Talk:The Ego and Its Own

message: "its", surely?, not "Its"? -- Zoe
No, it should be capitalised.
In addition to the rather uninformative above: Stirner uses capitalization as a specific and central stylistic device. Although nouns are capitalized in German, pronouns are normally not, Stirner does this to emphasize the specific manner in which he uses them (the gender of the pronoun is an entirely different problem, as already the title of the book is male in German).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.227 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I've just overhauled the spelling, grammar, and typography of this article, but there's one issue that I can't resolve, as I don't have the book.  In the quotation that ends the first section of the article there's an asterisk which doesn't seem to serve any purpose; is it there in error, or is there a reason (which should therefore be explained)?  Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk 

message: The text provided about the misinterpretations of david leopold in the Max Stirner article have been moved here due to the fact that they are mainly relevant to readers of the Cambridge edition, and are more a comment on one individual's misinterpretation of Stirner's thought than Stirner's thought in general.--Itafroma 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: text on  [[Cambridge University]] Press edition moved here

message: The article says that David Leopold's introduction is overall pessimistic. Pessimism means that this is the worst of all possible worlds. Is that what David Leopold claims in his introduction?Lestrade 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin word pessimus means "worst." Unless we want to glorify in ambiguity and speak to each other in code and personal languages, we should use words according to their conventionally agreed-upon meaning. "Negative" and "positive" are also unclear words. They each have several meanings that vary according to the context in which they are used. Negative could mean "denied," "refused," "prohibited," "vetoed," "opposed," "contradicted," "disproved," "counteracted," "neutralized," "disavowed," "disclaimed," "refuted," "repealed," "revoked," "belied," "repudiated," "dissented," "contravened," "annulled," "invalidated," "absent," "subtracted," "reversed," "bad," "excluded," and other predicates.Lestrade 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention was not "to Glorify in ambiguity", speak in codes, or use personal languages. I was just using the word as i understand it to be used. Maybe i used the word inaccurately, but this article and the Max Stirner article need to be improved. The old wording was "bleak and uncompromisiing", and as i said i have'nt read his intro, so if you could edit in a more aprapprate term it would be helpful.Itafroma 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Leopold's Pessimism

message: Prior to collective editing, a longer version of this critique of Leopold's introduction (now pared down and included on this page) was indeed sent to him, and he read it and replied.
I'm glad to see that it wasn't entirely eliminated from the Wiki version of reality (I think it disappeared and re-appeared).
I don't think that this passage constitutes "original research" as it simply presents direct quotations from two published sources (viz., Leopold's text and Stirner's text) --at any rate, there's nothing original enough about such a contrast between quotations to disqualify it from the wiki.
:The opinions expressed in the passage are not.  Cributed to any reliable source. That it "presents direct quotations from two published sources" is a classic case of unpublished synthesis. From WP:SYN:
::Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.
:As such I have removed the following section:
::";David Leopold's introduction.
::Turning to the introduction to the Cambridge University Press edition of The Ego and its Own (Ibidem, pg. xxxi), the interpretation provided by David Leopold is overall pessimistic.
::... [W]hen Stirner talks of the egoist being 'owner' of the world it seems simply to indicate the absence of obligations on the egoist --a bleak and uncompromising vision that he captures in an appropriately alimentary image:
:: 
::The "bleak and uncompromising vision" that he alludes to on p263 is in fact a description of a bird singing in a tree for the sheer joy of creating its own song. Stirner's words immediately preceding the quotation provided by David Leopold are as follows:
::
::Stirner's intended meaning for the word 'use' [gebrauche] in this excerpt is established in the context of the metaphor of the singing bird. By taking the quote out of context, David Leopold imposes a possibly unintended meaning upon the verb "use" [gebrauche] as implying "instrumental treatment" (p. xxxi). This pessimistic representation of the source text is further demonstrated when we consider Stirner's words immediately following the quotation selected by Leopold:
::
::David Leopold ends his quotation with "We owe each other nothing" full stop, without providing an ellipsis to indicate that he is breaking off Stirner in mid-sentence, so that the subject Stirner discusses is not included in the quotation, a major faux pas for an academic."
:Skomorokh incite 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leopold has seen it, and replied 

message: Does anyone know exactly how "the book is largely modelled on the work Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel"? What are Lawrence Stepelevich's reasons for making this claim? Is Stirner's book an account of how Mind/Spirit becomes aware of itself through the three–step self–movement of truth until it finally becomes Absolute God contentedly admiring His own Absolute Mind/Spirit? Lestrade (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this.Lestrade (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I could find on Google Books/Scholar even discussing the Ego and Phenomenology of the Spirit in the same article was this, which is scant support for Stepelvich's claim. I suggest removing the stub-section on the alleged Hegelian influence until we can find some better treatment of the subject. the skomorokh 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit

message: Hello, I'm french and I have made a big part of french wikipedia Stirner's article.
About censure, this may be interesting to know that the book, was censored the day he was published, in october 1844. But the censure was (hum what the word, they give up censure) two days after, because, they say, the book was "too absurd to be dangerous". Interesting, not ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.200.245 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censure on 1844 

message: "The primary implication of undermining these concepts and institutions is, for Stirner, an rational egoism, which can be said to transcend language"
While this section may need a lot of work a did a little clean up, such as removing the above quoted section, as it makes little sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content section 

message: Note that after scrutinizing all the leads offered by Google, I finally found a good description of all the editions of "The Ego and his Own", especially the three English editions, in " Max Stirner within the LSR project":
Max Stirner - The Ego and Its Own
The German original: Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. Leipzig: Otto Wigand 1845 [Okt. 1844]
In print: Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Stuttgart: Reclam 1972 ff
First English edition: The Ego and His Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. Benjamin R. Tucker, pref. James L. Walker. New York: Benjamin R. Tucker 1907. xx + 506 pp.
(This edition was reprinted several times by several publishers in New York and London up to 1931)
Second 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.
(This edition was reprinted several times by several publishers in the U.S.A. and U.K. up to 1993, sometimes with pref. by Sidney E. Parker)
Third English edition: The Ego and Its Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, ed., intro., annot. by David Leopold. Cambridge / New York / Melbourne: Cambridge University Press 1995. xl + 324 + 62 (annot.) pp.
David Leopold changed the title (His to Its) "not out of ahistorical considerations of 'political correctness' but because Stirner clearly identifies the egoistic subject as prior to gender" (p. xl). 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)
An abridged English edition: The Ego and His Own, trans. Steven T. Byington, revised, selected and annotated by John Carroll. New York / London: Harper & Row 1971. 266 pp.
The book appeared in a series "Roots of the Right. Readings in Fascist, Racist and Elitist Ideology", together with writings by Gobineau, Rosenberg, de Maistre, Maurras. The text consists of a mix of about a hundred quotations from "The Ego" (and some from Stirner's Minor Writings), reducing the volume to about a half.
The following text is a working text, based on the Tucker edition. For italicized words and Stirner's footnotes see any of the three editions. For pagination see the table of contents. Very helpful are the endnotes of the edition Leopold. As an introduction to Stirner resp. his historical position see Bernd A. Laska: A durable dissident - Stirner in a nutshell
This page also gives a table of concordance of page numbers between the three English editions, but only for the first page of each section and subsection of the book.
However the text of the book shown in one page (wonderful for immediate location of quotations) does not indicate the page numbers, not even of the off copyright Tucker edition of the 1907 edition
Please note also that the full Tucker 1907 edition is shown with full preservation of page numbers on the TMH ("The Memory Hole") site:
The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner
So, it is easy to locate any given quote in the full text with the LSR, and then identify the page number in the Tucker 1907 edition with the TMH transcription, 
But, for such a given quote, it is not possible to identify the page number in the 1995 Leopold edition without having a copy of the 1995 print in hand.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Details on the three English editions

message: The date given in the original edition was moved forward to 1845, not back to 1844. It was actually published in 1844, cf. also the German entry. The current English entry is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.100.150 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Ego and Its Own. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515023814/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LiteratureOfLiberty0352/0353-15_1981v3.html to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LiteratureOfLiberty0352/0353-15_1981v3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified