From its first appearance in 1844, Max Stirner’s major work, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum ,[1] has produced little agreement among its many interpreters. The very first of these interpreters was Friedrich Engels, who suggested that Stirner’s doctrines would be quite compatible with Benthamite utilitarianism, which he then admired, and even saw in these doctrines the potential of benefiting communism.[2] Marx, in short order, corrected this optimistic deviation, and then—with a surely repentant Engels—set forth the orthodox gospel for all future (...) generations of communists: Stirner, or “Sankt Max,” was but the speculative spokesman for the petty bourgeois, a decadent Hegelian boasting over the unrestraint of his self inflated ego.[3] Sidney Hook echoed Marx when he condemned Stirner’s work as but the “social defense mechanism of a petty bourgeois soul.”[4] Others, unsatisfied with this “petty” status, elevate him to that of the Grand Bourgeois, or Fascist.[5] Still others, taking an opposite stance, see in Stirner the most articulate defender of individual liberty.[6] In between, he has been called a nihilist, an anarchist, an existentialist, a solipsist, an anti Benthamite, an intemperate capitalist, or—as we might now suspect—an anti capitalist.[7] At least two commentators, lost in the confusion, have managed to escape the need to classify Stirner within the ongoing political and ethical categories and simply declare him to be insane.[8] In short, the list of radically diverse interpretations.. (shrink)
Alexander Kojève linked two major events that occurred in October of 1806: the first political, Napoleon's victory at Jena; the second philosophical, Hegel's completion of The Phenomenology of Mind. Kojève held these events to be complementary, both completing the initial formation and expression of ‘modernity’. This thesis was accepted by Leo Strauss and later by Strauss' disciple Francis Fukayama. The latter's two works The End of History and The Last Man, both ‘neo-conservative’ in character, have exercised a powerful influence on (...) the policies of the United States Department of State. Although optimistic in regarding the global advance of democratic societies as the end of history, both Kojève and Fukayama nevertheless conclude that this advance will stop short of its proper end with the appearance of a morally vapid Nietzschean ‘Last Man’. This essay connects the birth of Stirner to the events of 1806; Stirner set his own ‘cause’ before all external ideals or romantic programs, such as a striving to be a Nietzschen Übermensch or joining a revolution of Marxian ‘Lumpen’. Following the signals of both Hegelianism and democratic politics, Stirner can be considered, and would be pleased to present himself, as the ‘Last Man’. (shrink)
Max Stirner (1806–1856) has been named as “The Last Hegelian,” which is usually taken to mean only that he was the final major figure among the so-called “Young Hegelians.” However, an argument can be made that he was not only the last in a historical sense, but that he was also the logical heir of Hegel’s philosophy. In short, Stirner concluded what Hegel had proposed as the “task” of philosophy: to supersede “fixed and determinate thoughts.” This lead Stirner to express (...) a distinctive form of egoism in which the indefinable individual, der Einziger, could neither be comprehended under any general idea, nor would need to act in accord with any ideals whatsoever. This set him in radical opposition to all of the other Young Hegelians, such as Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, or Bruno Bauer—all of whom sought to revise Hegel’s philosophy to accord with their own humanistic ideals. (shrink)
