Nietzsche versus Max Stirner

[Lutiferre]

Has anyone read Max Stirner, a predecessor of Nietzsche? What are your thoughts about him and his relationship to Nietzsche?

Many of Nietzsches ideas, like the eternal recurrence, were influenced by his reading of Friedrich Albert Lange's History of Materialism, which also contains reference to Stirner. Since we know he read this book, by extension we also know that he knew of Stirner.

After reading The Ego and It's Own, I have seen nearly all of Nietzsches eventual major themes and ideas contained in it in a basic form (genealogical analysis of morality, analysis of spirit which seems like the first chapter of Zarathustra, the socratic turn, beyond good and evil, psychological egosim/suspicion, will to power, etc)., to such an extent that I was baffled that Nietzsche never mentions Stirner. Plagiarism? Nietzsche not as original as he was thought to be?

Nietzsche has built many additional and indeed useful ideas onto the original Stirnerian base, but he seems to be just that: a developer of Stirners base views, who does go beyond Stirner into a more vitalistic (and arguably more useful) eugenical view than the pure individualism of Stirner.

This discounting of the pure egoism of Stirner also seems the reason why Nietzsche never mentions him - if he did so, it would be potentialy harmful and could compromise his own philosophical project which is precisely centered around transcending that solipsism and furthering greatness, in breeding the superior man, rather than just the "selfish" man.

[Psychonaut]

I've never read Stirner, but it's an interesting question that seems to pop up around influential philosophers from time to time. I would, however, be a bit inclined to think that Uncle Freddy might not've read Stirner, if only since he was never formally educated in Philosophy.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
Nietzsche not as original as he was thought to be?

There is a lot of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, I don’t know enough about philosophy in general to argue that Nietzsche was original in content but he was radical for his time.

[Lutiferre]

I've never read Stirner, but it's an interesting question that seems to pop up around influential philosophers from time to time. I would, however, be a bit inclined to think that Uncle Freddy might not've read Stirner, if only since he was never formally educated in Philosophy.
He read History of Materialism, in which Stirner is clearly mentioned. It has been documented that he recommended Stirner to several of his students and friends.

But the most compelling reason to think Nietzsche read Stirner and furthermore, was profoundly influenced by him, is simply to read the Ego and It's Own. The ideas in it are practically identical to so many of Nietzsche's themes that you would have thought Nietzsche had written the book, if it wasn't because it was written long before his time. And of course, Stirner has a more moderated temper.

But I don't see it as a point of criticism against Nietzsche, to the contrary, Nietzsche is still valuable as a thinker and did go beyond Stirner.

[Invictus_88]

I've studied Nietzsche in some depth at university, and I read Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" in preparation for my final year dissertation, and I'm not convinced by those who mention the word plagiarism in reference to the two philosophers.

There's a similarity, but it's a superficial one. At root, Stirner has a narrower foundation to his work, whereas Nietzsche's work is opposed to a much broader culture than that in Prussia, and this is reflected in the breadth of expression, as Nietzsche more obviously seeks to establish a broad system in his work, even a mythology - as one sees with TSZ.

Even describing the similarity as a mere 'family resemblance' pulls the two too closely together. It seems apparent in Nietzsche's work that he simply owed much more to Schopenhauer.

No cause that I can see for alternate theories, which is less fun than the possibility of plagiarism, but is much more plausible.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Invictus_88
There's a similarity, but it's a superficial one. At root, Stirner has a narrower foundation to his work, whereas Nietzsche's work is opposed to a much broader culture than that in Prussia, and this is reflected in the breadth of expression, as Nietzsche more obviously seeks to establish a broad system in his work, even a mythology - as one sees with TSZ.

It is interesting the degree to which Nietzsche spoke out against “fatherlandishness”, I believe for most of his life he was himself stateless. Yet, for me, he presents a fascinating model of the nationalist European, if you like, far removed from the political monstrosity of the EU and one grounded in the Germano-Roman roots of Western civilisation (though of course Nietzsche was a Hellenist and, surprisingly, knew little of the Germanic mythological corpus).

I think Nietzschean philosophy provides a perfect vector for European spiritualism, a humanism, opposed to what Campbell would have called the “Levantine” principle.

The more I study Nietzsche the more I feel I have found someone who thinks my way but far more developed than what I could aspire to.

[Invictus_88]

The more I study Nietzsche the more I feel I have found someone who thinks my way but far more developed than what I could aspire to.

He is certainly a philosopher of profound importance in western philosophy, having taken Kant and progressed that thinking into a chain of thought which is today - if anything - even more radical and relevant than it was in the late 1800s.

Nonetheless, it's important to be careful when reading his work. A lot of what he says at first looks as if it might be meant in earnest, when he is in fact just playing devil's advocate or setting up a target. Beyond Good and Evil is a good one though, much less obscure than TSZ - that's for sure!

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Invictus_88
Nonetheless, it's important to be careful when reading his work. A lot of what he says at first looks as if it might be meant in earnest, when he is in fact just playing devil's advocate or setting up a target.

Yep, you have to be on the ball to know when he is tongue in cheek.


Beyond Good and Evil is a good one though, much less obscure than TSZ - that's for sure!

I was told they are, more or less, the same. I haven’t read TSZ yet I’ve just finished BGE and will move onto it in due course.

[Invictus_88]

I was told they are, more or less, the same. I haven’t read TSZ yet I’ve just finished BGE and will move onto it in due course.

I find they're very different. They both have heavier bits and clearer bits, and there's certainly overlap in that BGE also have some more obscure sections, but overall BGE seemed to me to be much clearer and more explicit, whereas the narrative form of TSZ made the work more complex and symbolic, and the language is also more varied and less consistently strident in TSZ, which compels one to think more to tease out the ideas, rather than (I exaggerate, but there's truth in it!) just sit and be walloped with them.