Criticisms of the Stirnerian Technic

[Anonymous No.23129637]

I've recently delved into Stirner's philosophy with an analytical bent and discovered that he appears to be delineating, thus amplifying the importance of, the specific stage in Jungian individuation wherein the ego must break away from the collective cultural consciousness after its voluntarily having identified with a functional social persona.

It seems as though Stirner had stumbled into the necessity of breaking away from the collective, yet his philosophy does not necessarily advise in a positive sense how the ego, once free and morally isolated, is meant to continue developing social competence in relation to negotiations with the collective. The underlying architecture of his philosophy is that one should narcissistically withdraw mental investment from collective forces and entities, and instead slyly arm the ego with this surreptitiously acquired surplus of energy; as a means of self-defense against the will of others who are, it is presumed, doing the same thing, and with, it seems according to Stirner, purely malicious intent.

So, the questions are begged here ...

>Are the ego and the collective unconscious at war with one another? Jung believes that the unconscious is the source of all growth for the ego, and that the ego, if given its way, would stagnate itself into catastrophe ...
>How does the incorporation of unconscious content into the ego occur if the ego is given primacy over all other wills, even that of the personal unconscious itself?
>Ownness appears to define itself as the capacity and capability of an individual to govern their own unconscious desires and passions in logical isolation from the will of the collective ... yet is this not technically completely impossible as a consequence of the necessity of universal language as a means to self-actualization through the enantiadromia of projection into introjection, of primordial extraversion into introverted speech?

While he himself may not have been a narcissist, his philosophy is most certainly deeply narcissistic in its essential logical character. It procures for itself an endless array of variegated justifications for the deification of the ego over the unconscious, thus the Jungian Self — it seems to posit the ideal of an ego disassociated from social or religious moral convention, having instead allowed itself to become composed out of an amalgamation of activities of the personal unconscious. It is highly scientific, not philosophically.

[Anonymous No.23129654]

>>23129637
Now, my personal feeling is that his philosophy is deeply useful for the purpose of breaking away from collective forces, yet should come with the qualification that it does not describe in itself the end point or ultimate aim of the life processes of the ego.

For one thing, it does not detail how one should then re-incorperate the strengthened ego into the collective. Nor how to tell whether the ego is sufficiently armed for a given purpose. Is Nietzsche legitimately the only continuation of his philosophy?

[Anonymous No.23129764]

Oh, sorry, /lit/, I forgot it wasn't 2010 anymore.

Uhh ...

Is coffee good for you?

[Anonymous No.23129903]

>>23129764
>no titillating pic attached
For shame

You skipped over the parts where he says egoism doesn't preclude love, kindness etc, that it doesn't necessarily imply narcissism(in the sense you've interpreted it). He makes some concessions about how a Christian-turned-egoist will still be constrained by a religious framework in exercising their egoism, despite their best efforts at breaking free from Christianity. He cites Fauerbach as an example. It stands to reason that this could also be extended to the will of the collective still exerting an unconscious influence on the egoist. Tangentially related is some anecdote about poor people being incapable of being true egoists because they can't live in the present, being plagued by financial concerns.

Also the unique is only in conflict with the collective in so far as it's constrained by the latter. Otherwise the collective serves as a conduit for one's egoism. I suggest you read 'Stirner's Critics' where he expands on his main points.

Straight up skept over your third point cuz I don't know wtf enantiodromia is and I couldn't be bothered to look it up. Also haven't read Jung, read both works by Stirner but came away with an iffy understanding, got filtered by the part where he relates money to a maiden or sth.

[Anonymous No.23129996]

>>23129637
>2010 anymore

[Anonymous No.23130092]

>It seems as though Stirner had stumbled into the necessity of breaking away from the collective
retard, you got filtered

[Anonymous No.23130109]

You summarized him pretty well, though I dislike Freudian lingo. Actually there's good research potential in Stirner even now so if that's an area of interest for you OP you can pick a piece of media and apply Stirnerian analysis to it.

[Anonymous No.23130666]

>>23129637
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/for-ourselves-the-right-to-be-greedy-theses-on-the-practical-necessity-of-demanding-everything

>Fine. As it stands, this theorem is wholly acceptable. This is a classic statement of the egoistic postulate by the classic exponent of individualist anarchism and narrow egoism, and an early antagonist of Marx, Max Stirner. His latter-day followers, conscious and unconscious, include the “Objectivists,” the “classical liberals”, and the so-called “libertarian right” in general. The problem is that, in the further elaboration of his own book, Stirner’s own understanding of his own statement proved to be unequal to it. Stirner proved to be insensitive to what the concept of “self” — in order to be adequate to reality — must entail; what must be its content, if it is expanded (i.e., developed) beyond the level of its self-contradiction — namely all of the other selves which intermutually “constitute” or produce it; in short, society. This error in general must be attributed to undeveloped concrete self-knowledge; Stirner did not know himself, his own true identity. He did not know himself as society, or society as his real self.