IS MAX STIRNER A MYSTIC? by Nowologist

Foto von Patrick Tomasso auf Unsplash

​Both Max Stirner and numerous mystics highlight the significance of radical individualism and self-autonomy. Mysticism advocates for the transcendence of created phenomena to attain divine unity with the self. On the contrary, Stirner's philosophy champions autonomy by pursuing freedom from the constraints of social and ideological regulations. Interestingly, many mystics also align with Stirner's views, advocating for the transcendence of not only societal norms but also religious structures. This raises a thought-provoking question: How could the mystics of the ages of antiquity have so much in common with the writings of a 19th century German philosopher?

​Firstly who exactly IS Max Stirner? Max Stirner, whose real name was Johann Kaspar Schmidt, was a German philosopher, writer, and intellectual figure in the mid-19th century. He is best known for his radical and controversial work titled "The Ego and Its Own" (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum), published in 1844. Stirner's philosophy is often associated with egoism, individualism, and a critique of traditional institutions and ideologies.

In order to delve into this, we first need to discuss Stirner's concept of the 'unique.' The unique is essentially the self, but the true self – a true self that is difficult to describe. However, I can confidently state that it does not refer to the psychosomatic complex. The psychosomatic complex is basically what you refer to commonly as "I" or your own experience. To understand this, Stirner introduces his concept of 'spooks,' which essentially means a ghost that haunts you. Stirner likens these abstract concepts to haunting spirits because they linger in people's minds and influence their thoughts and actions, often without individuals being fully aware of it. These abstract concepts establish themselves in one's mind and either unconsciously or consciously limit one's freedom these concepts are things such as right and wrong. For example, in most societies, individuals are encouraged to conform to a specific set of values, behaviors, or goals for the sake of the greater good or due to cultural pressure. Stirner would view this as a spook – something that isn't real but rather an abstract concept people pretend to be real.

This understanding is necessary to grasp Stirner's concept of the unique, which is essentially the true self without any labels attached to it, as those labels would be nothing more than spooks. Consequently, this true self is indescribable. As Stirner himself says, 'I, on my part, start from a presupposition in presupposing myself; but my presupposition does not struggle for its perfection like 'Man struggling for his perfection,' but only serves me to enjoy it and consume it. I consume my presupposition, and nothing else, and exist only in consuming it. But that presupposition is therefore not a presupposition at all: for, as I am the Unique, I know nothing of the duality of a presupposing and a presupposed ego (an 'incomplete' and a 'complete' ego or man). However, this, that I consume myself, means only that I am. I do not presuppose myself, because I am every moment just positing or creating myself, and I am only by being not presupposed but posited, and, again, posited only in the moment when I posit myself; that is, I am creator and creature in one." In this passage from Max Stirner's work, particularly from "The Ego and Its Own," he articulates a profound aspect of his philosophy regarding the nature of the individual and the concept of the "Unique." Stirner begins by acknowledging that, like all individuals, he begins his philosophical journey with a fundamental assumption or "presupposition." In this case, the presupposition is the existence of the self, the "I." But Stirner's "I" is not his master like it is for many people. Stirner has no desire to imrpove this "I" such as with self-improvement, but his only desire is to consume it in a way that reinforces his own Unique autonomy which only sees this "I" as a tool. So he therefore does not find use in dualities such as improved or unimproved complete or uncompelte he is only Unique.For Stirner he doesn't merely presuppose his self; he actively creates and redefines it in each moment, and with this true freedom the creation and the creator become the same.

Many people who have delved into mysticism should see the striking parallels by now. Firstly, the Vedantic tradition of Advaita Vedanta's concepts of Brahma and maya appear to be readily apparent in this comparison. To begin with, Advaita itself signifies nonduality, and I will elucidate how it aligns with the EXACT SAME attitude as Stirner conveys. In Advaita, there exists the concept of maya. Please note that I am providing a very concise description here, but essentially, Maya is the world of illusion, the realm of created things. It is maya that obstructs our perception of Brahma, which constitutes the actual reality.

So, what is Brahma? Brahma, much like the unique in Stirner's philosophy, it is beyond description, yet it represents the ultimate reality that is the self. To attain this state, various schools of Hinduism and mysticism exist, much like Stirner conveys the philosophy of the self but within his own context. However, in the broader context of Vedanta, achieving the nondual state wherein one resides in the bliss of the self and transcends maya necessitates moving beyond conceptual thinking. In Vedanta words prove inadequate in describing the self.

In traditions such as Daoism everything is the Dao. The goal of it is to become on with this Dao but also this is done by becoming as natural as possible. What this means can be explained in the words of Yang Zhu “ Allow the ear to hear what it likes, the eye to see what it likes, the nose to smell what it likes, the mouth to say what it likes,the body to enjoy the comforts it likes to have, and the mind to do what it likes.'' “ Now what the ear likes to hear is music, and
the prohibition of it is what I call obstruction to
the ear.
“ What the eye likes to look at is beauty ; and
its not being permitted to regard this beauty I
call obstruction of sight.
“ What the nose likes to smell is perfume ; and
its not being permitted to smell I call obstruction
to scent.
“What the mouth likes to talk about is right
and wrong; and if it is not permitted to speak I
call it obstruction of the understanding.
“The comforts the body enjoys to have are
rich food and fine clothing; and if it is not permitted, then I call that obstruction of the senses
of the body.
“ What the mind likes is to be at peace ; and
its not being permitted rest I call obstruction of
the mind’s nature.
“All these obstructions are a source of the
most painful vexation. 

Yang Zhu was a Chinese philosopher during the Warring States period in the 4th century BCE. A key figure in Yangism which is said by some to be a more ancient branch of egoism and hedonism, he promoted individualism and self-preservation, advocating for the pursuit of personal happiness and pleasure while rejecting altruism and excessive societal involvement. Yang Zhu's philosophy challenged Confucian ethics and emphasized self-interest above all else.

Many other Daoists also reject traditions such as Confucianism due to their radical stance on the need to transcend societal regulations and embrace one's natural self. An example of this is portrayed by Zhuangzi who like Yang Zhu is also a warring states period philosopher, who himself would also not be well-received by moralists. His philosophy encourages individuals to live in harmony with the Dao by embracing change, simplicity, and the natural flow of life. Zhuangzi's work has had a profound and enduring influence on Daoist thought and Chinese philosophy as a whole. He exposes the less talked about yet important side of his philosophy related to egoism in the tales of Robber Zhi. Robber Zhi, as a character, was created to expose the false sincerities in Confucian morality, much like how Stirner is a character crafted for a similar purpose because often, you need the villain of the story to present the hard truths.

Confucianism mainly posits that we should play our social roles, and these social roles define us. This perspective contrasts with the Daoist view, as all these rules and regulations can hinder us from our natural states. In the book "Zhuangzi", the conflict between Robber Zhi and Confucius unfolds. This is significant because Robber Zhi is a criminal and a cannibal whereas Confucius is a staunch moralist and Zhuangzi is clearly favouring Robber Zhi over Confucius in the story. Here's a brief summary. One day, while traveling, Confucius came across Robber Zhi's home. Robber Zhi welcomed Confucius and treated him to a lavish feast. During the meal, Robber Zhi began to question Confucius about his teachings on morality, ethics, and social norms.

Confucius shared his views on virtues, rituals, and social order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to traditional norms for the well-being of society. However, Robber Zhi challenged Confucius' teachings, arguing that they were based on arbitrary human conventions rather than absolute truths.

As the conversation continued, Robber Zhi became increasingly critical of Confucius' ideas, dismissing them as mere superficialities that didn't resonate with the true essence of life. Confucius is absolutely obsessed with the contradiction between Robber Zhi's name and his actual character, unable to see that the name holds no significance at all. Robber Zhi concluded that Confucius' teachings were limited in their understanding and failed to grasp the deeper realities of existence. 

I believe this story highlights the fact that these mystic traditions are about true freedom. Even morality must be thrown away in order to be one with the Dao. In order to fully understand this and see how these philosophies relate so deeply Laozi's Dao De Jing can help us. Lao Zi is definitely the undisputed most prominent figure in Daoism he is even named as one of the three pure one's in Daoism who are the highest gods and represent pure manifestations of the Dao that all living beings come from and also represent the aspects of divinity living in all people. A verse from the Dao De Jing on morality states 

"The heavens and the earth are not partial to
institutionalized morality.

They take things (wanwu) and treat them all as
straw dogs.

Sages too are not partial to institutionalized
morality.
They treat the common people as straw dogs."

The first line says clearly that the heavens and the earth which represent nature does not adhere to morality. Nature does not operate with favouritism, discrimination or on any moral principles at all they take things "wanwu" as straw dogs. Wanwu much like Maya refers to created things in the world and it is said that nature treats these as straw dogs. In ancient China, straw dogs were used as ritual objects, but once the rituals were over, they were discarded and no longer held any special value. So Laozi is saying that everything is treated like this by nature and even sages which in the Daoist context means wise individuals should be the same. Therefore a wise person like the heavens and earth treat all things as straw dogs even morality.

Now we get to the more controversial side, which is Christian mysticism, and I think the best author to highlight the similarities between Stirner and mysticism is Marguerite Porete. Porete is a lot like the Daoists and Hindus in her view: everything is God, and God is so indescribable that people can only attempt to describe Him but will fail every time. Although she sometimes emphasizes that talking about it, even though it cannot be described, can still help people make sense of what she means when she says 'God.'

In the theology of Porete, there is God's will, and then there is the will of the individual. However, people can 'join' in on the will of God, who is the ultimate reality. This involves giving up your will to God. The main reason why she posits that one should give up their will is precisely the same critique that Stirner has about sacredness and spooks. She gives up her "I" as being herself because she no longer cares for it but only herself who is God. Porete does not believe that any book or teaching of this world can describe God, but what she does is give certain tips and methods to achieve this state, which are progressive but involve throwing away morality and reason altogether.

Stirner says, 'Yes, adoring! The hot press of men would rather be doubled than alone, being dissatisfied with themselves when in their natural isolation. They seek out a spiritual man for their second self. This crowd is satisfied with the work of the genius, and their disunion is complete.' Porete makes the exact same complaint and says she prefers to be alone in God as one, not two things but one.

The first line suggests that many people prefer to have a sense of identity or purpose that comes from external sources or relationships in this example spiritual teachers. The satisfaction that people will gain in these types of relationships will be only temporarily fulfilling but ultimately lead to disconnection with oneself as you are taking up an authority figure.

Porete on this subject says. "I have told you before, and yet again I tell
you that every teacher of natural wisdom, every teacher of book-learning, everyone who persists
in loving his obedience to the Virtues does not and will not understand this (book) as it should be
understood." further underscoring the value of freeing oneself from these abstract concepts which limit our freedom.


The Unique, The Dao, Brahma, God, spooks, maya, wanwu. All of these are not concepts but observations made by people who are truly free and they have just been conveyed in different contexts from people from different times and backgrounds. This "art of freedom" can be conveyed in all contexts both theistic and atheistic can produce the same outcome. 

Porete: I am God, says Love, for Love is God, and God is Love, and this Soul is God through
its condition of Love, and I am God through my divine nature, and this Soul is God by Love’s
just law. So that this my precious beloved is taught and guided by me, without herself for she
has been changed into me. And this is the outcome, says Love, of being nourished by me.

---

Short Bio: Gibbe x is a content creator from South Africa with a keen interest in philosophies such as Max Stirner's.  who has also created a video essay that explores the connections between Stirner's ideas and Eastern as well as mystic philosophy.
​Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Nowologist