Where to begin?
The Ego and It’s Own
False Principles if you want some quick idea as to how he writes and works
Knowing the Hegelian dialectic and some Hegelian language wouldn’t hurt (alienation, geist, etc) , nor would Feurerbach’s Essence of Christianity. Most importantly having at least a basic 101 grasp of “what philosophy is”, the categories you are dealing with, and why anyone would read a philosophy book in the first place - however none of the pre-reqs suggested are necessary. Just read the book and figure out how to make sense of it if it strikes your fancy.
Why do you like him so much William? I’m still trying to find myself and who I am and I think thats what Philosophy is. Forgetting the common philosophical clichés, I feel its an attempt to rationalize personal existence an attempt to make sense of the world using our own internal inclinations. But that then begs the question, is it possible to understand the un-understandable, and to make sense of the nonsensical?
The world makes perfect sense, if it doesn’t then you are ignorant of what is happening. I’m not saying this to insult you.
But is that something that would have to be taken as a given?
I know you’re not insulting me, dont worry.
To be very brief and not stray from the topic at hand I wish to focus on (a study of Max Stirner), make sure you are not asking questions on psychology, etc.
If “who I am” - you mean something along the lines of ontology - Stirner does deal with the issue.
Philosophy is a systematic form of thinking to understanding the world around it, with its own parameters, scope, and limitations.
To like Max Stirner or any philosopher is no different than liking Mises, Newton, Euclid, or an English grammar book.
The wikipedia article on Hegelian Dialectic is going way over my head, (although it could be because its like 3am where I am and I was tailgating today.
(Vive, I’ve always wondered what that painting was in your avatar, I quite like it.)
What’s your educational background, if you don’t mind me asking?
Also, there is nothing wrong with just reading Ego on it’s own - just realize it is going to be understood more as literature than any philisophical look at things (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Actually I take everything I said back. If you want to shell out the cash, this is the best place to start, if you are comming from nowhere:
It’s the biography by poet John Henery Mackay. It’s very easy, fast, and fun to read and sets the scene well enough.
The avatar is a slef portrait by Zinaida Serebriakova:
She is a very good artist
I have a pretty normal background as far my education is concerned, went to a public grade school. And then to a public middle school and high school. I am very fortunate to be going to North Carolina State University right now, its pretty fun so far. (Chinese is my favorite class right now.)
I love to read and learn, always have. Its funny, I’ve been reading and learning for all these years but I’ve only started thinking in the last 2 months or so.
@Norgath: Stirner’s Ego is awesome but I think his personal life is a cautionary tale. There is a difference between enlightened self-interest and craven self-interest and that difference is everything in terms of what really matters: satisfaction. The harcore egoist is like the miser who makes himself miserable with worry that someone might cheat him out of a dime rather than letting go of the small stuff and enjoying the riches of life, while maintaining a healthy, balanced circumspection against those who would rob you. I think Stirner took egoism too far and his life shows the consequences of that.
Satisfaction is the final aim of all action. Hence, one’s course in life should be judged by no higher standard than this: is it leading to your own satisfaction? Your satisfaction is not solely a function of material wealth. Depending on circumstances, the single-minded pursuit of material wealth may result in a lower overall satisfaction than other courses of action. In fact, this is precisely the discoordinating effect of Leviathan in the social order. The more fully expressed the Leviathan principle is within society, the greater the discrepancy between the natural pursuit of material success and one’s actual satisfaction. In an unhampered social order, material success and satisfaction are synonymous. Hence, attaining satisfaction in a time and place where the Leviathan principle is in full bloom is complicated and requires greater subtlety than the naive pursuit of one’s obvious, material ends.
Clayton -
Good, this is the answer I was hoping for.
The fact that you are actually thinking while in college means you have a leg up on most people, including myself.
If time, money, and your degree allow it: take courses in psych 101, micro and macro econ, philosophy 101, and basic logic. A good lit class would be good as well. Any of those classes will help you one thousand times over if you are in good faith and charitable to the professors / aids and classes trying to help teach the material at hand.
It should be an enjoyable, motivating, and satisfying experience: even if the answers you are looking for don’t seem readily available right now. Everything important tends to take time to digest. All these things will help you approach more interesting outside positions with a clearer head: such as Stirner, heterodox economics, etc.
To be very brief and not stray from the topic at hand I wish to focus on (a study of Max Stirner), make sure you are not asking questions on psychology, etc.
If “who I am” - you mean something along the lines of ontology - Stirner does deal with the issue.
When I first started reading Stirner (winter/spring) I had mentioned him to my friend who oddly enough never heard of him, and brought up that this guy was talking about “ego” before Freud, etc. Interesting observation, but different contexts of ego.
“But is that something that would have to be taken as a given?”
That is a good question. Can something make sense but not be understood?
When I first started reading Stirner (winter/spring) I had mentioned him to my friend who oddly enough never heard of him, and brought up that this guy was talking about “ego” before Freud, etc. Interesting observation, but different contexts of ego.
Yeah it is different - however there is almost certainly a relationship there (probably indirect). Egoism, is a loaded and easy to confuse word ( ex: Stirner was not talking about psychological egoism directly) In fact, I think it is one of my pet hobbies to think about the relationship between Shopenhauer, Goethe, Stiner, Mises, Freud, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, and a few other “Teutonic” styled thinkers and show how it is in conflict with, and usually superior to, more mainstream “Anglo” traditions (this is of course a very sweeping generalization, don’t read too much into it).
I read the introduction today of Ego as well as the first chapter, Eigenheit I think… I didnt find his historical theories that interesting and the intro explained it, so I figured that I could skip it.
The first chapter is about other peoples lack of ownness and using general means and ends to achieve personal ends (if that makes sense.) Rather than doing things for the sake of them?
When learning about the joys individuality I think one should have it present to them in a comedic fashion, therefore I cannot recommend learning it from a German.
-
It isn’t an historical theory. It is using Hegelian terminology / allegory to make an illustration (Ancient, Modern, Egoist - is playing with a Hegelian dialectic as well). The book almost always is indirectly channeling Hegel - and often directly mimics Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity
-
No, it is never about a “lack of owness” - that can’t exist in Stirner’s position. If you are called a “half-egoist” it is like being called a “flat earther” - it means that one does not acknowledge a fact of reality but nevertheless, the fact still exists.
The book does not offer any “revolutionary views” (as Mises or Einstein do not), and there are no “joys of individuality” to be found in the book as there are none in MIses. That is not the purpose of either thinker.
You might have equal success learning ordnung from a Greek.
I dont get the German comedy deal, right over my head.
Whoops, is the “historical” thing a way to describe past mans lack of catering to his ownness?
In school we were taught to write papers with an introduction a body and a conclusion, is this hegelian or am I mistaken? I havent had a chance to read The Owner yet. Schools pretty busy.
It’s much older than Hegel; the use of the tirpartite in art dates to the medieval at least.
Clayton -