Here is a list of page references for things I have said in the video. References are to "The Ego and His Own", Byington translation, 2014 Verso books edition ("Radical Thinkers" series). 7:44 - 93 9:43 - 93 9:55 - 97 10:24 - 100, 243 12:00 - 244 13:20 - 105, 244 14:35 - 105, 252 16:03 - 111, 246 18:35 - 107 19:14 - 232 20:27 - 112 21:13 - 108 21:50 - 113 21:57 - 109 22:18 - 240 22:56 - 234 23:31 - 233 23:56 - 113 25:33 - 231 25:39 - 239 25:58 - 234 26:04 - 240, 242 27:06 - 273 29:40 - 235 31:46 - 182 32:24 - 180 34:02 - 180 34:58 - 200 35:17 - 181 36:45 - 165 40:27 - 273 40:55 - 274 42:02 - 277 43:16 - 295 45:16 - 342
@jackri7676
4 жыл бұрын
I would love to see more content on Max Stirner or egoism as I thoroughly enjoyed your two videos on him!
@dems42blubb
Жыл бұрын
You British ignorant, how can i reasonable lookup the pages if i read it in the german original! This is just a youtube comment, please do not worry, great video! Lets see what the algorithm makes of this one ;D
@joym3357
4 жыл бұрын
“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.” - Stirner’s Critics
@Trynottoblink
4 жыл бұрын
Again, by far the best philosophy channel on KZitem.
@MajestyofReason
4 жыл бұрын
Kane B is by far the #1 philosophy channel. I'm gunnin' for #2, tho ;)
@luyombojonathan6688
7 ай бұрын
I feel blissful seeing you here !!! Cheers
@user-bo1hj1rx3s
3 жыл бұрын
“When the person you love becomes terribly ill that they stop providing you with any benefits anymore, you should simply replace them with somebody else.” WTF LMAO 😂 Anyway, nice video 👍
@dell3502
4 жыл бұрын
It's amazing what you can learn from two long videos.
@actualideas8078
3 жыл бұрын
F-- school n--a I’m a be on youtube
@ripyungbruh8157
3 жыл бұрын
@@actualideas8078 no bap
@williamxb
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for these videos. I have read the Ego and His Own myself, but just watched these to gain a better understanding of absolute Anarchist and Egoist thought from none other than the Godfather of it all, distilled wondrously into two concise yet informative videos. What I must say is Max Stirner, has followers and ideas are the exact opposite of my own beliefs, and while I essentially disagree with almost everything he says, his ideas are interesting nevertheless. It's important for us to always try and understand "the other side", and not block them out like deaf little children.
@ericvulgate
2 жыл бұрын
Ow my safe space!
@theforcewithin369
2 жыл бұрын
"Stop thinking and end your problems" stop reificating
@brendanfay5140
2 жыл бұрын
this guy sounds so cool lol
@ericvulgate
Жыл бұрын
Many modern socialists skip over our proposed ragamuffin status, differentiating 'personal property' and 'the means if production'. Is one or the other version being dishonest?
@jacklehobofurtif4414
6 ай бұрын
Comment avoir la traduction en Français. .??? French .
@dell3502
4 жыл бұрын
Put can't a group of Egoists decide to run a revolution against the state then if won go off on their own? As in don't implement a new state...
@ivan55599
3 жыл бұрын
That wouldn't be "stirnerian" idea, because revolutionists would then need a proper cause to fight for, therefore they are fighting for a "spook" (even if it would fight for their cause). All spooks, authority etc. must be denied.
@dell3502
3 жыл бұрын
@@ivan55599 but isn't the union of Egoist fighting for a cause?
@John-ir4id
2 жыл бұрын
@@dell3502 in a sense. They're fighting for a release from all sacred - read: mandatory - causes in order to effect full freedom for and from their previous selves and society.
@ericvulgate
2 жыл бұрын
It's unnecessary. We already have autonomy, we were born with it. It's not something a state can grant us.
@John-ir4id
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericvulgate I would argue that it's something that the state takes away from each of us.
@howardpope3932
4 жыл бұрын
A very fascinating video. Stirner is one of my favorite philosophers. But the correct pronunciation is ´Shtyrner´. In German "St" is pronounced like "Sht", except in some areas of northern Germany.
@brendanfay5140
2 жыл бұрын
*sterner*
@howardpope3932
2 жыл бұрын
@@brendanfay5140 Ha! Ha! Ha! No, the name doesn´t derive from the English ´stern´ but from the German ´Stirn´ (German for ´forehead´). Stirner got this nickname because he had a high and broad forehead.
@Liliquan
4 ай бұрын
The correct pronunciation in ENGLISH is the pronunciation that conforms to ENGLISH phonetics NOT GERMAN phonetics.
@howardpope3932
4 ай бұрын
But I was talking about the German pronunciation which is in my opinion the only correct pronunciation since Max Stirner was German, and "Stirn" (forehead) is a German word. Imagine, Germans would pronounce the names "Hume", "Locke" or "Smith" the German way. Wouldn´t that sound terrible in your ears?
@occonnerwilderness8923
3 жыл бұрын
Proudhon talk mainly about land because its the most important type of property, what would you do with tools or machines without land to work on, he didn’t see private tools or houses as a danger to society like private monopolize land, he does want personal property with is a reasonable amount of land that you use and pay rent on to society
@avaevathornton9851
4 жыл бұрын
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not sure how ownness entails the collapse of the state, or necessarily many other specific institutions. I get that if ownness became widely accepted, we wouldn't be able to regard obeying the law as a categorical obligation, but there's also no obligation to oppose the state, or even to refrain from supporting the state if you judge that that's what's best for you. It seems to me that if ownness became mainstream, there would be some people who opposed the state because they felt that was best for them and some people who supported the state because they felt that was best for them, and the state would either disintegrate or survive depending of how many people fell into each group and how effective they were at imposing their will.
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
I share your concern on this point, though I think it should be stated a bit more carefully. What is meant by "supporting" the state? At most, the egoist might say that the state is doing particular things that are useful to her; but she would never recognize the state as having any authority over her, and even if, at the present time, none of the actions of the state are interfering with her interests, that can always change. So I do think Stirner's position entails that the state, no matter what exact form it takes, is an enemy. However, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's far less obvious that a world of egoists would be a world without a state. Losing its political authority doesn't entail losing its power to enforce its commands.
@tonylawson2222
3 жыл бұрын
Stirner *isn't trying to abolish* the State, is the thing. He's trying to describe reality, and provide a framework with which to view it. Egoism isn't economic philosophy, it isn't obsessed with the material like capitalist or socialist philosophies. Egoism doesn't propose *any* "ought."
@definitivelylostcause
3 жыл бұрын
@@tonylawson2222 I believe Kane is more or less trying to propose how Stirner's philosophy could be applied *in* anarchist philosophy. Or at least mentioning its relevance to individual anarchists.
@themushroom2130
3 жыл бұрын
@@definitivelylostcause yes. tucker also endorsed egoism and he was also an anarchist.
@toolbox6228
Жыл бұрын
I think that ownness interferes with the state and it's position of the sovereign and therefore it's position of absolute authority.
@maxg971
5 ай бұрын
23:03 haha marx just stole that apparently
@ilyasmoulayramdanemoulat1624
4 жыл бұрын
Im unique as you are unique
@demiwalsh3895
4 жыл бұрын
big like and a new subscriber!
@prenuptials5925
4 жыл бұрын
So what exactly prompted you videos on Stirner? You've rarely talked about individual philosophers, let alone modern era "continental" ones
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
Cole persuaded me to read Stirner. As for why I made these videos, I often create videos because writing the script helps me to learn the material. Stirner's book is wonderful, and full of interesting stuff, but its structure is seriously flawed in my opinion. The main problem is that it's organized around an unsupported psychological and historical theory - of a sort which, to be fair, I think is fairly typical of philosophy of that period - with the result that the shitty ideas seem to be central, while the interesting arguments are rather poorly presented. Stirner continually raises important points, then drops them, only to revisit them at seemingly random points later. For example, there is a section on political liberalism, but much of the critique of liberalism occurs over 100 pages later. So these videos came out of my attempt to organize the interesting parts of Stirner in a more comprehensible way, partly just for my own benefit.
@wintherr3527
2 жыл бұрын
@@KaneB partly agree with you, love me some "mad Max" but would really like someone to write a clear, straightforward modern presentation of his ideas, his style could get ennervating and extremely repetitive here and there
@wmpx34
2 ай бұрын
I love how you wax eloquently about abstract and difficult topics for close to an hour, then abruptly end it by saying, “Okay, that’s it! Goodbye.” 😂 The juxtaposition is great. Stirner’s ideas are interesting. I had never really given anarchy much thought because I couldn’t imagine our species surviving in such a reality. But the idea of insurrection rather than revolution is something I hadn’t considered. Since the egoist is only concerned about their own well-being (and not some noble cause requiring self-sacrifice), it’s easy for them to go along with the status quo and not make any waves, if doing so is deemed to lead to the best personal outcome for the egoist-even if it results in negative outcomes for large numbers of other people.
@Justjoey17
Жыл бұрын
No one is “lucky” to be born to their own parents. That individual could only have resulted from the combination of their parents dna
@Firmus777
9 ай бұрын
I'm not an anarchist by any means, but I appreciate this video as a good overview of Stirner's thought.
@isaacanderson8231
4 жыл бұрын
Can you start a series on biology and the classification of life similar to AronRA?
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
I do already have a lot of videos on philosophy of biology, including videos that deal specifically with classification: The species problem 1 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/ka-Br4mtjqKmd4o 2 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/l6NsvKOemp9-g2k Biological individuality 1 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/maaQmJeQnYdyZqQ 2 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/2WaBtWaMfZeHfoo Natural kinds kzitem.info/news/bejne/o4-ZzIR3r4ybg3o Race 1 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/2qiqnHyMa2SLZpg 2 - kzitem.info/news/bejne/rYVu2KmijqFegG0
@urbanwinterhound8863
2 жыл бұрын
Im not sure i totally agree when he gets to property but i really like his philosophy
@occonnerwilderness8923
3 жыл бұрын
Proudhon recommended renting property from the society
@AndySomething
3 жыл бұрын
Both of your videos on Stirner were fantastic. Thank you for making them! ❤️ Will definitely be sharing them with others.
@genkiferal7178
3 жыл бұрын
Why fight in wars to defend a country where you really don't own your own land? If 2/3rds of your annual property taxes go to pay for someone else's kids to go to school and if you don't pay, your land is taken away - why be loyal to such a system? Some of those neighbors may drive 2015 vehicles and you may drive a 1990 vehicle, but your house may still be taken away. Oh, society: my mental space and my time belong to me and I don't have to share it.
@myusername0wns
3 жыл бұрын
There is no reason to be loyal to such a system. It's a utopian fantasy and the people who dream up such things don't consider that people could be discontent in their ideal society. Either that or they intend to just force you to do what they want.
@ripyungbruh8157
3 жыл бұрын
Loyalty is a spook
@ericvulgate
2 жыл бұрын
Society doesn't educate children to be nice to children, we do it bc in theory a more educated society is better for all of us.
@jacklehobofurtif4414
Жыл бұрын
LOUIS FERDINAND CELINE .....LIRE ''. MORT A CREDIT. et VOYAGE AU BOUT DE LA NUIT. '' .LUCIDE ET CLAIRVOYANT. I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
@tilllemaignan-durand9375
Жыл бұрын
Amazing and well explained
@pivs
2 жыл бұрын
8:26
@A_doe_wasting_her_life
2 жыл бұрын
The egoist union you describe is absolutely terrifying. I cannot imagine having my partner see me as no more than an object for his own amusement.
@nowhereman6019
2 жыл бұрын
Well Stirner's real life marriage was miserable.
@A_doe_wasting_her_life
2 жыл бұрын
@@nowhereman6019 makes sense
@28nihilist
2 жыл бұрын
Wah
@John-ir4id
2 жыл бұрын
But, that's just it. Whatever fanciful language we choose to use, we are all in a union of egoists, our relationships to one another nothing more and nothing less than titles and an exchange - material, physical, psychological - between people. Here's an experiment: Think of someone in your life that you love and care for or despise - a parent, a lover, a marital partner, a sibling, a neighbor, a co-worker, a boss... Now, think of all that person is to you and all that person does for you or against you and ask yourself: "If they stopped doing the things they do for me or against me - would they still be that thing to me? Would I still choose to see them as someone I love and care for or despise?" The answer is probably no. The truth, as I see it, is that we are all who and what we are to each other because of what we do with and to, for and against one another, that is all. Everything else comes after.
@sarah07290
Жыл бұрын
@@John-ir4idvery well put!
@paulalandhart1914
4 жыл бұрын
What would Stirner say about people who can't (for various reasons, like trauma or because they are disabled) assert a sense of individuality? Also, he assumes that the strongest people would be the ones able to defend their ownership? Survival of the strongest?Also, he is assuming we can control our instincts and passions (does he explain how?), and what if egoism is one of those? What is his opinion about murder? He assumes we can find our purpose, but how?
@tonylawson2222
3 жыл бұрын
This isn't a direct answer, but maybe it will help: Stirner rejects the concept of "should" and "ought." You can assume from there.
@sulemanahmad7379
3 жыл бұрын
Weak must perish!
@myusername0wns
3 жыл бұрын
"he assumes that the strongest people would be the ones able to defend their ownership?" As opposed to who? Lol
@andrewgreen5574
3 жыл бұрын
I would think that Stirner would say that people would feel compelled to help based on psychological egoism. Feelings of empathy exist, and though it may not be altruistic would bring pain to one's own. There's a quote where he references concepts like love and pain as motivational factors for people's actions. As far as murder goes, well he doesn't limit himself to not being able to perform the act since that limits one to a moral code. However, he does reference the consequences of actions going against an individual's self-interest. If I murder Joe, Joe's friends and loved ones may murder me or my loved ones through retaliation. This plays pretty well into reciprocal altruism and game theory, tbh.
@andrewgreen5574
3 жыл бұрын
Stirner proposes you give into your passions, and that's why the ideology is very closely related to hedonism. As far as "finding purpose", I think he would refer to this a spook that controls you. His main premise is about finding yourself by chucking all the cultural and social dogmas, hence he says that the creative nothing can't be described and refers to individuals as being defined by their unique. "I am owner of my might, and I am so when I now myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: All things are nothing to me." The book is actually supposed to be, "The Unique One and It's Property (or Own)". The title was actually mistranslated.
@drachnae
4 жыл бұрын
I’m rather confused by your claim that the “anti-statist” definition of anarchism is the more broad one. In my view, it is the more narrow. One thing linking all anarchists is the rejection of unjust hierarchies; the disagreement among them is about which hierarchies are unjust. This is the basis for most anarchists’ rejection of the state: it is an unjust hierarchy.
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
First, I'm not sure I agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust. Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is, as you note, plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on. Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
@drachnae
4 жыл бұрын
Kane B These are all very good points. “Unjust” was a poor choice of words on my part - perhaps I should have said “coercive”. (Although, even then, you’re right that it would not include all anarchists.)
@elchingon12346
4 жыл бұрын
I'm only about 16 min in and so far this is excellent, my nitpick comes from the very beginning of the video where you're laying the framework for Anarchism. I wouldn't equate the most common definition of anarchism with the most general. Traditionally anarchism arrives at a rejection of the state from a rejection of unjust hierarchies; I feel it would be more efficient to say that anarchists reject unjust hierarchies generally than just the state.
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
I think "rejection of unjust hierarchies" is an extremely misleading definition - especially in the context of Stirner. As I said in response to another commenter who made the same point as you: First, I don't agree with the claim that all anarchists reject "unjust hierarchies". I mean, you can certainly define "anarchism" that way if you want, but that definition will entail that many people who are standardly classed as anarchists will turn out not to be anarchists. Stirner isn't an anarchist on that definition, nor are many of those he influenced such as Wolfi Landstreicher or the "For Ourselves" group, since they don't think that anything is just or unjust. Second, even among anarchists who do reject unjust hierarchies, there is plenty of disagreement about exactly which hierarchies are unjust - but one of the things that they all agree is an unjust hierarchy is the state. Rejection of the state is one of the few claims that all people who are standardly classed as anarchists agree on. Could there be an anarchist who does not reject the state? There are many people who take themselves to reject unjust hierarchies, but who think that the state can be justified. Indeed, the justification of the state has long been one of the central projects in political philosophy. Would you say that John Rawls, for example, is an anarchist? That would strike me as a very odd usage of the term!
@themushroom2130
3 жыл бұрын
@@KaneB you could better define anarchy as a rejection of *all* hierarchies. unjust hierarchy is a chomskyian concept and is very ignorant about anarchist history. better to say " rejection of authority and command" tbh
@ericvulgate
2 жыл бұрын
The state, by existing, is inherently an unjust heirarchy.
@ASH-cn7qs
3 жыл бұрын
I have recently read minarchist ”manifesto” Utopia, state and anarchy by Robert Nozick and its critique by Rotbard in an article from 1977 and also Rothabrds short essay called: the anathomy of the state. It is like in many parts has Stirner’s ghost talked through Nozick and Rothbard (with some small modifications), which is amazing. I would have liked if we could some day hash these connections out together. And in summary, I think in most ways Stirner is founder of the anarcho-capitalism (albeit some differences in details).
@misha6807
3 жыл бұрын
no. stirner is opposed to capitalism :)
@toolbox6228
Жыл бұрын
Stirner is completely anti-capitalist.
@sarah07290
Жыл бұрын
Definitely an interesting way of looking at it, but as others have pointed out Stirner himself was opposed to capitalism and would've been very against anarcho-capitalism as a concept. However, I definitely believe he may have played a hand in inspiring the thinkers behind anarcho-capitalism.
@insulinpet2390
4 жыл бұрын
That girl has pulled the wool over your eyes and is now steering your intellectual endeavors
@insulinpet2390
4 жыл бұрын
"Masculine conformity"
@KaneB
4 жыл бұрын
Not sure what you're talking about. In what way exactly has the wool been pulled over my eyes?
@alesscif
4 жыл бұрын
insulin pet
@prenuptials5925
4 жыл бұрын
I hope that's not the case, cause I still think she severely misunderstands anarchism. Kane's an independent thinker my guy. If she changes his mind I'm more sure than not it's because she's convinced him through argument to do so.
@insulinpet2390
4 жыл бұрын
@@prenuptials5925 no intention on being racist but y r u watching this shit?
@fakkelplemp
Жыл бұрын
sad to hear you conflate anarchism with Anti-authoritarianism, why did you not stick to the litteral meaning of anarctist 'against hierarchie'? Which can result in being against government but is not the primary goal
Пікірлер: 99