Max Stirner's relevance to contemporary philosophy: a critical analysis

The aim of this dissertation is to revive the 19th-century thinker Max Stirner’s thought through a critical reexamination of his mistaken legacy as a ‘political’ thinker. The reading of Stirner that I present is one of an ontological thinker, spurred on as much—if not more—by the contents of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit as it is the radical roots that Hegel unintentionally planted. In the first chapter, the role of language in Stirner’s thought is examined, and the problems to which his conception of language seem to give rise are addressed. The second chapter looks at Stirner’s purportedly ‘anarchistic’ politics and finds the ‘anarchist’ reading of Stirner misguided. Rather than being a ‘political’ anarchist, it is argued that we ought to understand Stirner as advocating a sort of ‘ontological’ anarchism in which the very existence of authority is questioned. In the third chapter, I look at the political ramifications of Stirner’s ontology as well as the critique of liberalism contained within it, and argue that the politics implicit in his philosophy shares more in common with the tradition of political realism than it does anarchism. The fourth chapter is dedicated to an examination of Stirner’s anti-humanism, which is concluded to be much different than the ‘anti-humanisms’ associated with other, more famous thinkers, such as Foucault and Heidegger. In the fifth and final chapter, I provide an answer to the question(s) of how, if, and to what extent Friedrich Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner. It is concluded that the complete lack of evidence that Nietzsche ever read Stirner is proof enough to dismiss accusations of plagiarism on Nietzsche’s part, thus emphasizing the originality and singularity of both thinkers.

Max Stirner, o único e o que lhe é próprio: uma interpretação e(m) algun(s) ensaio(s)

This work has a study object the main thinking work of Johan Kaspar Schmidt well known as Max Stirner (1806-1856) - originally titled (in German), Der Einzige und sein Eigentun, and translated into Portuguese by the Portuguese publisher Antígona in 2004, under the title The Unique and its Ownership. This book was known in 1844 although its publication dated 1845 seen that the censor of that time rejected the publication request in that year - saying that ( ) in concrete passages of that work, not only God, Christ, the church and the religion are usually object of proposal blasphemy, but also because all social order, the state and the government are defined as something that should not exist simultaneously as one justifies the lie, perjury, the murder and suicide and denies the ownership right. After this first attack and rejection by its bearing the unique come to be others target, due practically to all the philosophical political thinkers its time including thinkers like Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels in spite of, on the other hand, having inspired formulations and reformulations of many of those thinkers that were against then in their times, as well as those thinkers that came after then such as Nietzsche himself. Even though this work was be victim of powerful attempts of erasing it of history, it has shown a great repercussion power and that is the main reason that led us to ask the following questions what is its big originality? , how could his author arrive at a so impactant perspective? What is its most legitimate political place? We endeavored in elaborate answers to those questions trough the exegesis of its text, taking in account both the scholarship environment where the author produced his intellectual life set - and the detailed reading of texts linked to discussion in focus, where this reading is always based upon the meaning and senses traced by the texts and its contexts as a precaution against the limits and the traps of the readings which shed light markedly on strict letter of the phrases constructs. Ours conclusions point at to the idea that a work like this , that subverts the characteristic ways of thought of the modernity, completely, continues being a utter odds, without rank in the history of thought and the moderns political practices, finding parallel possibility only, in a very special way, with a certain autharchic perspective of Ancient Greece

Feuerbach e Stirner: algumas considerações sobre linguagem e política

Habitualmente não se presta atenção ao fato de que a Primeira Parte da Ideologia Alemã (Feuerbach) foi a última a ser redigida por Marx. O texto, tal como nos aparece hoje, encobre portanto a gênese da crítica ao Humanismo. Esta última, como este pequeno ensaio pretende indicar, só poderia brotar do contacto meticuloso com o texto do Único e sua Propriedade. Após a leitura de Stirner, Marx pôde se acreditar liberado deste último fantasma especulativo e ideológico: o Homem.

Max Stirner e a crítica da economia política

Commonly known as Max Stirner, Johann Caspar Schmidt attained considerable recognition as pedagogue and culture critic, but most of all as a philosopher of the German Vormärz. However, it is a less known fact that Stirner was also a translator and publisher of important works in the domain of economy, an activity in which he distinguished himself for being a profound connoisseur of literature on economic theory of his own time.

Liberdade de imprensa, censura e dominação na crítica de Max Stirner

Um dos pilares mais visíveis de um Estado de Direito democrático, e seu requisito consensual, é a exigência de liberdade de imprensa. Mas para Max Stirner esse gesto de exigir, tão caro ao liberalismo político, é a própria negação da liberdade. Esta não é uma dádiva, nem uma concessão ou permissão do Estado que a outorga. A liberdade de Imprensa só é acessível através da conquista, da apropriação, tornando-se propriedade do indivíduo ao ser por ele reclamada. Hoje, qualquer um no mundo desenvolvido tem a força e os meios ao seu dispor para se apropriar da liberdade de imprensa, tal como preconizava Max Stirner. Mais de dois séculos depois do claim de Stirner, publicar na web interactiva cumpre quase todos os requisitos que este colocava ao pleno exercício da liberdade de imprensa.

A pergunta de Feuerbach a Stirner: “Que significa ‘ser um indivíduo’?”

Polémica complexa, o debate entre Max Stirner e Ludwig Feuerbach é certamente um dos mais interessantes na história das ideias contemporâneas e ultrapassa, pela fecundidade nele contida, o curto período temporal em que se desenrolou. O artigo considera a polémica sob um aspecto particular: a compreensão da categoria de indivíduo, mostrando a incompatibilidade entre o indivíduo-Único de (Stirner) e o indivíduo como ser em relação (Feuerbach)

DIE GESETZLOSIGKEIT UND EIGENGESETZLICHKEIT STIRNERS UND SIMMELS INDIVIDUELLES GESETZ. STIRNERS EINFLUSS AUF SIMMEL UND DESSEN STIRNER-REZEPTION

In most of his published works, Georg Simmel dealt with themes which were also motives of concern for Stirner, such as the One and society, the individual and genre, social formations and domination, the problem of duty, egoism versus communism. Contradictions and parallelisms to Stirnerian motifs can be found in Simmel’s thought since its early stages. Starting with an analysis of whether or not these are direct references to Stirner, this paper intends to show the relation between these thinkers and the possibility of a direct influence on Simmel by Stirner, namely in regards to their common idea of “individual law”.

“WIE HAST DU’S MIT DER RELIGION?” RELIGIONSTHEORIE UND -KRITIK NACH STIRNER

Schon vor Friedrich Nietzsche hat Max Stirner mit großem Gestus den Tod Gottes herausgeschrie(b)en und den Schleier des Geisterreiches hinweg gezogen. Religionskritik nach Stirner, die einer abgeklärten Aufklärung folgt, kann danach eigentlich nur zweierlei: Zum einen erklären, wie Der Mensch sich seine Religion und seine Götter erschafft (hat): das erledigt Gunnar Heinsohn. Und zum Zweiten aufzuzeigen: Welche funktionalen Äquivalente sich im Religiösen dem Menschen auftun – frei nach Feuerbach: Die Wahrheit der Religion ist das Bedürfnis nach ihr. Das freie Stirnersche Ich, das rational um die Nichtexistenz Gottes weiß, wählt sich seinen je eigenen Gott oder, ist es stark genug, kann es auch lassen.

Stirner – on the brink of scientific thought

Stirner and Feyerabend, despite being historically a hundred and fifty years apart, seem to have been of the same mind in revolting against the methodological explaining of what cannot methodologically be explained. Stirner attempted an explanation in a more intuitive version, Feyerabend in a more sophisticated one. For both thinkers it is obviously important to sustain dissent with the assumption that method is the one and only vital promoter of scientific progress. They equally voice the opinion that, despite science itself producing inconsistencies as well as results, its proceedings nonetheless follow a certain rationale. But to codify a definite approach to phenomena or matter i.e. to establish a definite method for taking a look into things turns science into religion and scientists into believers. As a result no new insights are to be gained.

Ludwig Feuerbach's Critique of Religion and the End of Moral Philosophy

Williams, H. (2006). Ludwig Feuerbach's Critique of Religion and the End of Moral Philosophy. In Moggach, D. (Ed.), The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School (pp.50-66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Introduction; Part I. Eduard Gans: 1. Eduard Gans on poverty and on the constitutional debate; 2. Ludwig Feuerbach's Critique of Religion and the end of moral philosophy; Part II. Ludwig Feuerbach: 3. The symbolic dimension and the politics of Left Hegelianism; Part III. Bruno Bauer: 4. Exclusiveness and political universalism in Bruno Bauer; 5. Republican rigorism and emancipation in Bruno Bauer; Part IV. Edgar Bauer: 6. Edgar Bauer and The Origins of the Theory of Terrorism; Max Stirner 7. Ein Menschenleben: Hegel and Stirner; 8. 'The State and I': Max Stirner's anarchism; Friedrich Engels: 9. Engels and the invention of the catastrophist conception of the industrial revolution; Karl Marx: 10. The basis of the state in the Marx of 1842; 11. Marx and Feuerbachian essence: returning to the question of 'Human Essence' in historical materialism; 12. Freedom and the 'Realm of Necessity'; Concluding with Hegel :13. Work, language and community: a response to Hegel's critics. RAE2008

O anarquismo e a estética da liberdade

Este trabalho é uma releitura dos filósofos anarquistas Mikhail Bakunine e Max Stirner de modo a apurar uma estética a partir da sua ontologia anárquica. Outras fontes são usadas no sentido de mostrar a relação antagónica do anarquismo com a soberania e com a representatividade. O conteúdo abordado problematiza uma ideia de “arte de viver” que consiste na combinaçao do “nada criativo” de Stirner com a concepção de “Natureza produto-produtora” de Bakunine. Enquanto o primeiro constitui o cerne ontológico do indivíduo, o último está relacionado com a ideia de “desejo” elaborada por Deleuze e Guattari. A afirmação do “desejo” como “produção do real” torna o “nada criativo” de Stirner a morada íntima de criação do mundo