible to fully comprehend; a so-called ‘creative nothing’ from which mind and creativity will arise. Stirner arrived at this ‘creative nothing’ by concentrating purely on the self and not on external concepts; he later described the self as an ‘end-point of language,’ meaning the point at which all description comes to an end, where description is no longer possible. This endpoint is also the place where all description begins, where the individual self can describe (and therefore create) the world of its own meaning.”

 

My response: If the self is a nameless void or a creative nothing that is impossible to fully comprehend as our thought or consciousness is beyond our words and concepts to describe, conceptualize, and then explain, then self-knowledge is impossible. I am not so skeptical, but I also know the self is immortal and connected infinite spirit, so that might never be fully quantifiable or explainable.