Max Stirner's Egoism and Nihilism

by Larry Alan Schiereck

During the early 1970s a ‘revival’ took place of the philosophy of Max Stirner, born Johann Caspar Schmidt (1806-1856), whose book Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum has been called a ‘revolutionary anarchist manual’, a ‘Banker’s Bible’, a ‘structural model of petit-bourgeois self-consciousness’ and other names since its appearance in 1844.The revival produced the most comprehensive study of Stirner in English to that date, R. W. K. Paterson’s 1971 The Nihilistic Max Stirner . While Paterson undertook to review Der Einzige as substantive philosophical discourse, paradoxically, and theologically, he would conclude that Stirner was doing metaphysics, to the point of a solipsistic frivolity.This study examines the fascinating but ultimately unsuccessful, if not buffoonish, case against Stirner by Paterson. I conclude that we should rethink Stirner not as metaphysician but as social critic and educator, a “root”, ground-level or primal thinker, more relevant today than ever. And that his ideas and principles are ready to be spread and put to work now in criticism, current events and art.In this revision my purpose is to de-trivialize Stirner, tweak the paradigm further and introduce new material, with a view to reviving Saint Max where he belongs - in the company of heretics such as Chamfort, Nietzsche, Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, George Orwell, Joseph Heller and George Carlin, to name a few.

72 pages, Paperback

Published January 12, 2018

Reviews

[Mitchell Chatfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

In brief, it’s 69 pages long. Nice.

[James Perkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

¾ of this book is a recycling of old ideas with almost zero new commentary of its own that didnt already exist before it. The only unique idea i can find in it is MAYBE its connection between stirner and Wittgenstein, although I've seen the connection made before outside of more traditional academic places. It either counters rebuttles to egoism as stirner describes it by either using a pre-established argument someone already made, not acknowledging the rebuttle at all, or making special pleading about which stirnerian ideas are valid and which ones were him being silly. The best example of the second being when the point arrises that if a egoist is wanting to maximize its own desires over the sake of things outside of itself, as those dont exist in any meaningful capacity, then it might lead to the person lying about their world view and wanting to associate with those who believe in morality in a sort of machiavellian attempt to manipulate and thus recieve the most personal benefit from, while also giving the lowest payout. the author of this book literally just says its a baseless assumption and questions it no further. Then at other points he takes some stirner claims as obvious and serious, but then when others contradict his analysis he goes: "we needn't take stirner seriously". And the author through all of that never shuts up about his movie references over and over and over. we get it man, you watch film.

The final ¼ of this book is basically just the author making baseless claims about politics and social issues without any citing or evidence and it comes off as stupid and like an angry 4chan user. "b-bro, literally 1974 bro, like literally."