Add new comment

and I'm still not really sure of what the writer's motivations are. I'm pretty sure the writer of this critique is a rascist because they wrote this:

"He believes it is both true that caucasians are superior to other races and is rightly so. "

So the person who wrote the critique that stirner's beliefs are rascist, and that he's right in believing this? This would make the writer of this a rascist. I think this critique was written more out of resentment than a curiosity about max stirner or an honest refutation of what he claimed. I'm sure that a lot of anarchists during this time period were also rascist, and I don't care because I don't look at dead people who wrote books as having some sacred knowledge that needs to be transmitted to me. I also know that modern anarchists have a lot of short-sighted prejudice towards things that they don't fully understand. One time i was talking to an anarchist about stirner, then she said "i don't care about what dead white men had to say"...before invoking kropotkin in our conversation...

"In fact he’s just talking about Africa because and how Hegel did."

That's a lot of the point in stirner's writing, is that he's trying to debunk his long time philosophical teacher Hegel. He is using a Hegelian dialectical style, this is no secret. This is also an illuminating point when understanding stirner's "rascist prose". Having read the entire book it was mostly not about mongoloids and negroids etc.

I'm not sure as to why some anarchists get hung up in the idea that people have praised stirner's work overall, and harbor a resentment towards his body of ideas. Maybe because it's a refutation of righteous causes? When I read i generally do a combination of looking for gems for my own enjoyment or use, or I don't read it. I don't really care about how "right" an author is in what they say. I didn't agree with every single thing that stirner said in "the unique and its property". I didn't look at his writing about the different "races" as being divorced from whatever discussion they were having at the time.

One thing that I will say is that I don't completely agree with wolfi's analysis that stirner was not a philosopher. The text was written in a philosophical manner, and it came through stirner's philosophizing, so i consider him just as much of a philosopher as he was an anti-philosopher.