What do you think?
Rate this book
All Things are Nothing to Me: The Unique Philosophy of Max Stirner
Max Stirner’s The Unique and Its Property (1844) is the first ruthless critique of modern society. In All Things are Nothing to Me, Jacob Blumenfeld reconstructs the unique philosophy of Max Stirner (1806–1856), a figure that strongly influenced—for better or worse—Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Emma Goldman as well as numerous anarchists, feminists, surrealists, illegalists, existentialists, fascists, libertarians, dadaists, situationists, insurrectionists and nihilists of the last two centuries. Misunderstood, dismissed, and defamed, Stirner’s work is considered by some to be the worst book ever written. It combines the worst elements of philosophy, politics, history, psychology, and morality, and ties it all together with simple tautologies, fancy rhetoric, and militant declarations. That is the glory of Max Stirner’s unique footprint in the history of philosophy. Jacob Blumenfeld wanted to exhume this dead tome along with its dead philosopher, but discovered instead that, rather than deceased, their spirits are alive and quite well, floating in our presence. All Things are Nothing to Me is a forensic investigation into how Stirner has stayed alive throughout time.
168 pages, Paperback
Published December 14, 2018
17 people are currently reading
415 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
January 5, 2023I felt like I didn't understand Stirner well enough. I wished to remedy that. And hey, it's a Zero Books volume! I like watching aging Gen X'ers on Youtube pontificate about left theory while I clean my living room stoned, freak that I am, so this should be a natural pairing.
Regrettably, this really, really -- as annoying people on the Internet say -- ain't it. This is the absolute worst sort of obfuscatory academic prose peppered with grandiose and seemingly radical adverbs -- precisely! precisely the opposite! -- that turn off anyone who's not already well on board with Blumenfeld's particular philosophical program, fails to justify its own difficulty (in a way Stirner may well have done as well), and at the end of the day is no more useful than the various grotesquely awkward theory blogs written by failsons. I don't know if there was a single real insight here. This is the contemporary and secular equivalent of Medieval Catholic exegesis, but no less mystical.
Maybe that's the point. But if your point is mysticism in a secular format told as aggressive gobbledygook, I have literally zero interest in what you have to say.
Regrettably, this really, really -- as annoying people on the Internet say -- ain't it. This is the absolute worst sort of obfuscatory academic prose peppered with grandiose and seemingly radical adverbs -- precisely! precisely the opposite! -- that turn off anyone who's not already well on board with Blumenfeld's particular philosophical program, fails to justify its own difficulty (in a way Stirner may well have done as well), and at the end of the day is no more useful than the various grotesquely awkward theory blogs written by failsons. I don't know if there was a single real insight here. This is the contemporary and secular equivalent of Medieval Catholic exegesis, but no less mystical.
Maybe that's the point. But if your point is mysticism in a secular format told as aggressive gobbledygook, I have literally zero interest in what you have to say.
April 14, 2023
JUSTICE FOR MAX STIRNER!!!!! MARX WAS A BITCH AND HEGEL A VIRGIN
September 2, 2020
A compelling study of an often maligned thinker. The best bits are Blumenfeld's detailed exposition of Stirner's concept of the union of individuals. I will revise this review further once I have written on its key arguments, which are helpful to my project on Marx's ghosts.
January 3, 2021
As Blumenfeld commences with, who is Max Stirner is a multivariate question. ‘Who’ disguises more potential meanings than asking after causes in an Aristotelian framework. To this end, the book serves multiple registers - historic, performative, polemic, and synthesis. In the following digital-scribbles, I will work through these registers in a reverse chronology - ie that which is closest to when I finished the book.
Blumenfeld was so close to a 5 star production. However his attempted synthesis of Marx and Stirner from ‘Union’ onwards acted as an injunction to that occurring. The synonym-isation of the proletariat and Einzige pushes too far - while both may be ‘creative nothingness’ as Blumenfeld argues, their differences are immense. Stirner’s I is an unutterable, something that transcends and desecrates all categorisation. By contrast, Marx’s proletariat is firmly a category - in early Marx as the concrete product of an alienated industrial economy, in later Marx as a theoretic ideal. To equate the two without immense emphasis on this distinction reads like an untenable slide.
Otherwise, the interrelation of Stirner to his various bubbles of analysis - God, the State, society, fixed ideas, Man and so on - was excellent. Perhaps my expected register is different from Blumenfeld, but I wanted more resources put on the individualist bent of Stirner coming from the unutterable. Instead there was a tendency towards synthesising various Unions into other authors (such as Levinas’ Other). I still have unaddressed (let alone unanswered) questions regarding how next collectives can still be egoistic and function on my egoistic property. Additionally, how did many anarchocapitalists manage to ostensibly appropriate Stirner to such a bastardised cause?
As a cartography of influence, the work is brilliant. Tracing impacts on Levinas, Foucault, Engels, Marx, Goldman, Derrida, Deleuze and so on. It seems that while there is a spectre haunting Europe, so too there is a spectre haunting any I. This cartography is unfortunately difficult to separate from the performative role of the text in constructing a near-teleology (though deprived of its fixed status) towards Unions.
As a final note, my personal highlight was in reading Neitszche and Spinoza with Stirner in the middle. While a delightful read (aside from enduring Hegel...), I am left wanting more on egoistic property and the unutterable, and less on welding Marx (as the dominant theorist of the International) to Stirner.
Blumenfeld was so close to a 5 star production. However his attempted synthesis of Marx and Stirner from ‘Union’ onwards acted as an injunction to that occurring. The synonym-isation of the proletariat and Einzige pushes too far - while both may be ‘creative nothingness’ as Blumenfeld argues, their differences are immense. Stirner’s I is an unutterable, something that transcends and desecrates all categorisation. By contrast, Marx’s proletariat is firmly a category - in early Marx as the concrete product of an alienated industrial economy, in later Marx as a theoretic ideal. To equate the two without immense emphasis on this distinction reads like an untenable slide.
Otherwise, the interrelation of Stirner to his various bubbles of analysis - God, the State, society, fixed ideas, Man and so on - was excellent. Perhaps my expected register is different from Blumenfeld, but I wanted more resources put on the individualist bent of Stirner coming from the unutterable. Instead there was a tendency towards synthesising various Unions into other authors (such as Levinas’ Other). I still have unaddressed (let alone unanswered) questions regarding how next collectives can still be egoistic and function on my egoistic property. Additionally, how did many anarchocapitalists manage to ostensibly appropriate Stirner to such a bastardised cause?
As a cartography of influence, the work is brilliant. Tracing impacts on Levinas, Foucault, Engels, Marx, Goldman, Derrida, Deleuze and so on. It seems that while there is a spectre haunting Europe, so too there is a spectre haunting any I. This cartography is unfortunately difficult to separate from the performative role of the text in constructing a near-teleology (though deprived of its fixed status) towards Unions.
As a final note, my personal highlight was in reading Neitszche and Spinoza with Stirner in the middle. While a delightful read (aside from enduring Hegel...), I am left wanting more on egoistic property and the unutterable, and less on welding Marx (as the dominant theorist of the International) to Stirner.
April 8, 2019
I'd been curious about Stirner's philosophy for a while, but I found his writing style (at least in the original translation) intolerable. This book was a good summary and analysis for a newbie. It's incredibly readable by philosophy standards, and does an excellent job explaining what Stirner was getting at while dispelling some misconceptions of his ideas and confusion about his terms.
The proposal that egoism and communism aren't incompatible, but rather the same system described from two different points of view, felt like something I'd had a vague notion of for a while but had never really seen articulated in a single piece of writing.
Overall, Blumenfeld's arguments are original, succinct, and easy to follow. I'd recommend it to anybody interested in the breadth of leftist thought outside of the usual big names that get thrown around.
The proposal that egoism and communism aren't incompatible, but rather the same system described from two different points of view, felt like something I'd had a vague notion of for a while but had never really seen articulated in a single piece of writing.
Overall, Blumenfeld's arguments are original, succinct, and easy to follow. I'd recommend it to anybody interested in the breadth of leftist thought outside of the usual big names that get thrown around.
June 9, 2020
Considerably heavy content despite the length, no surprise I suppose. But also quite readable and engaging. I trust the original work would be a levelling up to great measure. Very quotable, such as :
“It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the state.”
I am very much in agreement with the majority of his assertions regarding individuality.
“It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the state.”
I am very much in agreement with the majority of his assertions regarding individuality.
May 26, 2019
Everyone can be claimed to be a communist by the communists as long as they haven't expressed anti-communist views during their life time. Stirner was dead by the time Marx was rising to fame, so Stirner, as Jesus Christ, qualifies by default.
December 5, 2019
An exciting book for me because I find Max Stirner very exciting and under examined. This book does him good and where it could be said it does him 'bad' the book is quite respectful, honest and tactical.
February 17, 2022
This book does a great job summarizing Stirner’s ideas.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews