Interest in The German Ideology has largely focused on the ‘chapter’ on Feuerbach—invariably the focus of the various abridgements in which the work is usually read. But this does not reflect the weighting of the text itself, which is dominated by Marx and Engels's critique of the radical egoist philosopher Max Stirner. Which begs the question: just why did they spend so much time and effort writing about Stirner? In this paper, I will provide an answer—which comes down to three (...) related points. The first concerns the critique of reason; the second, egoistic self-interest. On both of these two points, Stirner makes a novel contribution—contributions which Marx and Engels feel clear affinities with. However, Stirner can ultimately be seen to get these two points, as it were, the wrong way around. This then leads to the third point: Stirner's misunderstanding of the nature of Communism. To clarify the nature of Communism, then, Marx and Engels were compelled to turn Stirner on his head. (shrink)

O presente artigo tem como objeto o historicismo, a abordagem filosófica que considera a história como um fator crucial para a configuração dos valores e crenças e critérios dos homens e mulheres. De modo mais específico, eu exploro nas páginas seguintes alguns problemas que cercam a abordagem historicista e sua relação com a ação política e o discurso filosófico. Faço isso através da análise do pensamento de dois filósofos cuja contribuição tem sido considerada muito importante para a filosofia política hodierna: (...) Cornélius Castoriadis e Richard Rorty. Ambos os autores, além de decididamente historicistas, desenvolveram sua obra a partir de crítica e releitura de alguns elementos filosofia hegeliana e os dois procuram oferecer uma alternativa para a filosofia marxista. A minha análise de Castoriadis acompanha a sua crítica ao “universalismo objetivista do marxismo” e a sua proposta de uma “ontologia histórica” para daí então comentar alguns possíveis problemas decorrentes do seu historicismo. Em seguida eu exploro as possíveis virtudes da filosofia de Castoriadis, apontadas por Richard Rorty, para em seguida mostrar como o próprio Rorty oferece uma possível saída aos impasses do historicismo de Castoriadis. (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 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)