Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

selver wrote (edited )

Another thing, if we're interested in coming up with a philosophical model to view the world, where would this person suggest we start with that if not ourselves? If not our own subjective individual experience of the world? It might not be groundbreaking when it comes to a political philosophy based on freeing others, but it seems like the only viable basic foundation to me. The way he brushes over criticisms of "morality" seems to disregard the truth that, to quote Stirner, "I have based my affair upon nothing!" We need some basis to start modeling the world from, and I don't get where they are starting if not subjective experience, since that is all we have. In that sense, Stirner's philosophy is useful for making a clear defense of that principle, even if he does not promote the sort of self-interest that anarchists specifically are interested in.

edit: And again, I can see how you might call that a trivial statement to make, that we don't need a long-dead guy for, but unfortunately given the history of leftism or political philosophy in general it really doesn't seem to be widely accepted.

4

selver wrote (edited )

I think I agree with some of their points about the limited usefulness of Stirner, and the convoluted arguments that are required to make him an anarchist, but they didn't really offer any alternatives to the problem that egoists & nihilists are often grappling with, ie. how to think about this situation where we've got a limited lifetime & live in a world where 99% of the population accepts slavery.

1

amongstclouds wrote

Most of the critiques I hear against Stirner amount to leftist asceticism, where in we are told self-sacrifice is worth more than what we as indivuduals crave and desire.

The 'greater good,' is always based in the ideas of a select few in seats of power hoping to solidify their positions.

1

lookin4 wrote

As someone who haven't read Stirners major(?) work yet, should I follow the link and read that critique? Is it even comprehensible? I don't want to be biased - otherwise the title makes me kinda curious.

3

selver wrote

It's a podcast. It is comprehensible, but if you haven't read anything by Stirner-influenced anarchists, you'll probably just come out of it completely agreeing that Stirner is terrible.

But I would definitely check out some of the other episodes if I were you, this was the least accessible, usually they are way less focused on philosophy. Try the "Freeing Our Relationships" episode.