> Max Stirner, was a German post-Hegelian philosopher, dealing mainly with the Hegelian notion of social alienation and self-consciousness. Stirner is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism and individualist anarchism.
> Stirner's egoism argues that individuals are impossible to fully comprehend, as no understanding of the self can adequately describe the fullness of experience.
> He believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this — as willing egoists — could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not — as unwilling egoists — will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion.
> Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions — including the notion of state, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society — were mere illusions.
> He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism in which individuals would unite in Unions of egoists only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might, saying: "Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him belongs [property]."
> Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint and that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting.
Isn't that what we already have, a profoundly selfish society?
I don't see myself in his system - I'm neither a willing nor unwilling egoist. I consider my self-interest to be part of a larger "collective self-interest" of humanity and the ecology of life. But perhaps that's my false belief and I'm only "secretly fulfilling [my] desires for happiness and security". It could be, since the happiness of the collective supports and contributes to my personal happiness.
One aspect of Stirner's thought that bothers me is that his depiction of the egoist sounds more like a specific outlook on life that is no less sacred and artificial than the systems he rejects.
As a way to illustrate this, unmoderated online forums tend to adopt the same tone of voice and type of humor as 4chan. If there was true intellectual freedom without restraints, there would be more tonal diversity, but what instead ends up happening is that the type of people who would adopt Stirner's worldview would end up behaving in very similar ways to one another.
I'm not so familiar with anarchist thinking, so it kind of surprised me to learn about Stirner's "egoist" worldview and philosophy. He takes it to its logical conclusion, which is to be free of any morals and consideration for others, to serve one's self interest as a goal in itself. In a way it's refreshing to hear it expressed so directly, because it does seem like an attitude that's fairly common, maybe even as animal instinct. It helps to contrast and understand my own values and perhaps wishful thinking that humanity can grow beyond it to a holistic philosophy of living together.
