The author underlines that Stirner makes a distinction between personal and private property. Die Einzige claims the property of person, not private property: this seems to sidestep Marx’s plethoric attack to him. To private property corresponds the private citizen, who is, first of all, de-prived of his person; he his an individual, not a person; he is “a phantom” – Individuum est ineffabile. Ju¨nger is not alien to such an outcome, provided that the proprietor may prevail on the egoist. The (...) egoist, in fact, is nothing else that the essence of the individual: the soul of a phantom. The politics of the integral proprietor match with the myth of kingship. The king is political body without individuality. (shrink)

La critica di Max Stirner, al pari di quella giuspositivistica, mirando alla dissoluzione di ogni valore assoluto, riconduce la costruzione dell'esperienza umana a un atto di volontà dell'individuo, il quale, irriducibile a ogni metafisica tradizionale e a ogni tipo di autorità ereditaria, crea e ricrea la propria esistenza e il mondo in maniera autonoma e incondizionata. In questo senso, la matrice non-cognitivistica comune sia al pensiero stirneriano che a quello giuspositivistico - oltre a denunciare il fondamento tipicamente universalistico e oggettivistico (...) del giusnaturalismo, sempre volto ad annullare il punto di vista del soggetto e a determinare aprioristicamente quali valori e quali regole di vita egli è tenuto a seguire - fornisce l'occasione per una sorprendente quanto affascinante svolta vitalistica e materialistica, "all'insegna di una ontologia costruttivista, la quale, propugnando una concezione affermativa dell'essere, mira alla distruzione dei valori esistenti e alla continua creazione autonoma di nuovi valori". (shrink)

STIRNERs "Verdienst" geht im Grunde auf ein einziges Werk zurück: Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum erschienen 1844/45 in Leipzig. Hören wir also, was "berufene" Geister der Geschichte über ihn zu schreiben wußten: ARNOLD RUGE ein führender Kopf des sogenannten Vormärz der 48er Revolution des letzten Jahrhunderts, hat das Buch bei seinem ersten Erscheinen als "frischen Morgenruf im Lager der schlafenden Theoretiker" begrüßt. LUDWIG FEUERBACH nannte es, trotz einiger Einwände; das "Werk des genialsten und freiesten Schriftstellers, den er kenne". MAX NETTLAU (...) schreibt 1925, daß nur wenige Bücher so mißverstanden oder so verschiedenartig beurteilt werden wie dieses, "und viele Leser bleiben bei einem auf die Spitze getriebenen Individualismus oder Egoismus stehen, den sie herauslesen wollen". (shrink)

This dissertation critically examines the writings of Max Stirner, especially his masterpiece The Ego and Its Own, as a discourse of resistance against modern forms of domination and, in particular, against the modern political State. I begin by examining Stirner's inversion of the Hegelian concept of the State, from the “actualization of freedom”to an instance of domination. The State appears, to Stirner as to Hegel, as the guardian of order and cohesion in modern societies. While both recognize the genesis of (...) sovereign power as violent, Hegel sustains that, with the progress of civilization, force is eradicated from the public order and private interests and common interest are reconciled. Stirner, on the contrary, insists that force is the other face of right, as the hidden pillar of the norm, which only reveals itself in moments of crisis. Stirner’s focus on the extreme case, largely anticipated and devalued by Hegel as unilateral and equivocal, seems to be anchored on the conviction that conflict is ineradicable, that between my own will and the (political, social) representation of that will there is always a gap, which cannot be filled by any collective arrangement. From this follows that, if conflict is scarcely manifest in modern societies, it is not because it was truly solved, but because it is effectively masked, due to the dissymmetry of power and the internalization of authority. The “unique one” appears, in this environment of great suspicion, as the one who cannot be represented, who surpasses every representation, threatening the authority of every representative. Accordingly, the “unique one” reclaims his own power, without allowing the satisfaction of his will to be mediated by obedience to collective institutions, affirming himself instead as sovereign over himself. Stirner suggests that the self-affirmation of the “unique one” inevitably leads to confrontation with the external powers that organize his existence. Stirner, nonetheless, chooses to think this confrontation in terms of a “revolt”, of a reflexive and individual act by which the individual emerges from the situation in which he finds himself, rather than as a “revolution”, a political or social act directed towards the systemic transformation of the status quo. Even if we admit the validity of the Stirnerian critique of the legitimizing discourses of modernity, the problem remains if this critique can be sustained on the “unique one”, “a thoughtless word”, an openly self-contradictory and self-destructive name, subject or principle (?). The possibility of founding a discourse of resistance on the egoism of Max Stirner seems to depend upon the answer that we choose to give to two intimately connected questions: what remains after the destructive vortex of the “unique one” that may sustain the resistance against a state that Max Stirner deems oppressive? Can this resistance be realized in the revolt of a unique one without the recognition of another one with whom to build the conditions of freedom? (shrink)

This paper aims to discuss how the themes of individuality, freedom and education are articulated in Stirner's thought. It begins with a brief history of Stirner's reception. Next, the paper analyzes the subversion of Hegelian dialectics and the critique of Feuerbach's and Marx's atheistic humanism, which remain linked to Christian theology by deifying an abstract human essence. Then, the focus shifts to Stirnerian nominalism and its criticism of God, State, humanity and society as ideological constructs that dominate the concrete individual. (...) Finally, the paper analyzes the proposal of a new ethics and a new education, based on the singularity of the mortal and corporeal self. (shrink)

This paper takes into account the loops within the anti-suicide arguments - we can clearly understand that their theories were emerging either from their personal beliefs or irrelevant inferences. As discussed later, they overlooked the fact that human beings have ultimate freedom over their death and that is one thing that serves their ego. We see a mere categorical problem on behalf of Camus and his Sisyphus; that how he failed to realise the difference of circumstance and choices. How Kant’s (...) Categorical Imperative is like Plato’s Ideal World that can never exist and how Rousseau failed to recognise individuals as humans. The paper also examine the pro-suicide arguments of Arthur Schopenhauer, Phillip Mainlander, Max Stirner and David Hume. The paper concludes that although suicide is logical, however, there is a need to further categorise the types of suicides in order to create a better compass on this topic of self annihilation. (shrink)

There is a constant tension that exists within each individual. This is the struggle between the hidden ideologies and fixed ideas which enslave the individual and the need to rid themselves of them. It is through these that implicit religion forms. We require, in order to counteract this, a new theology, a secular theology – one which emphasizes the individual. In order to bring about a new theology, it is necessary to reconsider the philosophies of Adam Weishaupt, Louis Althusser, and (...) Max Stirner and bring them into the modern discussion of implicit religion. This paper aims to bring together these understudied philosophers as well as contemporary leaders in political theology in order to reimagine the potential of the individual to rid themselves from fixed ideas and to realize their potential. (shrink)

En “The King´s two bodies” Kantorowicz explora la ficción legal de los dos cuerpos del Rey: cuerpo mortal y cuerpo político. Ficción en la cual el rey, constituido como persona ficta, trasciende la temporalidad de cualquier cuerpo individual sobre la idea de “dignitas non moritur”. El presente trabajo pretende abordar la lectura de esa dualidad corporal encarnada en el derecho a través de un doble registro: cuerpo textual y cuerpo imaginario, explorando asimismo cómo el discurso jurídico se construye en (...) el marco de dicha simbología y legitimidad. Instituir lo vivo del texto jurídico no puede hacerse más que sobre el rastro de la semiótica misma. Como señala Legendre, la normatividad produce un “Écrit vivant” en perpetua necesidad de interpretación. Es paradójicamente la batalla por la apertura del texto lo que permite la imagen misma de su continuidad. Una crítica de los montajes vividos, de la instancia de la censura que ata y moviliza el discurso jurídico, provee el fondo de una urgencia: el de la tarea iusfilosófica por venir. (shrink)

Schwarz pursues a primordial theme by Freudian means, extrapolating from the psychogenesis of a person to the psychogenesis of a nation. He thus associates monarchy with culture in its infancy, displaying infantile narcisism and meglomania. But as perhaps the best worst case, Pharaonic Egypt, demonstrates, meglomania and narcissism expresssed in colossi, grandiose claims of the king that would shame even the gods, are more likely a sign of weakness than strength. And classical republicanism continues to maintain a monarchical element, now (...) transferred to presidents. (shrink)

Post-modernity as a New Chance for the Enlightenment: On Necessity of Overcoming Modernity. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the end of modernity does not necessary comprise a cultural regress but can also be seen as new stage of the process of Enlightenment in Western history. After the presentation of popular and commonly recognized definitions of modernity and postmodernity, the author will attempt to demonstrate the main limitations of modernity on the basis of philosophies of Max Stirner (...) and Frederic Nietzsche. The author’s main objection to modernity is its tendency to reproduce the centralistic structure of pre-modern traditional communities in which one metaphysical term designated the universally obligatory norms. By way of crashing this structure, postmodernity opens new possibilities to an individual for creating new, particular values, thus enabling the individual to discover new forms of self-realization. To make human life in such a decentralized society possible, the individual would have to attain a new mental level. Civil education, therefore, has to go beyond the borders of modernity and be open to new ways of learning and solving social conflict. (shrink)

Through reference to Karl Löwith's reading of time in Hegel as fundamentally inspired by the temporality of Aristotle, the paper shows how the absolute "now" is thoroughly informed by historical time. Hegel's preferred tense is that of the Perfekt, the present perfect, where the present "now" is always also what it has been. Hegel thus reconciles Greek and Christian forms of temporality, the distinction that Löwith reads as unreconciled and tragic in Hegel's "young" followers: Feuerbach, Stirner, Bauer, Marx and Nietzsche. (...) Nonetheless, the Left Hegelian heritage is right in comprehending Hegelian time as fundamentally past-oriented. Their own stunted philosophical endeavors are aimed at the future. (shrink)