You may have guessed I have a bit of a man crush on St. Max.
It’s probable Kant could be called the 1st proto Austrian, but I prefer my man crushes on real men, men who don’t wear whigs, so Kant is out
. Some of these brief ramblings may not make sense to anyone, as they are just personal notes and a very early attempt to “dehomogonize” some of my thoughts. Don’t read too much into this.
I’m not here to make an argument or anything - this is mostly just to organize my thoughts on a few things. This is actually almost a brain storm, just so I can attempt to get some sleep tonight. These are put in public because I thought it best to do it this way
Things I wish to note about Stirner
-
His use of a dialectic as anti-psychologism/ the scope of psychology when dealing with self and when dealing with the talk of an external environment
-
Putting the human mind in proper context (think Aquinas, Witt
-
His distrust, though not denial, of macroscopic entities
-
the unverifiability / unfalsifiability of “de enzige”
-
his focus on ownership and property, not freedom
-
comparsions of Wittgensteins ladder, and the “theraputic” nature aproach to philosophy
-
The Unique One as a “non-thing”, think market as process as well as dialectic as process that “shows reality”
-
radical subjectivism
-
the egoistic / unique imperative to act (and how that relates to subsidies, the market mindset, and that a market - anarchist outlook is a mere consequence of imperative actions in a social context
-
calculation and knowledge in an ever changig, unequalibrating world; this may focus way more on calculation than knowledge (not sure)
-
How the Egoistic dialectic shows, not proves imperatives - it is not “rationalistic” in that regard
-
Creative - Destruction concepts of Stirner
-
The futilness of “scientism” on “der willie zer macht” / uniquness - “render unto Ceaser”
-
The dangers of idealizing language (also Witt Language games, dialectic and heuristic thinking?)
-
How radical subjectivist thinking (der wille zur, market as process, de eizige, irrational forces, a market mentality in general) preceedes, presupposes, and is neccesarry for man to construct a biological theory of evolution that is to make any sense - not the other way around. Biology can not insert itself on the social sciences in such a way.
-
Lachmann and the dialogical nature of the social sciences
-
anti-skeptical approach (ex: Stirner contra Hume)
-
“wholeness of being” - there is no sepration of man and mind - attempts to turn man into an “unthinking actor/animal with neurons” are just as wrong as Platonists. Intellectualism and thinking are things, no more or less than anything else you wish to name