In Ludwig Binswanger’s examination of Max Stirner’s philosophy, the critique centers on the ontological and anthropological aspects of Stirner’s ideas. Binswanger identifies the contradictions inherent in Stirner’s radical individualism, particularly the notion of a purely self-referential existence.

Ontological Impossibility of Pure Self-Reference:

Binswanger argues that the concept of a purely self-referential being is ontologically impossible. Human existence is fundamentally about unifying one’s singular being with a foundational being or ground. This unification is an essential aspect of self-being, as opposed to Stirner’s idea of absolute independence and self-sufficiency.

“Apart from the ontological impossibility of speaking of a purely self-referential, particular, or singular being, it can also be anthropologically demonstrated that the impossibility of a self-being that is not a being-to-the-ground. After all, self-being consists precisely in, and in nothing else but, the fact that ‘man’ somehow achieves or at least strives for the unification of his particular or ‘singular’ being with the ground of being”.

Contradiction in Self-Consumption:

Stirner’s philosophy, which posits that one must be able to consume or destroy anything to truly possess oneself, leads to a paradox. This self-consumption undermines the very basis of self-possession, as it requires a continuous process of self-negation.

“It is about what Hegel calls desire in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the lowest, most mobile stage of ‘self-consciousness.’ Stirner logically shakes the presupposition that he presupposes himself: ‘I consume myself, that means only that I am'”.

Social Interaction in Stirner’s Philosophy

Stirner’s view on societal interaction revolves around the preservation of individual uniqueness and freedom. He distinguishes between types of associations based on whether they limit one’s freedom or individuality.

Freedom vs. Individuality in Society:
Stirner acknowledges that while society may limit one’s freedom, a true union or association should not threaten individuality. If a society imposes limits on individuality, it becomes an oppressive power rather than a union of equals.

“It is a difference whether my freedom or my individuality is limited by a society. If it is only the former, it is a union, an agreement, an association; but if the individuality is threatened with extinction, it is a power over me, an unattainable power that I can admire, worship, respect, but not conquer and consume, and I cannot because I resign”

Relevance to Self-Possession:
Stirner’s notion that one can only truly be oneself by being able to conquer and consume everything, including societal constructs and other individuals, highlights the extreme individualism at the core of his philosophy. This view underscores the tension between individual autonomy and social interaction.

“I will not recognize or respect anything in you, neither the owner nor the rascal, nor even the human, but consume you”.

These critiques by Binswanger illustrate the fundamental philosophical and existential challenges posed by Stirner’s radical individualism, questioning the feasibility and logical consistency of a purely self-referential existence and the implications for social interactions.

The representation of Max Stirner’s ideas provided by Ludwig Binswanger in his critique does capture several essential elements of Stirner’s philosophy, but it’s essential to understand that Binswanger’s interpretation and critique come from his own existential and anthropological framework. Here are some core aspects of Stirner’s ideas and how they align with Binswanger’s representation:

Core Aspects of Max Stirner’s Philosophy:

1. Egoism and The Unique One (Der Einzige):

• Stirner advocates for radical egoism, where the individual is the central point of their own world. The “Unique One” is a concept where each individual is unique and should act according to their own will, free from societal constraints.

1. Rejection of Abstract Entities and Ideals:

• Stirner rejects all forms of higher ideals, abstractions, and societal norms that demand allegiance, such as religion, state, or humanity. These are seen as spooks or specters that control individuals and inhibit true freedom.

1. Self-Consumption and Self-Assertion:

• For Stirner, true self-possession involves self-consumption and the constant reassertion of one’s individuality. This means breaking free from all external influences and asserting one’s will.

1. Nihilism and Hedonism:

• Stirner’s philosophy has nihilistic elements, as it denies any inherent meaning in external authorities or ideals. It also contains hedonistic aspects, emphasizing personal enjoyment and freedom.

1. Association and Union:

• Stirner distinguishes between oppressive associations that limit individuality and voluntary unions that allow individuals to interact without sacrificing their uniqueness. He supports associations that individuals can freely enter and leave based on personal benefit.

Alignment with Binswanger’s Representation:

Ontological and Anthropological Critique:

• Binswanger’s critique focuses on the logical and existential challenges of Stirner’s radical individualism, highlighting the paradoxes in the concept of pure self-referential existence and the idea of self-consumption. He argues that true self-being requires unification with a foundational being, which Stirner’s philosophy neglects.

Binswanger: “The concept of a purely self-referential being is ontologically impossible. Human existence is about unifying one’s singular being with a foundational being.”

Stirner: This critique aligns with Stirner’s idea of radical self-assertion but highlights the philosophical tension in maintaining pure individuality without any relational grounding.

Social Interaction:

• Binswanger interprets Stirner’s view on social interaction as recognizing the need for associations that preserve individuality. Stirner’s ideal union does not impose limits on individuality but allows for free association and dissociation.

Binswanger: “If a society imposes limits on individuality, it becomes an oppressive power rather than a union of equals.”

Stirner: This accurately reflects Stirner’s distinction between oppressive societal structures and voluntary unions that respect individual autonomy.

Points of Divergence:

• Complexity and Nuance: While Binswanger captures key elements of Stirner’s thought, Stirner’s philosophy is more nuanced and complex, particularly regarding his critique of abstract entities and his concept of voluntary associations. Stirner’s work is often interpreted in various ways, and Binswanger’s critique might simplify some aspects for the sake of argument.
• Philosophical Framework: Binswanger’s existential and anthropological approach provides a specific lens through which he critiques Stirner. This framework might not fully encompass the breadth of Stirner’s radical individualism, which is deeply rooted in a different philosophical tradition.

Conclusion:

Binswanger’s representation is generally accurate in capturing the core ideas of Stirner’s philosophy, particularly his radical individualism, rejection of abstract entities, and emphasis on personal freedom. However, it is also a critique from a specific existential and anthropological perspective, which might not fully reflect the nuances of Stirner’s thought. For a comprehensive understanding, it is beneficial to read Stirner’s own works, particularly “The Ego and Its Own,” alongside critiques like Binswanger’s.