On Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own"

Selected quotes, with remarks from Martin Huehne

About the title and this text

Accurate translation of a book title can be difficult. Byington himself admits that his translation of the title is not accurate and defends his choice with the claim that there is no accurate translation of the German title into English. I agree, and even though other options are closer to the literal meaning, "The Ego and His Own" does aptly capture the spirit of the book. The quoted parts of Byington's translation of the body text appear to be mostly accurate both literally and by meaning. Where occasionally the meaning is not clear, it is caused by a similar lack of clarity in Stirner's German original.

Conclusion

Max Stirner describes how things are or have developed without bothering to prove his thoughts beyond reference to sayings and work of others. These descriptions may be mostly agreeable, his conclusions and counterpoints of how things ought to be are mostly not.

It is irrelevant for Stirner for what reason individuals take whatever is within their power. He mentions pleasure and equivalent expressions but treats ownness as the ultimate goal, not pleasure, virtue or freedom. It appears consistent within his thoughts that Stirner does not support the no harm principle. This is an obvious reason for rejecting his version of anarchism.

Quotes from Original, translation (by Steven T. Byington [2]), and remarks (from Martin Huehne, if any)

1. "Das Wohlergehen (Hedone) der Epikureer ist dieselbe Lebensweisheit wie die der Stoiker, nur listiger, betrügerischer. Sie lehren nur ein anderes Verhalten gegen die Welt, ermahnen nur eine kluge Haltung gegen die Welt sich zu geben: die Welt muß betrogen werden, denn sie ist meine Feindin." ([1] Seite 10/11)

   
   

   "The comfort (hedone) of the Epicureans is the same practical philosophy the Stoics teach, only trickier, more deceitful. They teach only another behavior toward the world, exhort us only to take a shrewd attitude toward the world; the world must be deceived, for it is my enemy." [2]

   
   

   This appears to be an arbitrary misinterpretation of Epicurus' philosophy. Among the ancient Greeks, Epicurus was the most thorough in understanding the real world. There is no indication that he took the world as enemy to be cheated.

   
   

2. "In dem Maße als Ich Mir Freiheit erringe, schaffe Ich Mir neue Grenzen und neue Aufgaben; habe Ich die Eisenbahnen erfunden, so fühle Ich Mich wieder schwach, weil Ich noch nicht, dem Vogel gleich, die Lüfte durchsegeln kann, und habe Ich ein Problem, dessen Dunkelheit meinen Geist beängstigte, gelöst, so erwarten Mich schon unzählige andere, deren Rätselhaftigkeit meinen Fortschritt hemmt, meinen freien Blick verdüstert, die Schranken meiner Freiheit Mir schmerzlich fühlbar macht." ([1] Seite 82)

   
   

   "In the measure that I conquer freedom for myself I create for myself new bounds and new tasks: if I have invented railroads, I feel myself weak again because I cannot yet sail through the skies like the bird; and, if I have solved a problem whose obscurity disturbed my mind, at once there await me innumerable others, whose perplexities impede my progress, dim my free gaze, make the limits of my freedom painfully sensible to me." [2]

   
   

   On the one hand, freedom is a requirement to have good choices to pursue for maximization of pleasure. On the other hand, placing freedom above pleasure does not make sense for an Epicurean. The question, how far an Epicurean should go to defend freedom was my motivation to read Stirner's book because I expected an individualist anarchist to go very far in the defense of freedom. He might even see it as the end / highest good. However, the quoted part of the text implies that freedom is not suitable as the end. His reasoning is reverse to Plato's reasoning against pleasure: Freedom is not suitable because it has limits. So, it is not just me who thinks that Plato's reasoning with limits is arbitrary and makes no sense.

   
   

3. "Kann Ich denn einen Unsinn durch Reformieren in Sinn verwandeln, oder muß [Ich] ihn geradezu fallen lassen?" ([1] Seite 126)

   
   

   "Can I change a piece of nonsense into sense by reforming it, or must I drop it outright?" [2]

   
   

   This refers to "State and people", "the nobility, the clergy, the church, etc.", about anything an anarchist wants to get rid of.

   
   

4. "Wie weit der kritische Liberalismus die Heiligkeit der Güter ausdehnen würde, darüber hat er noch keinen Ausspruch getan und wähnt auch wohl, aller Heiligkeit abhold zu sein; allein da er gegen den Egoismus ankämpft, so muß er diesem Schranken setzen und darf den Unmenschen nicht über das Menschliche herfallen lassen. Seiner theoretischen Verachtung der "Masse" müßte, wenn er die Gewalt gewönne, eine praktische Zurückweisung entsprechen." ([1] Seite 132)

   
   

   "How far critical liberalism would extend, the sanctity of goods,--on this point it has not yet made any pronouncement, and doubtless fancies itself to be ill-disposed toward all sanctity; but, as it combats egoism, it must set limits to it, and must not let the un-man pounce on the human. To its theoretical contempt for the "masses" there must correspond a practical snub if it should get into power."

   
   

5. "Also was Du vermagst, ist dein Vermögen! Vermagst Du Tausenden Lust zu bereiten, so werden Tausende Dich dafür honorieren, es stände ja in deiner Gewalt, es zu unterlassen, daher müssen sie deine Tat erkaufen. Vermagst Du keinen für Dich einzunehmen, so magst Du eben verhungern." ([1] Seite 142)

   
   

   "Therefore, what you are competent for is your competence! If you are competent to furnish pleasure to thousands, then thousands will pay you an honorarium for it; for it would stand in your power to forbear doing it, hence they must purchase your deed. If you are not competent to captivate any one, you may simply starve."  [2]

   
   

   That Stirner's anarchism lets weak people die refutes the view that he propagates socialist anarchism.

   
   

6. "Ist Mir an deiner Person gelegen, so zahlst Du Mir schon mit deiner Existenz; ist s Mir nur um eine deiner Eigenschaften zu tun, so hat etwa deine Willfährigkeit oder dein Beistand einen Wert (Geldwert) für Mich, und Ich erkaufe ihn." ([1] Seite 143)

   
   

   "If your person is of consequence to me, you pay me with your very existence; if I am concerned only with one of your qualities, then your compliance, perhaps, or your aid, has a value (a money value) for me, and I purchase it." [2]

   
   

   The translation of "gelegen" as "of consequence" appears to be inaccurate. I would translate: "If your person is dear to me, ..."

   
   

7. "Weitling hat ein neues Zahlmittel erdacht, die Arbeit. Das wahre Zahlmittel bleibt aber, wie immer, das Vermögen. Mit dem, was Du "im Vermögen" hast, bezahlst Du. Darum denke auf die Vergrößerung deines Vermögens." ([1] Seite 143)

   
   

   "Weitling has thought out a new means of payment,--work. But the true means of payment remains, as always, competence. With what you have "within your competence" you pay. Therefore think on the enlargement of your competence."  [2]

   
   

8. "Man ist nicht wert zu haben, was man sich aus Schwachheit nehmen läßt; man ist's nicht wert, weil man's nicht fähig ist." ([1] Seite 144)

   
   

   "One is not worthy to have what one, through weakness, lets be taken from him; one is not worthy of it because one is not capable of it." [2]

   
   

   This statement of Stirner contradicts intuitive justice and is not compatible with the principle of not to harm each other.

   
   

9. "Was Jeder braucht, an dessen Herbeischaffung und Hervorbringung sollte sich auch Jeder beteiligen; es ist seine Sache, sein Eigentum, nicht Eigentum des zünftigen oder konzessionierten Meisters." ([1] Seite 149)

   
   

   "What every one requires, every one should also take a hand in procuring and producing; it is his affair, his property, not the property of the guildic or concessionary master." [2]

   
   

   This seems to contradict qualitative differentiation of work and would severely limit pleasure for most people and hamper progress.

   
   

10. "Allein man ist weder sich schuldig, etwas aus sich, noch Andern, etwas aus ihnen zu machen: denn man ist seinem und Anderer Wesen nichts schuldig." ([1] Seite 157)

    
    

    "But one owes it neither to himself to make anything out of himself, nor to others to make anything out of them; for one owes nothing to his essence and that of others."

    
    

11. "Wie die Religion und am entschiedensten das Christentum den Menschen mit der Forderung quälte, das Unnatürliche und Widersinnige zu realisieren, so ist es nur als die echte Konsequenz jener religiösen Überspanntheit und Überschwenglichkeit anzusehen, da endlich die Freiheit selbst, die absolute Freiheit zum Ideale erhoben wurde, und so der Unsinn des Unmöglichen grell zu Tage kommen mußte. Allerdings wird der Verein sowohl ein größeres Maß von Freiheit darbieten, als auch namentlich darum für "eine neue Freiheit" gehalten werden dürfen, weil man durch ihn allem dem Staats- und Gesellschaftsleben eigenen Zwange entgeht; aber der Unfreiheit und Unfreiwilligkeit wird er gleichwohl noch genug enthalten. Denn sein Zweck ist eben nicht die Freiheit, die er im Gegenteil der Eigenheit opfert, aber auch nur der Eigenheit. Auf diese bezogen ist der Unterschied zwischen Staat und Verein groß genug." ([1] Seite 168)

    
    

    "As religion, and most decidedly Christianity, tormented man with the demand to realize the unnatural and self-contradictory, so it is to be looked upon only as the true logical outcome of that religious overstraining and overwroughtness that finally liberty itself, absolute liberty, was exalted into an ideal, and thus the nonsense of the impossible had to come glaringly to the light.--The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to State and society life) admit of being considered as "a new liberty"; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and involuntariness. For its object is not this--liberty (which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only ownness. Referred to this, the difference between State and union is great enough." [2]

    
    

    Stirner's anarchism rejects any kind of state. Instead, individuals can voluntarily establish, join and leave unions at will.

    
    

12. "Indem der Kommunismus das Wohl Aller proklamiert, vernichtet er gerade das Wohlsein derer, welche seither von ihren Renten lebten und sich dabei wahrscheinlich wohler befanden, als bei der Aussicht auf die strengen Arbeitsstunden Weitlings." ([1] Seite 168)

    
    

    "Communism, in proclaiming the welfare of all, annuls outright the well-being of those who hitherto lived on their income from investments and apparently felt better in that than in the prospect of Weitling's strict hours of labor."

    
    

    Weitling described a communist society in the German original of his book "Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom" from 1842 (second edition 1848) [3]. At the time Stirner wrote his book, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had not yet published the Communist Manifesto (and apparently did not publish anything on the communist society in similar detail as Weitling). Therefore, Weitling was the best available reference for communism available to Stirner.

    
    

13. "Die Armen sind daran schuld, daß es Reiche gibt." ([1] Seite 172)

    
    

    "The poor are to blame for there being rich men." [2]

    
    

    This may be true if the poor are taken in the abstract across thousands of years: Each worker let the leader/owner/employer gradually accumulate more capital; the principle of inheritance then passed down increasing wealth and influence to the successors. However, the individual prehistoric worker was in no position to foresee the development. Later generations of workers were born into an existing system. Applying this aphorism to an individual poor is cynical and an endorsement of theft, which is not compatible with the principle of not to harm each other.

    
    

14. "Ein Mensch ist zu nichts "berufen" und hat keine "Aufgabe", keine "Bestimmung", so wenig als eine Pflanze oder ein Tier einen "Beruf" hat. Die Blume folgt nicht dem Berufe, sich zu vollenden, aber sie wendet alle ihre Kräfte auf, die Welt, so gut sie kann, zu genießen und zu verzehren, d. h. sie saugt so viel Säfte der Erde, so viel Luft des Äthers, so viel Licht der Sonne ein, als sie bekommen und beherbergen kann. Der Vogel lebt keinem Berufe nach, aber er gebraucht seine Kräfte so viel es geht: er hascht Käfer und singt nach Herzenslust." ([1] Seite 178)

    
    

    "A man is "called" to nothing, and has no "calling," no "destiny," as little as a plant or a beast has a "calling." The flower does not follow the calling to complete itself, but it spends all its forces to enjoy and consume the world as well as it can,--i. e. it sucks in as much of the juices of the earth, as much air of the ether, as much light of the sun, as it can get and lodge. The bird lives up to no calling, but it uses its forces as much as is practicable; it catches beetles and sings to its heart's delight. [2]

    
    

    There is a strong analogy with Epicurus' reference to animals in his justification of pleasure as the end. Stirner claims that even flowers enjoy the world, i.e. they experience pleasure. As of today's science, he assigns plants more ability than they actually have but nevertheless, it fits that analogy.

    
    

15. "Nicht in der Zukunft, ein Gegenstand der Sehnsucht, liegt der wahre Mensch, sondern daseiend und wirklich liegt er in der Gegenwart." ([1] Seite 179)

    
    

    "The true man does not lie in the future, an object of longing, but lies, existent and real, in the present." [2]

    
    

16. "Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit fallen immer zusammen. Man kann nichts, was man nicht tut, wie man nichts tut, was man nicht kann." ([1] Seite 180)

    
    

    "Possibility and reality always coincide. One can do nothing that one does not, as one does nothing that one cannot." [2]

    
    

    No! This is analogous to Hegel's absurd positivism, ignores that there is usually a multitude of choices within one's power, and appears to indicate hard determinism. Moreover, this appears to be a contradiction to the extreme individualism of Stirner.

    
    

17. "Ob Du mit dem Denken Dich des weiteren befassen willst, das kommt auf Dich an; nur wisse, daß, wenn Du es im Denken zu etwas Erheblichem bringen möchtest, viele und schwere Probleme zu lösen sind, ohne deren Überwindung Du nicht weit kommen kannst. Es existiert also keine Pflicht und kein Beruf für Dich, mit Gedanken (Ideen, Wahrheiten) Dich abzugeben, willst Du s aber, so wirst Du wohltun, das, was Anderer Kräfte in Erledigung dieser schwierigen Gegenstände schon gefördert haben, zu benutzen. ([1] Seite 191)

    
    

    "On the other hand, one can say thus: Whether you will further occupy yourself with thinking depends on you; only know that, if in your thinking you would like to make out anything worthy of notice, many hard problems are to be solved, without vanquishing which you cannot get far. There exists, therefore, no duty and no calling for you to meddle with thoughts (ideas, truths); but, if you will do so, you will do well to utilize what the forces of others have already achieved toward clearing up these difficult subjects." [2]

    
    

18. "Wir sind allzumal vollkommen! Denn wir sind jeden Augenblick Alles, was Wir sein können, und brauchen niemals mehr zu sein. Da kein Mangel an Uns haftet, so hat auch die Sünde keinen Sinn." ([1] Seite 197)

    
    

    "We are perfect altogether! For we are, every moment, all that we can be; and we never need be more. Since no defect cleaves to us, sin has no meaning either."

References

[1] Max Stirner: Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, Wigand Leipzig 1844, Quotations and page numbers in pdf file Der Einzige und sein Eigentum at Max Stirner Archiv Leipzig

[2] Max Stirner: The Ego and His Own, Translated by Steven T. Byington, Benj. R. Tucker; New York 1907; www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/34580/pg34580.txt

[3] Weitling: Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit, 1842, 1848