What is love?
"Love is not a commandment, but a possibility; it is my property. As my feeling, it is real only in me; in another it is another's; in him it is also no commandment, but a possibility or his property."
Love is one of those words that is problematic in so many ways. I have spent a lot of time in my life trying to understand if there is anything real and inherently meaningful about it.
In fact, I have gone to extreme lengths to figure it out, because ever since I was a child it was a mystery to me why it was so important to people to feel it with others, to express it toward others, to share it with others, and to believe in some essence of it—but how little most of those people I observed wanted to give it to themselves. This was one of the first paradoxes I came across. There almost seemed to be a universal yearning for love from others, coupled with a pervasive neglect in directing that same affection inward.
I used to have a little notebook where I would write down things I observed in people. And I remember clearly, writing a note that named the first realization I had about love:
Love = action directed outward (ego and object)
I have also observed a lot of ‘bad love.’ Love that ruined people. Love that hurt people. Love that broke people. Love people could not recover from. I saw relationships that suffocated, violated, used, and controlled. This made me question my first assumption about love, and I asked myself the question: What is the connection between the inside and the desire to direct love outward. I added something new to my notebook:
Love = interrelational (self and other)
Then I realized that the word itself is laden with contradictions and complexities - its ambiguity almost defines its meaning. So I tried to dissect it on an affective level: Love can be both a source of joy and sorrow. It can also be a means of connection and isolation. The same love that can build someone up can also tear them down. This duality made me question the underlying rationale or the fundamental qualities of love: Is it inherently good or bad, or does it merely amplify the qualities of those who experience it? Another note in my notebook stated:
Love = rooted in unconscious and socialization (society)
The dark side I noticed seemed deeply entwined with notions of possession and control. I realized that the language of love frequently involved terms of ownership: "my partner," "my child," "my friend." It made me wonder if those two were inherently connected somehow. Can love exist without some form of control or ownership? Is it possible to love selflessly, or does love inherently involve a claim over another's emotions and actions? And why is self-love often neglected in favor of seeking validation and affection from others? Overall it can be said that love is extremely complex.
My last note was a question and it simply stated: Is love just a desire for property?
Let’s try to unravel these complexities with the help of Max Stirner, because his views on love and relationships have helped me more than anything in my path to understanding. He finds a way to unite and make sense of the two opposing sides of love and shows us new way to approach loving and being loved.
Stirner’s Personal Relationships
But first, let’s take a brief look at his life.
Max Stirner’s Relationship with His Parents
Understanding Max Stirner’s relationship with his parents could offer a deeper insight into his development as a thinker.
Early Life and Family Background
Stirner was born Johann Kaspar Schmidt in 1806 in Bayreuth, Germany. He was the only child of Albert Christian Heinrich Schmidt and Sophia Elenora Reinlein. His father, a flute-maker, died of tuberculosis when Stirner was just six months old, leaving his mother to raise him alone. Shortly after Albert's death, Sophia remarried Heinrich Ballerstedt, a pharmacist, and the family moved to the town of Kulm, which is now part of Poland.
Relationship with His Mother
Sophia Elenora Reinlein, Stirner’s mother, took on the primary role in raising young Johann. While specific details about Sophia’s influence on Stirner are scarce, it can be said that he received a pretty normal education and observed his mother navigating the challenges of widowhood, remarriage and general dependence.
Relationship with His Stepfather
Heinrich Ballerstedt, Stirner’s stepfather, played a role in his upbringing following his marriage to Sophia but the nature of Stirner’s relationship with Ballerstedt is not well-documented.
However, Ballerstedt’s profession likely provided a degree of economic stability and social respectability in some sense.
Intellectual Circle
Stirner was part of the Young Hegelians, a group of radical thinkers who critiqued and extended the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This circle included influential philosophers like Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and later on also Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, although it is believed that they never met. Stirner’s interactions with these individuals were marked by intense intellectual debates and discussions, which played a crucial role in the development of his ideas.
Personal Friendships and Influence
Beyond his intellectual circle, Stirner had personal friendships that reflected his thoughts on relationships.
Arnold Ruge, a prominent German political philosopher and a fellow Young Hegelian, was a friend and publisher who supported Stirner’s work. Ruge published The Ego and Its Own in his journal Hallische Jahrbücher (later renamed Deutsche Jahrbücher), which provided Stirner with a platform to disseminate his radical ideas.
August Ludwig von Rochau, a political thinker best known for coining the term Realpolitik, was another significant friend. Stirner and von Rochau shared interests in political philosophy and radical thought. Their discussions and exchanges contributed to the intellectual environment that shaped Stirner’s work.
Marriages and Romantic Relationships
Stirner's personal life included two notable relationships.
First Marriage to Agnes Burtz (1837-1838) Stirner’s first marriage was to Agnes Burtz, a widow. Their marriage was short-lived, and Agnes died in 1838, within a year of their union. Little is documented about the dynamics of this marriage, but it is often suggested that it was a pragmatic arrangement rather than one driven by romantic ideals.
Second Marriage to Marie Dähnhardt (1843-1846) Stirner’s second marriage to Marie Dähnhardt, a member of the same intellectual circles, is better documented. Marie was an emancipated woman, deeply involved in the intellectual and political debates of the time. Their relationship, however, was fraught with financial difficulties and ended in separation.
In letters and accounts, Stirner's relationship with Marie appears to have been marked by mutual intellectual respect but also by the practical challenges of living out his egoist philosophy.
Love as an Action: Desire & Power
Now let’s get back to the topic at hand. At first glance, love and property probably seem to inhabit disparate realms of human concern. In movies, stories, art and music, love is often celebrated as an altruistic, selfless force that transcends material bounds, or whomever is producing the narrative is somehow victimized by love, while property is typically regarded as a manifestation of ownership, control, and sometimes, selfishness. However, a closer examination reveals that these two concepts are actually deeply connected, and in dialogue, influencing and reshaping each other on a consistant basis.
The notion of property extends beyond mere material possessions to encompass various forms of ownership and entitlement, including intellectual, emotional, and relational domains. In the context of love, the idea of property can manifest in the language we use—terms like “my partner,” “my child," or "my friend" suggest a sense of ownership and belonging that is rooted in our understanding of relationships. This linguistic intersection raises critical questions and brings in the next, and ultimately one of the two most important layers to understanding the relationship between property and love: Desire.
"For the desiring part of the soul, since it is irrational, needs to be obedient to the rational part, and the rational part needs to issue commands, giving orders to the desiring part." — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle’s perspective on desire describes a division of the soul into rational and irrational parts. He posits that desire must be governed by reason to achieve moral virtue and contentment. For Aristotle, uncontrolled desires can lead to moral decay and personal chaos, while desires aligned with rational principles contribute to a balanced and virtuous life.
"The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our vanity." — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
In contrast to Aristole’s definition, Nietzsche’s exploration of desire reflects his view on the complexity and often contradictory nature of human desires, particularly how our desires are intertwined with our ego and self-perception. Nietzsche suggests that our reactions to the desires and behaviors of others are often reflective of our own underlying desires and insecurities. In this context, desire is not merely about longing for external objects or goals but is deeply connected to our sense of self and our relations with others. This opens the space for the following questions:
How do we balance the desire to belong with the autonomy of the other? Can love exist without some notion of possession, or does it inherently involve a claim over another's affection, attention, and presence?
The next layer is Power. In the Foucauldian sense, power extends beyond mere authority and control to permeate various forms of influence and dominance, including intellectual, emotional, and relational domains. Power is not just a top-down imposition but a network of relationships and practices that shape our behaviors, thoughts, and interactions. In the context of love, power manifests in the dynamics we navigate—phrases like "taking control," "holding sway," or "having influence" suggest a pervasive network of authority and impact that is deeply rooted in our understanding of relationships.
"The measure of a man is what he does with power." — Plato
In this quote, Plato emphasizes that true character is revealed through how individuals wield power. For Plato, power is not merely a tool of authority or dominance but a moral and ethical responsibility. He suggests that the use of power should be guided by wisdom and justice, serving the common good rather than self-interest.
"Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere." — Michel Foucault, *The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction
In contrast, Michel Foucault's analysis of power suggests that power is not confined to institutions or individuals but arises from multiple points and interactions within social relationships. He introduces the concept of "micropower," where power operates at the level of everyday practices, norms, and discourses, shaping behavior and knowledge.
These definitions of Power raise critical questions:
How do we balance the subtle and overt exertion of influence with the autonomy of the other? Can love exist without some notion of power, or does it inherently involve a dynamic of influence that shapes another's actions, decisions, and emotions?
Love as an Interrelational Process: Self and Other
Max Stirner’s radical philosophy of egoism offers a distinct perspective on love and relationships that stands in stark contrast to many traditional and contemporary philosophical views. After exploring the fundamental forms of love - namely, desire and power - let’s now look at how,why and where love is directed and how that potentially relates to property.
Sigmund Freud
Freud saw love as a complex interplay of unconscious desires, often linked to childhood experiences and sexual instincts. He believed that love involves both erotic (sexual) and affectionate (tender) components, which are often rooted in the individual's psychosexual development.
Sigmund Freud's exploration of love in On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914) outlines a spectrum that ranges from narcissistic self-love, rooted in primary narcissism from childhood, to object-cathexis where individuals invest psychic energy into external objects, including people. Freud distinguishes between ego-love (self-love) and object-love (love directed towards others).
Jacques Lacan
Lacan described love as a form of recognition and a means of bridging the gap between the self and the Other. He saw love as intertwined with language and the symbolic order, involving a quest for completeness and a reflection of the lover's own desires and lack.
Jacques Lacan's view on the self and other relation centers on the concept of the mirror stage and the formation of the ego. According to Lacan, the self (or ego) is initially formed through a process of identification with an external image, often the image reflected in a mirror. This mirror stage marks a crucial moment in development where the infant perceives itself as a unified and coherent entity separate from others. However, Lacan argues that this initial sense of unity is illusory and fragmented, as the self remains fundamentally dependent on the recognition and validation from others throughout life.
Deleuze and Guattari
Deleuze and Guattari's concept of love or relations can be elucidated by looking at the way they construct the dynamics of desire, becoming, and multiplicity. In their works, particularly in A Thousand Plateaus, love is not merely an interpersonal or romantic phenomenon but a complex and transformative process.
So, love is intertwined with the concept of desire, which they see not as a lack or something to be fulfilled but as a productive force that creates connections and assemblages. Love is also a process of becoming, where individuals engage in a continual transformation. This process is not about achieving a stable identity or unity but about constant change and adaptation. In love, people do not simply merge into one but engage in mutual becoming, influencing and being influenced by each other. Further, instead of viewing love as a binary relationship between two individuals, Deleuze and Guattari emphasize the multiplicity inherent in love. Love involves various connections and interactions, both within and beyond the couple. It is about the creation of new possibilities and the exploration of different ways of relating.
In love, there is a constant process of deterritorialization (breaking away from established territories or boundaries) and reterritorialization (establishing new territories or boundaries). This dynamic movement allows love to evolve and adapt, preventing it from becoming stagnant or repressive. Love, like many other concepts in Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy, is rhizomatic. This means it does not follow a linear, hierarchical structure but spreads in multiple directions, creating a network of connections that can grow and change in unpredictable ways.
Max Stirner’s Unique Approach
Now that we have explored the fundamental forms of love, and the direction of love, let’s now look at Stirner’s incredibly valuable contribution on the discourse of love: Property.
“For love to be possible for me, I must be a self-conscious Ego, and love must be my self-enjoyment. The blind impulse of love makes me happy and fortunate only as long as it remains an open question with me what it really is; as long as it remains instinct, that is, as long as it is not an impulse of my self-consciousness.”
Self-Conscious Ego
"For love to be possible for me, I must be a self-conscious Ego..."
Stirner emphasizes the importance of self-awareness in relationships. He suggests that love is not about an instinctual or automatic feeling but something that requires the individual to be fully aware of their own existence and desires. Why? Well, let’s go further. Maybe we will find an answer.
Love as Self-Enjoyment
"...and love must be my self-enjoyment."
Okay, so here we have a second layer. Apparently love has to be identified as a form of self-enjoyment for him. Love, in this context, is not about self-sacrifice or altruism but about the (shared) pleasure and satisfaction.
Blind Impulse of Love
“The blind impulse of love makes me happy and fortunate only as long as it remains an open question with me what it really is; as long as it remains instinct, that is, as long as it is not an impulse of my self-consciousness.”
Here, Stirner contrasts the instinctual, unconscious experience of love ("the blind impulse of love") with a more reflective, conscious understanding of it. He acknowledges that instinctual love can bring happiness and fortune, but this state is ultimately transient and uncertain because it lacks self-awareness.
This quote doesn’t go very far yet. He simply explores the idea that love for the individual comes from a place of self-awareness and self-interest and he challenges the notion of love as an unthinking, instinctual force.
Let’s look at the next one:
“My love is neither a divine nor a human love; neither the one as holy nor the other as natural. It is a self-interested love.”
Rejection of Divinity & Humanity
"My love is neither a divine nor a human love; neither the one as holy nor the other as natural."
Stirner begins by rejecting conventional categories of love. Notions of anything being sacred, transcendent, and unconditional, typically associated with religious or spiritual contexts, is rejected, including human love, which is considered natural and instinctive.
Love as Expression of Interest
"It is a self-interested love."
In this view, love is not about fulfilling divine commands or adhering to natural instincts but about serving the individual's own interests and desires. Love, in this sense, is an expression of the ego's pursuit of personal satisfaction and benefit.
Okay, so we have here a love that is expressive, and rejects notions of divinity and sensuality.
Now, let’s look at one more and then come to some kind of conclusion:
"I love men too—I see nothing in them that is foreign to me; I am altogether in all and no one is poor except he who wants my spirit."
Connection & Property
"I love men too—I see nothing in them that is foreign to me; I am altogether in all..."
Stirner begins by expressing a form of connection with what he refers to as ‘men’, stating that he loves people and finds nothing foreign in them and is somehow inherently connected to them. Beyond just empathy or interconnectedness, Stirner is expressing a kind of relationship to the concept of property here. There is something in ‘man’ that is part of him but there is equally something in him that is part of other. In that way, looking purely from his perspective, self and other are his property. They are not self AND other. They are his self and his other. So, in this way, love is self-referential and an expression of his own will.
Wanting Someone’s Spirit
"...and no one is poor except he who wants my spirit."
Here, Stirner introduces the idea of wanting someone’s spirit. This presented as a parasitic desire to turn someone or something into property because of a perceived lack of connection to oneself. Stirner suggests that those who lack connection or understanding, or empathy and self-awareness, are the ones truly impoverished, those who need and desire something outside of themselves to complete their ‘spirit.’
Let’s summarize:
First, he rejects the idea that love can or should be governed by moral or societal norms, or be reduced to an affectual experience.
Stirner views love as a subjective expression of one's desires and power and are closely related to his critique of the concept of property. But it also creates a field of experience that can only be accessed by him, where his subjective experience, including the things he interacts and relates with, belongs to him and cannot be taken by anyone else. However, those who wish to take it, exist.
He argues against the idea that individuals can be owned or possessed, which, at first glance, seems to contradict his views on consent. But they are not. He simply critiques the delusion that - just because you got someone chained up in your basement - doesn’t mean they’re yours. And it also doesn’t mean that you couldn’t end up in someone’s basement if that is their will.
It untangles all the delusions that relate to consent and property and, in doing that, takes a chainsaw to the strings that comprise the tension between desire and power.
Union of Egoists
As previously discussed, Stirner’s view of relationships is rooted in his views on property. As a fully-functioning concept, he calls this approach and practice the union of egoists.
In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner writes,
“Union is my creation; it is I who create it! I utilize it as my property.”
So what is the underlying rationale of these unions and what would it look like in practice?
Stirner posits that egoism, rooted in the assertion of desire and ownness, or personal power, stands in direct opposition to societal constructs that impose norms and obligations.
Freud sees love as a complex interplay of unconscious desires and ego instincts. He distinguishes between self-love (ego-love) and love directed towards others (object-love). But calling something an object is separating it from oneself and assuming some kind of external spirit.
Stirner did not see other as separate from him.
He emphasizes egoism and personal power as central to relationships. He views unions and relationships as creations of the individual ego, asserting that individuals utilize these relationships for their own benefit ("I utilize it as my property"). Stirner's concept of love, therefore, aligns with the idea that love's outward expression (directed towards others) is also an inward expression (serving one's own desires and interests).
So, the expression of Desire and Power is essentially an expression of love. That leads me back to the first question I ever had about love: “Love = action directed outward.”This little girl was pretty smart. But there is one thing she did not understand until reading The Ego and its Own. Love’s outward direction is also an inward direction.
So, what do we conclude?
LOVE = ACTION DIRECTED OUTWARD AND THEREBY INWARD
What was the second note again? “Love = interrelational.”
Lacan describes love as a form of recognition and a means of bridging the gap between the self and the Other. He views love as intertwined with the symbolic order and the quest for completeness, where individuals reflect their own desires and lack onto the Other.
In contrast, Stirner suggests that within unions of egoists, individuals transcend traditional notions of property and ownership. This economic model, in Stirner's view, liberates himself from the constraints of traditional property relations and has no lack to be reflected onto the Other. This exchange is subject to something like inherent consent. It does not seek to take or use. The union is consensual.
So my note was just lacking one tiny addition:
LOVE = INTERRELATIONAL AND INTERSUBJECTIVE
And the last one was: “Love = rooted in unconscious and socialization.”
Here, the topic has to be moved beyond psychoanalysis to a new territory. Deleuze and Guattari conceptualize love as a dynamic process involving desire, becoming, and multiplicity. They emphasize that love is not about achieving a stable identity but about continual transformation and the creation of new possibilities through connections and interactions.
Stirner's idea that love is an expression of personal power resonates here, as individuals in relationships (unions) are seen as continually evolving and forming new connections based on their desires and interests. The notion of love as a rhizomatic process in Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy, spreading in multiple directions without a fixed hierarchy, aligns with Stirner's view that relationships are expressions of personal desire and agency rather than conforming to societal norms or moral obligations.
This conceptualization of love shows there is something lacking in my assertion. Love is not just about childhood experiences or what we learn as part of our socialization:
LOVE = ROOTED IN UNCONSCIOUS AND SOCIALIZATION AND IN A CONSTANT PROCESS OF BECOMING
So, for this conclusion, let me get personal. Let me address the little girl that I was, directly:
You are right. Love is strange. And people have a strange relationship to it. They seem to want to have it without giving it. But they also want to feel like they are giving it, even if they are not. Often it is done without consent. And this makes love painful. It makes love a coerced utility.
People being upset with you for not going to family parties, not sending Christmas cards, not showing up for family portraits…they don’t care to see you. And that’s okay.
Their minds are filled with spooks taught by movies, books, music, or whatever else. Maybe they just don’t care to challenge their parental or social upbringing.
You are not like them and that’s okay.
You are unique. You are completely and utterly whole. You wish for them to assert ownness as much as you assert ownness.
I love my family. I love my friends. I love my romantic partners. But what I love most of all is my ownness, my relentless and radical subjective expression and assertion of my legitimacy without asking to be legitimized by anyone else.
My love is not about legitimacy. It’s not about social conformity. It’s not about fulfilling obligations.
And if your love is about that then I don’t call that love.
If you value a relationship based on how much people are willing to sacrifice to your definitions, ideals and values then maybe you’re not as good of a person/friend/relative as you thought you were. And realizing that might be the first step to claiming your ownness.
I have never and will never ask you to conform to my ideals or standards. Why are you? Am I your property?