User Profile

Not surprising, because I've been told, from many different reliable sources that this isn't the typical self help book. So I'd be lying if I said I was expecting a bald guy telling me it takes hard work to get a yacht.

I loved this. It provided a simple, comprehensive framework for improving your life. It even gets into the typical excuse of limiting your freedom with good habits (which was a big issue of mine). It doesn't try to pretend human limitations don't exist, or that you're supposed to be able to just shut off all your flaws to achieve your goal. It gives you tips, and the framework mostly aims at working around your stupid lizard brain. It gives you practical ideas on how to make things work, not just lofty statements and out of context quotes.

It has a predetermined scope, and gives you the freedom to pick and choose your goal. But the framework can be applied to mostly everything, and I've been practicing it to the best of my abilities lately. Readable, with graphs, simple explanations, common pitfalls. Structured well.

And my favorite thing about it, which I wish was mentioned at the end. This book is very likely your first atomic habit. It lends itself to such a framework perfectly. Short chapters that always end at the right time, summaries to write into your brand new journal.

Time will tell whether this was anything close to life changing, but I like the effect it gives. It doesn't motivate you, because motivation wanes. It helps you make a plan, then build on it incrementally, and through trial and error, achieve your goals, whatever they might be.

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.

I'll share my scattered thoughts on this, because in the end I did enjoy it thoroughly.

Many things make this a very enjoyable read. Mostly the style and the humor (the insane guy at the bus station kind of funny) sprinkled all over. The extremism itself is refreshing, because it's not a petty restatement of hundred year old ideologies that dominate the discussion. There is no pussyfooting, this book will make enemies in every corner of the political spectrum, ranging from the modern liberal, to the anarchist, to the communist, and the conservative.

There really isn't much to argue with. Not because he's right all the time, but because there isn't many arguments made. Just statements, presented as the perennial truth, hiding any sort of complexity behind "spirit", "vitality" and the adjective "higher". Your job as the reader is to accept everything this guy says as ancient well-known truths that were clear to every bronze age hero. Only few are worthy. Whoever musters a defense, will be attacked with a smug smile, and an insult to their spirit. Bugman. Slave. Nerd. Might is right, and the "intellectual" dismantling of his arguments is a fool's task.

The highest value is freedom, and a certain will to power. Those can only be achieved through constant warfare. As with the ancient Greeks, he idealizes physical beauty and aesthetics, something that is pretty much taboo in the modern world. The aforementioned freedom is under constant attack by the old, decrepid and women who want to crush the youthful spirit of young men, who are adventurers, and danger-seekers by instinct. According to him, pretty much nobody but a select few European and Japanese (... reminds me of someone) could express their higher instincts to conquer and wage war.

He ranges from "like that one time a group of Chinese people sat really close to me at an empty restaurant that I got uncomfortable", to presenting the bronze age hero (usually Greek) as the only ideal worth striving for. To then explaining how turning gay is basically the masculine reaction to an unmasculine world. After this he blames the weak men on the advent of feminism (which he finds deplorable) to its core. Continued with the idealization of conquistadors.

Then he lays out the plan to beat the evil of modern slavery, and it's basically the plot in Fight Club.

But what I liked, was the human approach to everything. Where Nietzsche mostly shies away from examples, this guy is full of them. From ancient, to modern times, he always finds some semblance of this warrior spirit that took over, and made the world a better place for everyone (somehow). Through the modern lens of morality, those people would be vile to you. But that's the theme of the book. The utter inverse of modern life being the ideal.

If you think I'm mentioning Nietzsche a lot in this review, this guy name-drops either Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer almost every fucking chapter. At some point he literally says "Nietzsche implied this" to lend credence to some random argument that all history might be forged (while relying on historical examples from those times a page later).

Overall, something you have to be in the mood for, or a very strong stomach. If nothing else, the value of someone tackling just about everything the average modern person takes for granted is rare.

Many emotions were felt. A rollercoaster ride... in a non fiction book. That's new. I've ranged from "why the fuck is he implying ancient aliens" to "damn I'm never gonna look at this the same way ever again".

The author is an atheist. This is the most important fact you need to know when reading. It explains why he's targeting Christianity the most. It explains why he clearly states that early neolithic people worshipped nature, but is hesitant to ignore the similarities of pantheons of these religions. It's implied that the ancient Greeks didn't really believed in their own gods, it was just some form of metaphor. Of course, unsourced (as are many other statements). Socrates was put on trial for being impious against a metaphor I'm sure.

The author's atheism then makes it clear that maybe you don't need a God to be spiritual. He claims that losing our nature-worshipping ways has made post-industrial Europe so bleak (which I agree with). But for some reason, he's ignoring the obvious fact. The ancients looked at the sun and stars, marked happenings that stood out because they were outside. Then suddenly, as we build roofs, get full time jobs, and barely look up, it all starts magically withering away? Worship nature, while the only tree you see is a carefully curated row of the prettiest trees in a park. Worship lunisolar events when you don't know when the full moon is, you got meetings the whole week. The material foundations of the pagan theology might be deserving of a whole new book, but it should have been mentioned. What also should be mentioned, is at least one example of naturalistic spirituality without some form of a God, Gods, or human-like supernatural. Otherwise you've drawn a comparison, ignored the differences, and said all the differences don't matter, and the similarities make it the same thing.

This is my main gripe. Only an atheist could be jumping around in this cold precise manner between various religious holidays, draw similarities, point to how similar they are. But then this spirituality thing is brought into view and it's just off. It's this half-way longing for the safest pagan theology (all the religions he talked about had Gods, aspects of nature, or some personalization of the things they worshipped...). But of course, we need to cut that one out, and stick to the non-committal parts, like having beers at a certain time of the year, but not do sacrifices, or offerings. We feel the need to celebrate X on Y date (the guy literally says it's in our DNA), but as we got separated from nature, most of us don't (this is also ignored).

Beyond me not connecting to the underlying theological movement at all, the book was illuminating in parts. The Wheel Of Time is something I'll be using as a framework when I learn about just about any ancient holiday, and even some modern ones.

The overview of ancient findings, and some insights into the methodology behind some of the claims were great to read. The style is great, the author is an absolute master at conveying information to people like me. The graphs/images attached convey information properly. It's very well structured.

There's typos, the summaries get into a wholly different topic sometimes, and the National Geographic/old History Channel documentary narration made me put down the book without hesitation.

Oh yeah, heavily implied that there was some ancient giga-civilization that we're all descended from. Haven't heard about that at all.

Sleep deprived 2AM rant, but I needed to get it off my chest.