Does anyone have a good summary of the ego and his own?

I consider myself a pretty good reader but I couldn't get through The Ego and His Own. The prose is terrible and it seems very disjointed. Still I would like to understand Stirner's thought better does anyone know of a good article or essay explaining his ideas.

might is right


"Everything is a spook, but I'm not really telling you to abandon it because of that (except when it's convenient for me to win arguments on the internet), in fact I'm really not saying anything at all"

Someone hasn't read Stirner. It's his point exactly that right makes might, that rights as well as other spooks have power over people.

His main point is that we have no obligation to such ideas.

lift weights, drink lots of milk, don't feel obligated to act against your own self interest because some guy claims it's the right or moral thing to do. Or don't do anything of that, what do I care.

Dude, Spooks and milkmen, amirite?

How I landed up in jail because money is a spook.

exactly. if you have might sufficient to disregard those ideas, you have no obligation to refrain from exercising said might

basically, stirner claims no one should follow ideology out of a sense of obligation simply because that sense of obligation itself is the ruler's ego imposed onto yours. instead, you should take all decisions based on how they serve your needs and wants.

that's the gist of it, he also proposes a model of how society developed but its not dialectical enough to be taken seriously. what we can take out of stirner is that basically you shouldn't be "guilted" into anything, something that every part of the political compass can interpret in a way to suit itself. as a marxist, i believe that what stirner calls a "union of egotists" is in actuality a revolutionary class conscious proletariat, that doesn't revolt out of some sense of duty or "being in the right side of history", but rather out of the understanding that a socialist world is in their interest. Without a wholly class conscious proletariat (not just the vanguard party), a socialist state is bound to wither in corruption after the first generations of revolutionaries die out and are replaced by bureaucrats with a petit-bourg sentiment, exactly what happened in the ussr when mustache man replaced free-thinking bolsheviks with lumpen bureaucrats and gave the politburo autocratic powers. all this with an uneducated proletariat that didn't even understand the difference between socialism capitalism and feudalism.

an anarchist might say that even a state is a spook, which can be true on an individual level (if you're a bourg, it's against your interest to support a socialist cause. if you did so out of a sense of guilt, that would be a spook according to stirner). However, since the worker's state is meant to enforce the interests of the majority, i dont believe it can be considered a spook for anyone but the capitalists.

Sure, but if you are being acted against by might, you have no obligation to respect it either, as might is right entails

This is why he appeals to Holla Forums so much. The fear of the other imposing himself onto you. Rendering the whole world a hologram of conspiratorial power, the end conclusion of leftist philosophy.

Which means nothing in practice.

what do you mean?

that's my point. there are no rules, so no one is obligated to respect anyone or thing, which means you can resist the might of others if you wish, but if their might is stronger, they will just overpower you and have no obligation to refrain. that is just might is right, or rather might has right

Because it supposes a game theory model free from ideology, while those very needs and wants are determined by ideology in the first place.

but there's a difference between understand that "a society without exploitation would make me happy" and willing to risk your life towards that goal because it makes you happy, and between doing it out of some sense of obligation that has been nailed on you. of course it's based on ideology, everything is

That's not what right is tho. Right implies obligation. You're just describing might.

This is not at all what stirner means. What is in the best interest of an individual is subjective to them

The difference is that one ideology is approved and the other isn't. The calculating hedonist who envisions the world as a pacman game in which to collect happy points is unspooked, those who sacrifice themselves out of obligation are spooked.

An ideology consisting of epic emptiness is still an ideology, it's void is created, not an a-priori that only has to be realized.

That's the cop-out to fall back to.

ok put it this way: there is no right, just might

might is, so might does

Lies, utter lies. He is extremely readable for a 19th century German. You are just functionally illiterate.

the english translation is noted obfuscated and verbose

don't know man, sound's like he's spooked by happiness to me.

the difference is one analyzes the world based on materialistic needs, while the other on idealistic feelings. there is no such thing as a hedonist, since everyone looks for happiness in their lives


depends on your definition of happiness. I do believe everyone looks for fulfillment


that is close to what i define as happiness. i didn't mean some vague post-modern fantasy of happiness, but rather the fulfillment of enjoying your loved ones company, the fruit of your labor etc

So this is an ideology too, so I should not follow it but if I don't don't follow it, I will follow it.