Paperback, 461 pages
German language
Published Feb. 3, 1972 by Philipp Reclam Jun..
The Ego and Its Own (German: Der Einzige und sein Eigentum; meaningfully translated as The Individual and his Property, literally as The Unique and His Property) is an 1844 work by German philosopher Max Stirner. It presents a radically nominalist and individualist critique of Christianity, nationalism, and traditional morality on one hand; and on the other, humanism, utilitarianism, liberalism, and much of the then-burgeoning socialist movement, advocating instead an amoral (although importantly not inherently immoral or antisocial) egoism. It is considered a major influence on the development of anarchism, existentialism, nihilism, and postmodernism.
I hated reading it but liked the philosophy
Forse più di altri testi da interpretare e saper criticare.
Finally. After almost 2 months I completed it.
It starts off strong, and ends strong. This guy goes after everything and anything that constituted his current society with a pretty refreshing point of view. Unlike most philosophy I've engaged with, it doesn't really bother all that much with "this idea is harmful, we should be doing this instead, it's going to be better for everyone". Everything is presented from the point of view of an egoist.
I've been down the egoism rabbithole myself before deciding to read this. However, I quickly noticed that I approached everything from an entirely different angle. I had (and still do, honestly) think that people ARE egoistic, and that most things, even if counter-intuitive (such as cults, ideologies, societies) are built out of egoistic roots by powerful individuals, and the weak individuals seeking self-preservation. Morality is the best litmus test for this. The moral statement …
Finally. After almost 2 months I completed it.
It starts off strong, and ends strong. This guy goes after everything and anything that constituted his current society with a pretty refreshing point of view. Unlike most philosophy I've engaged with, it doesn't really bother all that much with "this idea is harmful, we should be doing this instead, it's going to be better for everyone". Everything is presented from the point of view of an egoist.
I've been down the egoism rabbithole myself before deciding to read this. However, I quickly noticed that I approached everything from an entirely different angle. I had (and still do, honestly) think that people ARE egoistic, and that most things, even if counter-intuitive (such as cults, ideologies, societies) are built out of egoistic roots by powerful individuals, and the weak individuals seeking self-preservation. Morality is the best litmus test for this. The moral statement "guys let's not literally behead each other for fun" for Stirner is an authoritarian statement, a spook, not real. For me, the statement is an egotistical statement, because what it's actually saying "please don't behead me, and I won't behead you". I don't actually care if someone gets beheaded for "a good reason", whatever I think that is. I'm worried if it's a beheading FOR FUN, because then I might be next at a random point, or my offspring, which are an extension of my ego. Society, and complex social structures, institutions in general are these basic things spiraling out of control where they start to oppress people, but still give them enough refuge, where the alternative is more threatening to their self-preservation.
At some point he even admits that most of the time you can't really know if you're doing something out of your own egoism or not. I think any single situation can be thought about, and you'll always reach the conclusion that you do not have this much control over your thoughts. That, and other people being intrinsically linked to your egoism, we're not tigers. You need a willing partner to achieve your egoistic need for love. You need a tribe, a society, to even survive. Egoists, if they even ever existed, are now extinct, because they can't compete.
In any case, I saw lots of good criticism of even modern times. His logic is mostly solid (at least from what my small brain understood). There's a LOT of repeating. This book did not need to be 350 pages long. Some things are constantly reiterated (Christianity vs pre-Christian views on the world). He also has some great takedowns about humanism, communism and just about any other form of collectivism out there. Anyone going into this book with the idea that communism is going to get dragged through the mud while their favorite ideology is somehow untouched is totally missing the point.
He makes a case for "might is right". This is mostly a small aspect of the book, but we do end up at a weird thought experiment where me, a stronger individual, decide to kill you, the weaker individual, then indoctrinate your descendants into a hierarchical ideology that tells them they should remain my servants. Then 300 years later, Stirner Jr. can write a book about how serving people kinda sucks.
I have to comment on the style. I have so many notes on this book, but I can't get over how the style kind of contrasts the contents. Maybe it's the translation, but this guy feels cold, rational, mathematic even. This is especially ironic when he says "the point of life is that is enjoyment". I don't think this guy was having much fun writing this book. Or at all. This is a random guess at his life, but I do think it's relevant whenever some radical thinker wants to convince anyone that "all things are nothing to him".
I enjoyed it, overall. Glad I've read it, but it doesn't pass the "now what" test, maybe it shouldn't. These are my immediate thoughts after finishing the book, so it's bound to be hyperbolic as I have not even read my notes yet.
