막스 슈티르너
노트

↑  Welsh, John F. (2010). 《Max Stirner's Dialectical Egoism》. Lexington Books.
↑  Beiser, Frederick C. Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy, 1860–1900, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 233.
↑  Break-out from the Crystal Palace: The anarcho-psychological critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1974.
↑  Bernd A. Laska. Otto Gross zwischen Max Stirner und Wilhelm Reich 보관됨 4 3월 2016 - 웨이백 머신, In: Raimund Dehmlow and Gottfried Heuer, eds.: 3. Internationaler Otto-Gross-Kongress, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München. Marburg, 2003, pp. 125–162, ISBN 3-936134-06-5 LiteraturWissenschaft.de .
↑  Raoul Vaneigem. The Revolution of Everyday Life 보관됨 16 5월 2020 - 웨이백 머신.
↑  Wolfi Landstreicher. The Unique and Its Property 보관됨 25 6월 2020 - 웨이백 머신
↑  Iwan Bloch. Der Marquis de Sade und seine Zeit 보관됨 13 4월 2021 - 웨이백 머신
↑  Jason McQuinn. Clarifying the Unique and Its Self-Creation: An introduction to “Stirner’s Critics” and “The Philosophical Reactionaries” 보관됨 9 11월 2020(날짜 불일치) - 웨이백 머신
↑  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967.
1 2  Leopold, David (2006년 8월 4일). 〈Max Stirner〉.   Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri. 《Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy》 (영어).
↑  Goodway, David. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool University Press, 2006, p. 99.
1 2 3  John Henry Mackay: Max Stirner – Sein Leben und sein Werk 보관됨 2016-11-09 - 웨이백 머신 p. 28
↑  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967.
↑  Stepelevich, Lawrence (Oct–Dec 1985). “Max Stirner as Hegelian”. 《Journal of the History of Ideas  - JSTOR 경유 (구독 필요)》 46 (4): 602.
↑  Marshall, Peter (1992). 《Demanding the Impossible》. Harper Collins. 221쪽. ISBN 0002178559.
↑  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-the-reaction-in-germany
1 2 3  Lawrence L Stepelevich, The revival of Max Stirner
↑  Gide, Charles & Rist, Charles. A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day. Harrap 1956, p. 612
↑  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967
↑  Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question" Deutsch-franzosische ]ahrbucher, ed. Arnold Ruge (Paris, 1 844), p. 197.
↑  “보관된 사본”. 2018년 2월 5일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2018년 1월 6일에 확인함.
↑  울피 랜드스트라이커(Wolfi Landstreicher)의 2017년 번역본 보관됨 2018-02-05 - 웨이백 머신에서는 phantasm으로 번역되었다.
↑  Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95–96
↑  Stirner, Max. The Ego and Its Own, p. 248
↑  Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 194
↑  Thomas, Paul (1985). 《Karl Marx and the Anarchists》. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. 142쪽. ISBN 0-7102-0685-2.
1 2  Nyberg, Svein Olav. “The union of egoists” (PDF). 《Non Serviam》 (Oslo, Norway: Svein Olav Nyberg) 1: 13–14. OCLC 47758413. 2010년 12월 7일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2012년 9월 1일에 확인함.
↑  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics
↑  “보관된 사본”. 2018년 2월 5일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2018년 1월 6일에 확인함.
↑  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own The craving for a particular freedom always includes the purpose of a new dominion, as it was with the Revolution, which indeed “could give its defenders the uplifting feeling that they were fighting for freedom,” but in truth only because they were after a particular freedom, therefore a new dominion, the “dominion of the law.”  Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything — yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? — Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the — unattainable.
↑  The commoner is what he is through the protection of the State, through the State’s grace. He would necessarily be afraid of losing everything if the State’s power were broken.

But how is it with him who has nothing to lose, how with the proletarian? As he has nothing to lose, he does not need the protection of the State for his “nothing.” He may gain, on the contrary, if that protection of the State is withdrawn from the protégé.

Therefore the non-possessor will regard the State as a power protecting the possessor, which privileges the latter, but does nothing for him, the non-possessor, but to — suck his blood. The State is a — commoners’ State, is the estate of the commonalty. It protects man not according to his labor, but according to his tractableness (“loyalty”) — to wit, according to whether the rights entrusted to him by the State are enjoyed and managed in accordance with the will, i. e., laws, of the State.

Under the regime of the commonalty the laborers always fall into the hands of the possessors, of those who have at their disposal some bit of the State domains (and everything possessible in State domain, belongs to the State, and is only a fief of the individual), especially money and land; of the capitalists, therefore. The laborer cannot realize on his labor to the extent of the value that it has for the consumer. “Labor is badly paid!” The capitalist has the greatest profit from it. — Well paid, and more than well paid, are only the labors of those who heighten the splendor and dominion of the State, the labors of high State servants. The State pays well that its “good citizens,” the possessors, may be able to pay badly without danger; it secures to itself by good payment its servants, out of whom it forms a protecting power, a “police” (to the police belong soldiers, officials of all kinds, e.g. those of justice, education, etc. — in short, the whole “machinery of the State”) for the “good citizens,” and the “good citizens” gladly pay high tax-rates to it in order to pay so much lower rates to their laborers.

But the class of laborers, because unprotected in what they essentially are (for they do not enjoy the protection of the State as laborers, but as its subjects they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called protection of the law), remains a power hostile to this State, this State of possessors, this “citizen kingship.” Its principle, labor, is not recognized as to its value; it is exploited,[ausgebeutet] a spoil [Kriegsbeute] of the possessors, the enemy.

The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there.

The State rests on the — slavery of labor. If labor becomes free. the State is lost. The Ego and its Own
1 2  Moggach, Douglas & De Ridder, Widukind. Hegelianism in Restoration Prussia,1841–1848: Freedom, Humanism and ‘Anti-Humanism’ in Young Hegelian Thought. In: 'Hegel's Thought in Europe: Currents, Crosscurrents and Undercurrents', ed. Lisa Herzog (pp. 71-92). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 82-83
↑  Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, The Macmillan company Press, New York, 1967
↑  See Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsche's initial crisis. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109–133
↑  George J. Stack, Lange and Nietzsche, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1983, p. 12, ISBN 978-3-11-008866-3
1 2  Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (편집.). 〈Max Stirner〉. 《Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy》 (영어).
↑  Max Stirner, a durable dissident – in a nutshell
↑  Quoted in Read's book, "The Contrary Experience", Faber and Faber, 1963.
↑  See Memoirs of a revolutionary, 1901–1941 by Victor Serge. Publisher Oxford U.P., 1967
↑  See Bernd A. Laska: Ein dauerhafter Dissident. Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1996 (online)
↑  See Bernd A. Laska: Katechon und Anarch. Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1997 (online)
↑  Huneker's book Egoists, a Book of Supermen (1909)contains an essay on Stirner.
↑  See Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 50.
↑  Wilson, A N (2004년 11월 1일). “World of books”. 《The Daily Telegraph》 (London). 2010년 5월 12일에 확인함. [깨진 링크(과거 내용 찾기)]
↑  Between Man and Man by Martin Buber, Beacon Press, 1955.
↑  From Hegel to Marx by Sidney Hook,
London, 1936.
↑  "The long revolution is preparing to write works in the ink of action whose unknown or nameless authors will flock to join Sade, Fourier, Babeuf, Marx, Lacenaire, Stirner, Lautréamont, L’hautier, Vaillant, Henry, Villa, Zapata, Makhno, the Communards, the insurrectionaries of Hamburg, Kiel, Kronstadt, Asturias – all those who have not yet played their last card in a game which we have only just joined: the great gamble whose stake is freedom." Raoul Vaneigem. The Revolution of Everyday Life
↑  David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow, Liverpool University Press,
2006 (pg.75).
↑  Henri Arvon, Aux sources de 1'existentialisme Max Stirner (Paris, 1954), p. 14
↑  Zwischen 18 and 25, pp. 237–238.
↑  "Chapter Sankt Max in Die deutsche Ideologie
↑  I. Berlin, Karl Marx (New York, 1963), 143.
↑  G. Stedman-Jones, 'Introduction' in K. Marx & F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto (London, 2002)
↑  Jacques Derrida. Specters of Marx. Routledge. 1994
↑  "Human or divine, as Stirner said, the predicates are the same whether they belong analytically to the divine being, or whether they are synthetically bound to the human form" (Gilles Deleuze. The Logic of Sense. Continuum. 2004). p. 122.
↑  Albert Levy, Stirner and Nietzsche, Paris, 1904; Robert Schellwien, Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche, 1892; H.L. Mencken, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, 1908; K. Löwith, From Hegel To Nietzsche New York, 1964, p187; R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in Modern Philology, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 24–37; T. A. Riley, "Anti-Statism in German Literature, as Exemplified by the Work of John Henry Mackay", in PMLA, Vol. 62, No. 3, Sep., 1947, pp. 828–843; Seth Taylor, Left Wing Nietzscheans, The Politics of German Expressionism 1910–1920, p144, 1990, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York; Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche et la Philosophy, Presses Universitaires de France, 1962; R. C. Solomon & K. M. Higgins, The Age of German Idealism, p300, Routledge, 1993
↑  While discussion of possible influence has never ceased entirely, the period of most intense discussion occurred between 1892 and 1900 in the German-speaking world. During this time, the most comprehensive account of Nietzsche's reception in the German language, the 4 volume work of Richard Frank Krummel: Nietzsche und der deutsche Geist indicates 83 entries discussing Stirner and Nietzsche. The only thinker more frequently discussed in connection with Nietzsche during this time is Schopenhauer, with about twice the number of entries. Discussion steadily declines thereafter, but is still significant. Nietzsche and Stirner show 58 entries between 1901 and 1918. From 1919 to 1945 there are 28 entries regarding Nietzsche and Stirner.
↑  "Apart from the information which can be gained from the annotations, the library (and the books Nietzsche read) shows us the extent, and the bias, of Nietzsche's knowledge of many fields, such as evolution and cosmology. Still more obvious, the library shows us the extent and the bias of Nietzsche's knowledge about many persons to whom he so often refers with ad hominem statements in his works. This includes not only such important figures as Mill, Kant, and Pascal but also such minor ones (for Nietzsche) as Max Stirner and William James who are both discussed in books Nietzsche read." T. H. Brobjer, "Nietzsche's Reading and Private Library", 1885–1889, in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 4, Oct., 1997, pp. 663–693; Stack believes it is doubtful that Nietzsche read Stirner, but notes "he was familiar with the summary of his theory he found in Lange's history." George J. Stack, Lange and Nietzsche, Walter de Gruyter, 1983, p 276
↑  Albert Levy, Stirner and Nietzsche, Paris, 1904
↑  Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsche's initial crisis. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109–133
↑  이 당시 니체는 정신적인 질병으로 인해 사실 상 절필한 상황이었다.
↑  Eduard von Hartmann, Nietzsches "neue Moral", in Preussische Jahrbücher, 67. Jg., Heft 5, Mai 1891, S. 501–521; augmented version with more express reproach of plagiarism in: Ethische Studien, Leipzig, Haacke 1898, pp. 34–69
↑  This author believes that one should be careful in comparing the two men. However, he notes: "It is this intensive nuance of individualism that appeared to point from Nietzsche to Max Stirner, the author of the remarkable work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Stirner's influence in modern Germany has assumed astonishing proportions, and moves in general parallel with that of Nietzsche. The two thinkers are regarded as exponents of essentially the same philosophy." O. Ewald, "German Philosophy in 1907", in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, Jul., 1908, pp. 400–426
↑  [in the last years of the 19th century] "The question of whether Nietzsche had read Stirner was the subject of great debate" R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in Modern Philology, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 29–30
↑  Levy pointed out in 1904 that the similarities in the writing of the two men appeared superficial. Albert Levy, Stirner and Nietzsche, Paris, 1904
↑  R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in Modern Philology, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 24–37
↑  "Stirner, like Nietzsche, who was clearly influenced by him, has been interpreted in many different ways", Saul Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, Lexington Books, 2001, p 56; "We do not even know for sure that Nietzsche had read Stirner. Yet, the similarities are too striking to be explained away." R. A. Samek, The Meta Phenomenon, p70, New York, 1981; Tom Goyens, (referring to Stirner's book The Ego and His Own) "The book influenced Friedrich Nietzsche, and even Marx and Engels devoted some attention to it." T. Goyens, Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement In New York City, p197, Illinois, 2007
↑  "We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself." Gilles Deleuze (translated by Hugh Tomlinson), Nietzsche and Philosophy, 1962 (2006 reprint, pp. 153–154)
↑  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abissonichilista-the-unique-one-meets-the-overhuman
↑  Guido Giacomo Preparata, "Perishable Money in a Threefold Commonwealth: Rudolf Steiner and the Social Economics of an Anarchist Utopia". Review of Radical Economics 38/4 (Fall 2006). pp. 619–648
↑  "Only the influence of the German philosopher of egoism, Max Stirner (né Johann Kaspar Schmidt, 1806–1856), as expressed through The Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum) compared with that of Proudhon. In adopting Stirnerite egoism (1886), Tucker rejected natural rights which had long been considered the foundation of libertarianism. This rejection galvanized the movement into fierce debates, with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself. So bitter was the conflict that a number of natural rights proponents withdrew from the pages of Liberty in protest even though they had hitherto been among its frequent contributors. Thereafter, Liberty championed egoism although its general content did not change significantly."Wendy Mcelroy. "Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order" 보관됨 2011-05-24 - 웨이백 머신
↑  Daniel Guérin,Anarchism: From Theory to Practice
↑  Four Ourselves, The Right To Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything
↑  "What is Ideology?" by Jason McQuinn
↑  “BONANNO, Alfredo Maria”. 2009년 7월 10일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2009년 7월 10일에 확인함.
↑  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics If Stirner had said: You are more than a living essence or animal, this would mean, you are still an animal, but animality does not exhaust what you are......
↑  Karl Heinrich Ulrichs had begun a journal called Prometheus in 1870, but only one issue was published. (Kennedy, Hubert, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First Theorist of Homosexuality, In: 'Science and Homosexualities', ed. Vernon Rosario. New York: Routledge, 1997, pp. 26–45.)
↑  
"La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la Segunda República" by Xavier Díez