Let’s start with the question: Who is your daddy? And what I mean by that is…who legitimizes you, who controls you, and most importantly…whom do you allow to control and legitimize you?
In the realm of philosophical thought, individualism and egoism often intersect, but a closer look reveals some fundamental differences in their core principles, ideals and perceptions. This article will offer an overview of these differences with a particular focus on the unique lens through which Max Stirner's egoism views the self and all things connected to it.
What is Individualism?
Individualism is a complex and multifaceted concept. It has been defined and interpreted in various ways across different philosophical, cultural, and political contexts. To say it in the simplest way possible, individualism is about autonomy and the intrinsic value of the individual, and it advocates for personal freedom, self-reliance, and minimal interference from external authorities.
“Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
Philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill emphasized individual rights and personal liberty, laying the groundwork for classical liberalism.
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
In the economic sphere, individualism commonly manifests in the advocacy for free markets and the importance of private property, as seen in the works of Ayn Rand.
Culturally, individualism often highlights personal expression and the pursuit of one's own path, in contrast to collectivist ideologies that prioritize group goals and conformity.
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Despite these variations, the essence of individualism remains consistent: the belief that each person is a sovereign entity with the inherent right to chart their own course in life.
Individualist anarchism presents a distinct perspective on individualism but is still fundamentally rooted in the common individualist belief that personal autonomy and freedom are paramount, and that all forms of external authority—whether governmental, social, or economic—are inherently oppressive and illegitimate.
“I have the right to coerce no man, and no man has the right to coerce me. We are equal and independent.”
Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book
Individualist anarchists advocate for a society where individuals freely cooperate without coercive institutions, which makes it all about voluntary associations and mutual aid. This perspective, influenced by thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Josiah Warren, holds that true individualism can only flourish in the absence of state-imposed constraints and capitalist exploitation.
Individualist anarchists reject hierarchical structures and thereby argue for the self-ownership of individuals, where each person has the right to govern themselves and make decisions based on their own interests and desires. This form of individualism is not isolationist but rather promotes a decentralized, cooperative community where individuals are free to pursue their own paths while respecting the autonomy of others. Through this lens, individualist anarchism seeks to create a society based on equality and freedom, where individuals can truly express their uniqueness and self-determination.
These are all relatively simplistic approaches to sociocultural, sociopolitical and socioeconomic coexistence. But to understand Stirner and egoist philosophy, we have to go deeper into the ontological and epistemological perspective Stirner explores in his work.
Understanding Stirner’s Philosophical Background & Egoist Dialectic
To understand the difference between individualist and egoist philosophy, we have to look at Max Stirner’s background in the philosophical realm and understand the fundamental aspects of his thought.
Max Stirner, a 19th-century philosopher, introduced a radical form of a kind of philosophical individualism in his work The Ego and Its Own. Although I am pretty sure he would hate that I just said that and added an -ism to his approach at all. Stirner did not call himself an anarchist. Nor did he call himself an egoist. These definitions, surely, would have been nothing to him.
So…essentially, understanding Max Stirner & his philosophy requires really thinking about his radically fundamental redefinition of individualism, which represents a new kind of dialectic in defining the nature of reality.
The Young Hegelians
Let’s take a brief detour by looking at the group which Stirner sometimes associated with and what their main focus was.
The Young Hegelians were a diverse group of intellectuals in the early to mid-19th century who engaged critically with the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
All the members of the Young Hegelians studied under Hegel and were thereby greatly influenced by his work. Emerging in the wake of Hegel's death and inspired by his dialectical method, these thinkers sought to apply Hegelian principles to various aspects of society, including politics, religion, and culture.
“From the Hegelian standpoint, the essence of religion is thoroughly shattered, and the destruction is radical. This is Hegel's principle: the complete liquidation of everything. And because Hegel is a genuinely religious man, it is also a religious principle with him; it is his way of saving religion and reconciling it with reason.”
Bruno Bauer, The Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist (1841)
Rejecting the conservative interpretation of Hegel's philosophy prevalent at the time, they came up with a radical reinterpretation that viewed Hegel's dialectic as a tool for social and intellectual liberation rather than as a justification for the status quo. Prominent figures among the Young Hegelians included Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner, each of whom contributed distinct perspectives to the movement. Feuerbach famously emphasized the importance of material reality over abstract metaphysics, which inspired later developments in atheism and materialism. Bauer challenged religious orthodoxy and advocated for a secular state, while Stirner pushed the boundaries of individualism with his concept of "egoism."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels played significant roles in the Young Hegelian movement as well. Both Marx and Engels were deeply influenced by the dialectical method of Hegel but diverged from their contemporaries in their revolutionary application of dialectics to the analysis of society and history. While engaging with the Young Hegelians' critique of religion and philosophy, Marx and Engels developed their own materialist and historical interpretation which built the groundwork for their later works on communism and socialism.
"Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only if you divorce it from its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843)
Marx, in particular, critiqued the abstract idealism of Hegel and the Young Hegelians. He rejected the idealism of Hegelian thought and advocated for a radically materialist approach that emphasized the role of economic forces and class struggle in shaping historical development. Engels, similarly, contributed to this critique by exploring the material conditions of society and the relationship between economic structures and social institutions.
So…to really understand Stirner and his philosophy, we need to look into the concept of Dialectics and what it means for the way these individual thinkers perceive the nature of reality.
Dialectics & The Nature of Reality & Knowledge
Dialectics is a method. But a method for what, exactly?
A dialectic represents the fundamental form of all transformation and it emphasizes the interaction and resolution of contradictions to understand and explain the change and development that occurs.
Originating from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Socrates and Plato, dialectics involves the exchange of opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) and their resolution into a higher level of understanding (synthesis). This triadic process is iterative, continually evolving through the resolution of further contradictions.
There are several kinds of dialectics, each with its own distinctive features and applications across various fields of philosophy and social theory.
In the context of Hegelian philosophy, dialectics is used to describe the progression of ideas and consciousness. Hegel's dialectic posits that every stage of development contains inherent contradictions that propel it forward to a more comprehensive stage of understanding. This process is seen as the driving force behind the evolution of ideas, history, and reality itself.
Please go to the following website for a more detailed description of Hegelian dialectics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
Now let’s look at Marx’ Dialectical Materialism, as the materialist approach is most common in the contemporary understanding of modern social structures.
This is best done via visualization and the description of stages.
1. Thesis (Initial State): At the starting point of historical materialism, we have a particular socio-economic arrangement or mode of production. This is the thesis, representing the prevailing conditions of society at a given time. For example, in feudal society, the thesis might be the dominance of feudal lords and the agrarian economy.
2. Antithesis (Contradiction/Conflict): Within the thesis, contradictions arise due to internal tensions or external pressures. These contradictions represent the antithesis, opposing forces that challenge the existing socio-economic order. For example, in feudal society, the rise of urban centers, the emergence of a merchant class, and technological advancements might create tensions between the feudal lords and the rising bourgeoisie.
3. Synthesis (Resolution/Transformation): The conflict between the thesis and antithesis leads to a process of struggle and change. This process eventually results in a new socio-economic arrangement, the synthesis, which resolves the contradictions of the previous stage. In our example, the synthesis might be the transition from feudalism to capitalism, where the bourgeoisie overthrow feudal lords and establish industrial capitalism.
4. Continual Movement: Historical materialism sees this dialectical process as ongoing and cyclical. The synthesis of one stage becomes the new thesis, leading to new contradictions and conflicts, and thus perpetuating the historical trajectory. Following the transition to capitalism, contradictions between labor and capital emerge, leading to class struggle and the potential for further transformations, such as socialism or communism.
___________________________________________
Feudal Society (Thesis)
___________________________________________
|
Contradictions/Emergence of Bourgeoisie (Antithesis)
|
___________________________________________
Rise of Capitalism (Synthesis)
___________________________________________
This visual representation simplifies the complex historical processes involved in historical materialism and highlights the dialectical movement from one socio-economic stage to another.
Each stage represents a temporary resolution of contradictions, which in turn gives rise to new contradictions, perpetuating the dialectical process of historical change.
Stirner’s Dialectic
Now let's look at Max Stirner's dialectical egoism. This dialectic describes the process by which individuals shed society’s influence and self-realize and holds within it a rationale that explains how conscious thought is shaped and how it will ultimately influence societal coexistence.
1. Thesis (Internalization): At the starting point, we have the individual who is becoming socialized by societal norms, moral codes, and social constructs. This represents the thesis, where the individual's identity is influenced and actions are largely shaped by external influences and perceived obligations. For example, societal expectations, religious beliefs, and cultural norms dictate how individuals perceive themselves and their place in society.
2. Antithesis (Egoistic Rebellion and ‘Shedding’ of Internalized Norms and Ideals): Stirner's dialectic involves the individual's rejection of the norms they have been taught and the assertion of their own desires. This represents the antithesis, where the individual rebels against societal norms and attempts to embrace their autonomy and self-interest.
The Liminal Stage: Stirner explains that society will do its very best to maintain its own power over the individual and the individual must find a way to make it through this stage. During this stage, the individual will be faced wih negative experiences such as loss of friends, loss of a support system and much more. Many people do not ever make it through this stage and end up locked into the stage of limbo where anti-individualist spooks like “causes” become ingrained with the individual’s identity, making them believe they have achieved ownness.
3. Synthesis (Assertion of Ownness): The dialectical process culminates in the synthesis, where the individual achieves total liberation from external constraints and fully embraces egoism. This represents the pinnacle of Stirner's philosophy, where the individual's ego is unbounded and unrestricted by external authorities or moral codes. In this state, the individual acts solely in their own self-interest, without regard for societal expectations or moral obligations, maximizing their freedom and autonomy.
___________________________________________
Internalization (Thesis)
___________________________________________
|
Egoistic Rebellion & Shedding of Internalized Norms/Ideals (Antithesis)
|
___________________________
Liminal stage
___________________________________________
Assertion of Ownness (Synthesis)
___________________________________________
The differences in dialectics among Hegel, Marx, and Stirner are very different but, ultimately, address the same problem: What is the fundamental cause of transformations within social structures and the interpersonal relations within those structures? The differences in their dialectics stem from their fundamentally differing perspectives on the nature of reality and the process of knowledge production.
For Hegel, the nature of reality is conceptual and spiritual. Social structures are the result of the unfolding of the World Spirit (Geist) through a dialectical process, wherein human consciousness and historical development progress towards greater rationality and freedom, culminating in the realization of self-consciousness and ethical life (Sittlichkeit) within the framework of the state.
For Marx, it is material and economic. Social structures are the result of the underlying economic base, shaped by the modes of production and class relations, which determine the political, legal, and ideological superstructure, leading to the historical development of society through class struggle.
And for Stirner, social structures find their root in the oppression of individual agency and creative expression. Stirner showed us that social structures serve the purpose of controlling the stages through which individuals move to arrive at their full self-realization.
Knowledge, for Hegel, arises from the dialectical movement of ideas. This shapes society as knowledge is the culmination of social change in thought and largely shaped by the Zeitgeist. For Marx, social knowledge is the result of the domination by the upper class which shapes material conditions and knowledge infrastructures.
Stirner, in a way, brings both of those perspectives together by showing that the central point which both perspectives necessitate is an individual with a capability for conscious, subjective experience within a controlled and constrained mental environment which shapes their understanding of the world and their position in it.
The Dialectical Foundations of Individualist Philosophy
To further understand the difference between individualist and egoist philosophy we need to think about dialectics from an individualist perspective. This involved asking how it defines the nature of reality and how it approaches the production and dissemination of knowledge.
The ontological principle of individualist philosophy centers around the belief in the primacy and sovereignty of the individual. In that basic way, it is very much guided by a form of Stirnerian thought. However, individualist philosophy further asserts that individuals are the fundamental units of existence thereby ascribing inherent value to their autonomy, and agency.
“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
Furthermore, individualist philosophers, even within the anarchist realm, often describe self-interest as ethically reasonable, which holds the internal rationale that it has the potential to shape a better society.
The epistemological principle of individualist philosophy revolves around the nature of knowledge acquisition, validation, and utilization from the perspective of the individual. It highlights the need for critical thought, and emphasizes the experiential and subjective basis of knowledge, meaning it focuses on the role of individual cognition and perception in the process of shaping and understanding truth. This means that individualist knowledge aquisition acknowledges the subjectivity of knowledge, and emphasizes the primacy of experiential learning, while promoting a strict skepticism of authority. This holds within an inherent rationale which elevates concepts like pluralism and diversity, as well as the reliance on reason and pragmatism.
“The Individual, in short, may be considered the ultimate unit in the social organism. Beyond the Individual there is nothing.”
Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book
Max Stirner’s Egoism
Stirner's philosophy posits that true change and agency are just as much spooks as anything else if elevanted above the individual. The term “ownness” is supposed to counterbalance that and is strategically used in his text The Ego and its Own.
The Basic Differences between Individualism and Stirner’s Egoism
At its core, individualism advocates for something - namely, the recognition of individual rights, freedoms, and autonomy. Thereby it typically operates within the bounds of a value system which elevates the individual.
In contrast, Stirner's egoism takes individualism to its extreme by rejecting all definitions and values imposed on “ownness.”
Individualism shares some commonalities with Stirner's egoism, particularly in their emphasis on individual autonomy and rejection of authority. However, they diverge in their approach to the importance of the concept of the “individual.” Stirner doesn’t care about the individual. He just cares about his ownness.
“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists... it is real... it is possible... it's yours.”
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Individualism - especially in the anarchist realm - typically advocates for voluntary cooperation and mutual aid among individuals, often within decentralized, non-hierarchical structures.
“Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship.”
Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism and American Traditions
In contrast, Stirner's egoism is more radical in its rejection of all constraints. Stirner's egoism asserts absolute self-focus and self-fulfillment.
“I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Specific Differences
Now let’s go further into detail.
Interconnectedness
Unlike the self-centered individualism of thinkers like Ayn Rand, Stirner's text exclaims the interconnectedness of HIS self and HIS other - not in a materialist or idealist sense, but in an egoist sense.
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
This means that it rejects the idea of objective reality altogether. And in its rejection of objectivity and its radical application of subjectivity it does not make objects of an other. Other is seen as just another aspect of the individual’s autonomy.
“My intercourse with the world consists in my enjoying it, and so consuming it for my self-enjoyment. All objects, interests, and ties, become indifferent to me if they do not belong to me and if I do not dominate them as owner.”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
All Things Are Spooks
To truly grasp Stirner's thought would be to embrace a form of individualism that is disconnected even from his thought. Calling yourself an egoist anarchist is not being an egoist anarchist - if that makes sense. Your egoism has to be one that is deeply personal, self-determined, and liberated from any and all spooks. Whatever that means.
“Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist; for him who is always thinking of himself, the voluntary egoist, they do not exist. ... Without having regard to that which is his, i.e., sacred, man looks solely to himself and the satisfaction of his wants.”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
While individualist anarchists prioritize individual autonomy and freedom from external authority, Stirner's egoism takes this idea to its extreme by, in a way, promoting a form of individualism that transcends even his own philosophy as utility for others.
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”
Edward Abbey (Individualist Anarchist)
Inherent Value
Unlike individualists, Stirner doesn't see the individual as possessing inherent value. Instead, he posits that HE is a unique entity, self-created and self-determined, free from all imposed constraints, including morality and societal norms.
“It is not the business of society to create persons, but to give room for developing personalities; not to build them up, but to leave them free to make their own lives.”
Emma Goldman
In personal life, an individualist might pursue goals within a moral framework rooted in individualist thought, and, in a way, trying to use it as a framework to balance personal desires with responsibilities. In contrast, Stirner prioritized his own very specifc self-interest without regard for yours or mine.
“My freedom becomes complete only when it is my — might; but by this I cease to be a merely free man, and become an own — i.e., an owner. Why? Because I can make no use of freedom if I do not have — power.”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Interpersonal Relations & Society
Politically, individualists tend to support the idea of some kind of consent-based voluntary coexistence, which would have to align with the belief in the value of individual “rights” or moral truths.
Max Stirner's conception of interpersonal relations argues that all relations will deteriorate if the individual makes compromises to their own self-interest.
Based on the quote below, Stirner defines love as a deeply personal and reciprocal union where the individual's love and thoughts are not separate from or secondary to those of other. In this context, love is an expression of one's own will and desires. The relationship with God, as described here, reflects a projection of the individual's own feelings and thoughts, suggesting that true love, for Stirner, is an extension of the ego and inherently self-referential.
“The love of God loves me; the wisdom of God enlightens me, etc. What I love, God loves; what I think, God thinks. My cause is God's and God himself cannot forsake it. The union is a reciprocal one: God has no other love than mine, no other thought than mine.”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Property & Karma
I know…it’s a yucky concept, but hear me out. Yes, karma as a concept is a spook. However, karma in the buddhist sense, meaning, understanding the dialectic of interpersonal interaction or causality or that actions can have consequences based on one’s skill, intent and level of neurosis, is simply a fundamental piece of knowledge.
Stirner’s views on interpersonal relations, relationships between parents and children, and criminality hold the fundamental rationale that actions have consequences. Stirner understood, for example, that taking something from someone which that person may consider property could be met with the other person doing the same in response.
“I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!”
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Max Stirner's rejection of private and collective property differs significantly from traditional individualism and ‘karma’ is why.
While individualism and individualist anarchism generally advocate for some form of property rights, whether private or collectively owned, Stirner's egoism challenges the very concept of property and holds that ownership is an assertion of control.
In conclusion, embracing egoism isn't about adopting a philosophical label or adhering to a set of predefined beliefs. It's about recognizing the inherent sovereignty and autonomy of YOUR self and asserting YOUR specific ownness in a world filled with spooks.
My egoism is deeply personal and self-determined. It has no roots other than my relationship to myself and what I perceive to be my property - my ownness.
I flourish in the pursuit of my own desires and interests, and I do so without compromise. It's about first reclaiming agency over my life and rejecting any attempts to control or legitimize me and then, to just DO ME.
So, who is my daddy?
Depends on the moment and whether or not I want one.
It certainly isn’t something capable of legitimizing me. Because I am legitimate. And legitimacy in itself is a spook.
“In the egoistic mind, nothing is more than what it is to me, and every moment is a new birth.”
- Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
If you would like to purchase the books mentioned in the following references, I would receive a commission payment via the Amazon Influencer Program.
Books mentioned or cited:
1. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689)
2. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
3. Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (1943)
4. Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
5. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)
6. Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book (1893)
7. Bruno Bauer, The Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist (1841)
8. Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843)
9. Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (1844)
10. Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism and American Traditions (1909)
11. Emma Goldman, Various Essays and Speeches (Early 20th Century)
12. Edward Abbey, Various Essays and Books (20th Century)
Some of these books are also available for free, if purchasing them is not an option for you:
Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism and American Traditions (1909)
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (1844)
Emma Goldman, Various Essays and Speeches (Early 20th Century)
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843)
Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book (1893)