The Egoism Of Max Stirner

 A I have planned  to write a book on the ethics of such polar opposite egoists, subjective egoist Max Stirner versus objective egoist Ayn Rand, I figured it was about time for me to flesh out initially the egoism of Max Stirner. 

To accomplish this, I need to quote him in his own words, and I think an interpretation of me of his written worldview, a hint of the elusive thinking of this egotist, will come to light. 

I will quote from Stirner's Critics, by Max Stirner, Page 64, the translation by Wolfi Landstreicher: "This self-forgetfulness, this losing of oneself, is for us only a mode of self-enjoyment, it is only pleasure we take in our world, in our property, i.e. world-pleasure.

It is not in this self-forgetfulness, but in forgetting that the world is our world, that unselfishness, i.e., duped egoism, has its basis. You throw yourself down before a 'higher,' absolute world and waste yourself. Unselfishness is not self-forgetfulness in the sense of no longer thinking of oneself and no longer being concerned with oneself, but in the other sense of forgetting that the world is 'ours', of forgetting that one is the center or owner of this world, that is our property. Fear and timidity toward the world as a higher 'world' is cowardly, 'humble' egoism, egoism in its slavish form, which doesn't dare to grumble, which secretly creeps about and 'denies itself'; it is self-denial."

My response: Max Stirner is considered to be a psychological egoist, and I believe he is. He seems to divide people as egoists into two camps. The vast majority of people are duped egoists, self-enslaved to some cause, ism or abstraction, who define their self-interest as serving something, some ideal, abstract spook outside of themselves. Their unfulfilling, dishonest lives are the lives of objective selflessness, selflessly serving an objective cause. They enslave themselves to some vicious abstraction, some spook that does not exist.

Only a few like himself are not-duped egoists, or authentic, free, subjective egoists if I may so characterize his kind of egoism. He, the alert egoist, worships no abstraction: all feelings, all thoughts, all abstractions, all brands of morality, joinerism, lonerism, egoism and socialism are all rationalized fetishes that we are not supposed to worship or serve. They are to be the individudal's property, his source of power, property, ownership and ownness: he makes them and breaks them as he will.

His self-forgetfulness is suggesting to me that the self is consciousness that includes both thought and language, but these tools serve it, its needs, its objectives, its purposes: they are sufficient and necessary aspects of his consciousness but they are not the whole of his consciousness. They neither define him or conceptualize the Unique in a definitive, realistic, scientific way: they only distort an authentic revelation of the self to the self and to the world.

Those that I have read on Max Stirner would characterize him as perhaps a normative (though he finds prescriptive rules and character assessments false, oppressive, inaccurate, and offensive) and rational egoist too.

The duped egoist forgets the world is his, and that he is the center of the world and the center of his own world, and this is what being unselfish amounts to.  The cowardly, unselfish duped ego runs from his own power and invests his allegiance and fealty to a thing, world or cause out there which he regards as superior to him, and it is his duty to serve and defend it.

Stirner is an atheist as is Ayn Rand, but he is an amoralist: he is not against moral codes and labels per se, but he believes the Unique and its property are so free, so radically self-editing and self-creating and recreating in a universe, theirs for the taking if they elect to grab the world and make it their own, in the own image. There are no moral labels that apply to the Unique that are accurate, those hurled at the Unique ones as sinners, rebels, and evildoers, but those are Christian labels, not applicable or pertinent denies Stirner.

Ayn Rand, the atheist dogmatist is a normative egoist and a rational egoist. She is an essentialist declaring and averring that human nature is set, permanent, identifiable, assignable and is linguistically describable and morally blameworthy or praiseworthy.

She is an objective egoist with an objective epistemology, and Stirner is a subjective egoist with a most subjectivist epistemology, bordering on pure skepticism and solipsist self-isolation from others.

Still, he does believe in an external world and that there are other authentic Unique Ones that one can form a union of egoists with.

My Solutions

 I have never recovered from my astonishment, horror, and disgust how commonplace and ubiquitous evil is in and among people every day just going about their business. People are malevolent towards themselves and each other. To some small degree they know that they are doing wrong but choose to live in sin anyway because they like suffering more than enjoying life, and doing evil and tolerating evil all around one allows one to suffer to the maximum amount, and that is satisfying for most mixed-up people.

To some degree, nonindividuators/joiners/group-livers are so unenlightened, so steeped in a world of self and communal deception, and a social world of illusion and delusion, that they know they suffer, but are not more than semi-conscious of why they continue to live the maladaptive way that they do, or are even so asleep in the dream world that the Dark Couple have erected as a bubble of suffering around them, that they are largely unconscious to the fact as to how wrong and rotten their lives actually are.

I have never ceased to be amazed at the powerful, near universal, the consistent, rather global need for hundred of people that I have met over the decades, to seek power over others, and to lord their superiority over others, whenever they have the chance to.

As you know with me, I always start with my presupposition that people are born depraved. What this means is that they are selfless, group-oriented, mostly detest themselves and suffer an innate lack of a sense of self-worth or high self-esteem. 

When people do not like themselves, as they naturally do not, they are filled with hatred, anger, deceit (I am using Jordan Peterson's adjectives here.) resentment and bitterness. All that unhappiness, that despairing, that wretchedness needs to be exported to others (when one's nature is social and group-affiliation, exporting and dumping one's frustration upon neighbors is based upon propinquity.).

This frustration is exported to others in at least two primary ways. 

First, humans are addicted to unwholesome power, the power of powerlessness, the bottomless craving to rule others, to dominate them, to soul-rape them, to bend them to our will. When you add prejudices of a "superior" (a mere social convention or opinion) class, ideology or ethnic group or club membership of the haves/oppressors/victimizers over those belonging to "inferior" (again these labels are not objectively real) classes, unpopular or minority isms, outlier ethnic groups, or less prestigious clubs, then the powerful go after and attack, exploit, ridicule, persecute and exploit those less powerful, less well-connected. 

People rarely, though selfless to the core, do the kind and unselfish thing, and give someone less popular or less powerful a break, and do away with these bad, destructive social games of power and dominance. People love their negative power, want always more and more of it, and are unable or unwilling to set it aside, and make their inferiors, their new equals. 

Of course, those, in societal hierarchies, more powerful or more popular are sadistic towards those below them, and also are masochistic towards abusers above them beating them at their own game.

Second, one cannot feel superior over others unless one is superior in rank over others in some socially accepted framework or hierarchy, be it extended family, nuclear family, tribe, clan, neighborhood association, social clubs, workplace hierarchies, public, private, military, or ecclesiastical, etc. 

This need to feel a little good about oneself based upon whatever paltry or significant rank one can gain above others--that is a primary human motivation, and class structures cause needless suffering as well as malevolent abuse of those down below, or inferior in rank, as the perpetrators are then abused, and accepted that it is their lot to be abused by their superiors from above. Being joiners, nonindividuators and group-living are all existential stances that accompany the construction and maintenance of the majority of people populating established hierarchies.

Jordan Peterson is correct that we naturally live in hierarchies, but such existence sickens and corrupts us. Cruelty and malevolence wax strong in such settings.

Here are my solutions: if we can teach young people to love themselves, to discipline themselves, to seek to find pleasure and happiness--gained by growing in love, intelligence, godliness and talent expression, then they will learn to be living angels, to grow into great-soulness, to forsake craving superiority and rank over others, to seek to rob others of their power and liberty that are their natural rights, their natural gifts bestowed upon them by their Creators to be all that they can be.

As maverized individuators, living angels and supercitizens, young people can esteem themselves, esteem their neighbors and esteem God and the Good Spirits, and find fulfilled the two urges that biologically well up in them, and which have led to the downfall of many, countless generation of humans.

As they self-realize, and enjoy their personal, considerable application of their own, private, expanding power as they define themselves, developing their amassed power, wealth, skill and new thoughts without requiring to enslave a neighbor to rob her of her power to do her own thing on a grand scale.

As a generation of individuating, anarchist supercitizens and living angels constitute America as one huge classless class of mostly upper-middle class citizens, all of whom are strong, independent, smart, confident, superior persons of impressive accomplishments, they will be the best mix: their desire to be elite and to rule is met by their competition with themselves diachonically over time and their ratcheting up their competence, talent and excellence give them their feeling of elite status, without hierarchical domination of enslaved underlings.

And all will be roughly equal in status, liberty, public esteem, popularity, and magnificent, personal achievement, that equality is thus socially and legally reinforced as hierarchies are unnaturally flattened and limited to the greatest practical extent.

No longer, will the natural human craving of groupist, nonindividuating, selfless, self-loathing, insecure nobodies need to waste everyone's lives, inflicting great senseless pain, by anyone having power over anyone else, or craving or working to gain rank and superiority over others, and none seek it or reward or put up with such foolish ranking attempts.

Back Again

 Here I am harping again against Jordan Peterson's concept that talent is rare, and it is only or primarily those with the highest IQs that are creative, and we need to encourage and facilitate their expression of their individuality and pursuit of excellence for the sake of everyone.

These points are true as far as they go but I do not believe for a moment that talent is rare, and is a faculty enjoyed and demonstrated in substantive, meaningful ways only be the very brightest humans.

First, Eric Hoffer has amply and often demonstrated that original thinking, creativity, and innovation is the playground of misfits, and less talented people, introducing new technologies and new ideas to humanity. Hoffer seems to think that the novel tinkerers are, it is true, often less talented and the geniuses then push them aside and do great things with the novel approach. 

I would argue that those less talented people, as maverizers could not only introduce the novel and unique, but lay their case and work out in polished, systemic ways.

Second, look at new species of birds, insects and mammals that emerge slowly or quickly, evolving new behaviors and approaches to living and breeding, often clever and novel, but certainly these instinctive innovators are not that 'bright' by human standards. It indicates to me that average people, if they learn to self-realize, could by accident engender new techniques, forms of poetry, new technology, etc., just instinctively coming to them, not connected to IQ necessarily.

Third, each person is unique and special, and with the Mavellonialist social technology of maverizing, each person would bring their singular worldview to bear, and ingenious products of imagination and logic would shine forth for public perusal and review.

Fourth, on Page 233 of the book, The Syndicated News Article, Hoffer wrote this on April 5, 1970: "Those who lack talent expect things to happen without effort. They ascribe failure  to a lack of inspiration or ability, rather than to insufficient application. At the core of every true talent there is an awareness of the difficulties inherent in any achievement, and the confidence that by persistence and patience something worthwhile will be realized. Thus, talent is a species of vigor."

Hoffer seems to be chiding the "untalented" that what they lack is not innate genius, so only a Mozart can just lay pen to paper, and compose an opera, pure, complete, and flawless in nonstop 9 hours of composing whilst the Muse is upon him.

Obviously, Peterson is correct in noting the higher the IQ, perhaps the greater the creativity but genius Hoffer looked at at his fellow workers and only saw raw, unchanneled, undeveloped talent burst at the seams everywhere crying for some approval, support and instilling of confidence that each person has something to offer.

Inspiration and surprising ability is commonplace and universal if each individual maverizes, has confidence in his raw talent and his unique point of view, and applies himself.

It is much more about hard work, patience, will and vigor. Perhaps if Hitler had kept at his painting, he would have found an artistic outlet and harmless sublimation of his sociopathic rage and hatred that would have kept him from taking revenge upon humanity for his failures and willingness to quit trying.

It could be that an innate great soul like Hitler, once he turned evil and sought only to destroy, the perversion of his creative impulses render him all the more successful as a Destroyer.

One should never cease maverizing, and that will to create is victory morally in itself, and something beautiful and original may yet come out of it.

Did Jordan Peterson Find God?

 Did Jordan Peterson find God, or did God finally reach Jordan Peterson, who is now a believer? I think Jordan has found some comfort and love of the Higher Power.

Now, I turn my attention immediately to Ayn Rand and Stephen R Hicks, both of whom respectively were or are atheists, and strict materialists.

I mention this to warn believers not to overdo it. During pre-history, and during the Pre-Modern times, faith ruled over reason, especially secular, scientific reason. That reign was too one-sided and cannot be repeated.

I am an ethical moderate and remind the faithful that their faith is holy only as long as their practice of it remains moral, and it is so easy to lose our way as people always were prone to do historically. This requires permanently that we critically need, in our midst as believers, secular competitors: we need atheists, scientists, our material culture, and all or most areas of research being undertaken strictly on a physicalist presupposition.

God the Mother and Father are not only artists, spiritual creators and feelers of rich sentiment, but they are mechanics, administrators, scientists and technicians. They believe in God, Satan, Fate, and they are also part atheist. The Divine Couple are wondrous precisely because they are not entirely self-consistent. It is the source of their strength and permanency.

The Divine Couple authored the natural law that the middle is the way, and this entails two consequences. First, a blended approach or point of view is more loving, truthful and incorruptible. True-believing and ideological purity are anathema to the Light Couple.

Second, the middle way has to be administered or allocated practically and actually in the everyday world in terms of power-distribution patterns. Power needs to be, for the most part (If it is concentrated in institutions, these hierarchies need to be potent, efficient, kept limited and monitored to prevent, slow down or halt the inevitable, predictable plotting and scheming by its corrupted, sickened, greedy, power-addicted functionaries seeking to gobble up society via subtle, quiet incrementalism and mission creep.)

The Father and Mother want and demand a complex approach to science, empiricism, and the material world, so that we not get out of balance, and turn religion evil, intolerant and fanatical.

I likely am not making myself clear and specific. It looks to me as if the Mother and Father would send a email to Dr. Hicks to believe in them and talk to them if he wishes too, but they know that he is doing good work and their work in his secular pursuits. They would bless his efforts, and just chide him to be morally kind, and aware of unintentional consequences to the science and technology that they unleash onto and introduce to the world.

They would bless and encourage his efforts.

There is an inherent moderation in the American/Enlightenment enterprise that the Founders tapped into. They were Christians and deists, they were religious and secular, scientific and sacred issues-interested all at the same time. They did rather preach some kind of separation-of-church-and-state in public affairs, public policy and in the operation of public, republican institutions (not in the Constitution?). They wanted state and church separated, but they also, contradictorily, urged the voters to be virtuous, educated, thinking voters and to be good Christians.

Analogously, roughly, that is what the Divine Couple want for modern Mavellonialist worshipers. They want room in society for strictly secular undertakings to be allowed, countenanced, underwritten, and permitted legally with divine blessing. Dr. Hicks et al need to free, unmolested and even entreated to continue do science to keep faith strong, challenged, and non-monopolistic, not absolutist, demanding conformity and group think.

In civil society, in the arena of scientific research, and technological experimentation, in secular gatherings and associations, in areas of commerce, the Mother and Father want the principle of separation of church and state to permeate all society culture, institutions, and conceivable settings.

Then, inconsistently, they would welcome the vast majority of citizens to worship whatever deity that they want to, or not, but the deity must be morally and spiritually good, and the citizens must be spiritually and morally virtuous, and that citizenry will run a decent, functioning, society that can be perpetuated and replicated in future generations.

Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk has now narrated at least two Prager U videos, and I liked what he told about college education not being for everyone, and that is where young people are lost, now becoming true-believing Progressives.

He apparently is actively recruiting young people not to go to college, or to reconsider attending university if they are on campus. 

I approve of his efforts, with one important qualifier.

Ayn Rand stands tall in promoting that each individual exercise her mental faculties to the maximum. We cannot think too much, too logically, be too eager to learn more, to ask why, what, when, why, really? and why not? We cannot learn enough or know too much, and we must be thinking originally and creatively as best we can, as much as we can, as often as we can, outside the box, every day of our lives.

Back to Charlie Kirk's ant-college movement. Formal learning, especially advanced formal learning is not if it ever was that much connected to advanced state of student learning, or the nurturing of intellectual giants.

We do want much intellectual decentralization, diversity of centers of learning, anarchism, outside of Academia, to occur. We do not want to wipe out Academia or end formal programs or their certifications, but we do want the university monopoly of prestige, authority, god-like status as experts in every field, and uniformity of thought, to end.

We may be anti-college as institutions,  but we are never, I say never, anti-learning, and Kirk must be careful to send that message to parents and students alike.

I envisage a generation of average citizens that are, each of them, intellectual giants, deep, subtle, practical, original thinkers. They may be formally educated or autodidacts. They may be polymaths or geniuses at one think, but a mass society of great-souled, individual-living, individuator-anarchist supercitizens, upper middle class on average in wealth, making money, fame, advances of all kinds, and living and enjoying life to the fullest in the America, this Jerusalem on the hill, a massive, sprawling country of constitutional republicans and capitalists, where all are welcome, and all are enjoined to enjoy their personal power and liberty, without depriving the neighbor of his share, or allowing him to rob them of their natural bounty from the Divine Couple.

For those that Kirk urges to abandon university, I offer in exchange and replacement, the life of the self-actualized, great soul and living angel, and that person will really use her mind, and enjoy the exhilarating awareness of what it is to know and understand how the world is and works.

The Tragic Sense Of Life Revisited

 A while back I was writing about the tragic sense of life being the useful precondition to understand the human heart and what it must face and muscle through before optimism can be deployed.

I was reading John Macquarrie's book Existentialism, Page 164, this morning when this phrase popped out at me: "On the whole, it has been 'the tragic sense of life' , as Unamuno called it (el sentimentio tragico de la vida) that has been prevalent among the existentialists; and the attempt to redress the balance and to encourage a more hopeful sentiment has come later and is less pronounced. Thus we shall consider first of all anxiety as a fundamental ontological affect, and this is probably most typical of existentialism as a whole. But so our account may be a fair one, we shall also take not of the different, more positive tendencies to be found in some writers."

The tragic sense of life is not the last word for a religious practitioner, but it is part of his metaphysical posture.

Now let me contrast this sense of gloomy orientation with a quote from Eric Hoffer's writing, from The Syndicated Articles, Page 233: "Man is the only young thing in the world. A deadly seriousness emanates from all other forms of life. The cry of pain and fear man has in common with other living things, but he alone can smile and laugh."

The tragic aspect of living is instructive, but our humanism, our faith in the Divine Couple, our association with the Good Soirits, these encounters restore our souls, and good news is in our ken and anticipation.

Destroy Them All

 Derek Hunter in his Townhall online editorial column announced that Democrats do not need to be defeated, but need to be destroyed because they are pure evil, and he is more right than wrong.

Now, let me quickly qualify what he said: we need to destroy woke Democrats not liberal Democrats (few of the latter even exist anymore) politically, not murder them or put them in concentration camps.

But neoMarxism and woke postmodernism are different names for the same extremist ideology, and they are so sick and perverse, that all of their ideas are not just wrong, but they are evil, and Hunter laments angrily.

Destroy them: Communism should never be allowed to be practiced anywhere, ever again. Marxism must be discredited completely and now.

There is no room for dialogue with these demons.