Talk:Philosophy of Max Stirner

Saul Newman
Saul Newman really does not belong in the enumeration of thinkers influenced by Stirner, especially not if one considers the difference to people such as Marx. Newman's engagement with Stirner is very direct and basically falls under secondary literature. There is no significant development of e.g. an original personal philosophy which could have been influenced by Stirner but Newman simply writes about Stirner. Apart from the qualitatively different relationship, Newman is simply not a thinker who is known for his own work as such but in this context is relevant because of his work about Stirner. However, that hardly qualifies him for being mentioned in the introductory paragraph (unless there was an additional sentence listing those who dominate the current debate on Stirner, such as Bernd Laska). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism
The section is generally flawed in that multiple parts are repeated, both the original text of the section and the quotations. In addition, I am reasonably sure that there is a mistake in the block quotation: "neither that is mind, nor this" surely should be "neither that is mine, nor this". Because I do not have access to the edition cited, I cannot say whether this is a correct citation of a flawed edition or the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reality of Spooks
The article claims that Stirner denies the reality of society, that he claims its not an actual entity. It says, "He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own)." This is not exactly true. What Stirner denies is the legitimacy of spooks, he denies that we owe these spooks any respect or submission, he does not however deny their existence and their ability to influence us. This misreading was precisely Marx's claim in The German Ideology, he claimed that Stirner saw only ghosts everywhere, unreal entities. That is not what Stirner claims at all however, he says somewhere that everywhere there are real spooks, they walk among us. Our projections are reified and have a very real existence, the priests and policemen of these spooks everywhere hold the Einzige in chains. Even before Der Einzige, in The False Principle of Our Education Stirner was out to explain how it is that these constructs exist as institutions and have a real influence on individuals. The church, the state apparatus, and even society all exist, the whole point is to make the individual aware of their baselessness and so overcome them. Individuals are indeed the reality of society, but the clarification is invoked only so that they can realize society can be overcome, not to assert that there is no such thing as society.

BEBAJ (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly indicate which English edition is used when mentioning page numbers in quotes
There have been three English editions with different page numberings: Tucker (1907), Martin (1963), and Leopold (1995). David Leopold changed the title His to Its. He accepted the Byington translation ("an heroic attempt to convey the readable yet idiosyncratic prose of Stirner's original") but "made a number of amendments, such as removing infelicities and archaisms, replacing the occasional missing sentence, and restoring some of the original paragraph and sections breaks." (p. xxxix)
 * 1st English edition: The Ego and His Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. Benjamin R. Tucker, pref. James L. Walker. New York, 1907. xx + 506 pp.
 * 2d English edition: The Ego and His Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. and pref. James J. Martin. New York: Libertarian Book Club 1963. xxii + 366 pp.
 * 3d English edition: The Ego and Its Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, ed., intro., annot. by David Leopold. Cambridge Un. Press 1995. xl + 324 + 62 (annot.) pp.

A table of page concordance is shown at Max Stirner The Ego and Its Own (LSR Project). The text of the whole book (1907 Tucker edition, off copyright) in one page allows immediate location of any quotation. Any quote can be easily located in this first edition. Once a quote is located, its original page number in the first edition (Tucker, 1907) is shown at The Ego and His Own. But this original 1907 page number cannot easily be correlated to the page number of the 1995 Leopold edition. So it is important to show if a page number is from the Tucker edition or the Leopold edition. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken link [1] - new source anyone?
statement:

>most notably Karl Marx (who was strongly opposed to Stirner's views) Omzizzle (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)