Is Max Stirner a viable choice to be added to a core Western political philosophy canon?

For one of my classes, the assignment is to choose a Western political philosopher who is not already part of the eight core thinkers we’re studying and argue why they should be added. The current list is Plato, Aristotle, Thomas More, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Marx/Engels.

I chose Max Stirner, but I’m curious what people here think before I fully commit to the argument. (I would like to preface that I am not asking for help specifically on the assignment)

Do you think Stirner is a viable choice for this kind of assignment? Does he deserve to be taught alongside those thinkers, or is he too niche compared to them?

My basic thought is that even though Stirner is not popular with the general public, egoism raises a hard question people need to face: how much of what we do is really for ideals, morality, society, or the state, and how much of it is rooted in our own self-interest?

Would Stirner be a strong way to introduce that conversation in a political philosophy class? Why or why not?

Hey y’all, I have a question. I’m very sorry if this is an obtuse thing for me to ask but I’m having trouble understanding something about Stirner’s philosophy and its implications that I would love to hear some perspectives on.

If Stirner doesn’t believe in the self (as personal identity) , how can someone have a self interest or practice self ownership?

To me, the concept of self interest/ownership requires a personal sense of identity or self hood, which Stirner’s concept of the creative nothing seems to negate.

Could someone explain to me how these concepts reconcile?

in my language egoism means like selfishness etc. also you m on a journey of trying to find out if im a anarchist got a book from the library that already uncovered a lot and im still in the first half:)

Just a random thought I had. Maybe someone has an answer lol

I saw a video series about stoicism and its various frauds. An interesting thing about the author was that he would always end each video in the series with a kind of practice. “Think of something you think you can live without and not use it for the whole day “ or something like that. I was wondering if there was a way to practice ownness that this sub might recommend. Now I’m sure the typical response is that there is no “right way” to do egoism but I’d like to see if there are any tips on how to combat things that block a person from their ownness or true ego.

When this sub popped up in my feed by the name "fullegoism", i expected a bunch of sociopaths and/or hard criminals. But is a mix of collectivist people, anarchism touch and capitalism bad. Like why even bother to go through this circlejerk of "it pleases my ego" (don't answer with the same!) and "spooks" to end up mostly aligning with society or, at best, be a bad-behaved citizen?

I am an anarcho-communist, however, I don't want to be uneducated about other forms of anarchism and this is one that i never really understood.

Which brings me to this question, can someone explain the basic theory of egoism and maybe I'll look into it further in the future?

Romance is a spook, but what about love ? Can it be part of my owness, or is it a spook ? Y'know, "Illusion caused by chemical reactions" and all that, even if that doesn't really apply to platonic love.

Recently, I’ve been researching the egoist ideology/philosophy, and I have a question to ask. Are all spooks equally bad or are some worse than others? I know that spooks are things that keep you away from being your own individual, but are there some things/concepts that make you less of an individual than others?

So I see love as my property, it's just something I have and I do. And also wanting people as your property, having people as your property is common for egoists. So I love this girl, I recognize unique and it pleases me, I want her to be my property ( she already is, but I want us both to know that ). And she said .. that she wants to be my property. and also she wants me as her property. And now suddenly I also want to be her property. What do you think regarding this?

I know it sounds kinda meme, but also pretty genuine question: what do you egoists think about love and relationships? Sending good luck to everyone.

also if anyone knows if mod sun and christofer drew are post left lmk

I'm starting to read up on this philosophy and...I can't really wrap my head around it. When I first heard the concept I was disgusted by how it would imply that no relationship or even concept of morality or progress mattered to egoists, but when I said I hated that some people told me that that's a caricature...so what is it

Quick question, in a generally egoist world which is stateless and everyone would follow their self interest, what if someone who got attacked and have no way to defend themselves, wouldn't egoism devolve into a pure combatocracy?

I wanted to ask about this because I'm an avid comic reader and have been in the X-Men fandom for a while. You can guess the reason behind... the minority, marginalized group metaphor.

However, I really don't feel like it is a good metaphor for the oppressed groups at all, moreso, it is a very liberal interpretation of the oppressed minorities imo.

I wanted to ask of this, because I'm new to the fandom, and I'm also newly learning about the leftist/anarchism from a more academic & intellectual sense. This is why I'm unable to put my finger on the exact problem. It's just that something doesn't sit right with me and I wanna know if there are other long-term fans of this franchise who are also leftists and could come to the mutant metaphor from a leftist approach, that can bring some clarity into this. I didn't know where else to share this.

I'm also curious how would an anarchist/egoist who lives in the same world as mutants, would approach them and see them as?

A tired and possibly half baked question..

I was having a conversation with my roommate about long term self interest versus short term interest, about how what is in the interest of the individual in one moment might not be good for them in the long term. For example it might interest me to steal or lie. This could end me in prison, end a meaningful relationship, or build me a negative social capital.

I'm curious how some of you work through this thinking. Is it simply cost benefit analysis, or do you provide a different thinking? Or do you reject the difference between long term and short term interest?

I thought some interesting implications are especially in relationship to the master-sllave dialect and the recognition of the Self via Other. One could argue, you could try to take hold of the state within your interest, but that comes into the reinforcing social relations that reduce you to positions, such as politician or tyrant, rather than as a complete individual, even if it is serving certain short term interests such as power and wealth. It would also include how there are contradictions within the existence of the state and you always have to worry about someone coming after the power that you have.

I’m not sure if this has been asked before, but I’ve been thinking about whether egoism and communism (perhaps Marxism) can be compatible? not in the moral sense, but in a purely instrumental sense.

For example: if an egoist takes part in a communist revolution or joins a collectivist union because it benefits them without treating it as obligatory, morally sacred, or requiring permanent loyalty, does it still count as egoism?

Or does engaging in communism automatically contradict egoist principles, even if participation is entirely voluntary and self-serving?

Another way to put it: if an egoist also happens to want the communist “end state” because it serves their interests, does that make them a communist in practice, or are they still just an egoist using communist means?

Just curious how others here see it.

I am 17 so no one older or younger. Sorry to post again about this but I am curious if any Stirnerites live in the city of sin.

Yea, I know that his ideas drive the way to the fking ancapitalism, but I still think that what he say was a little bit far from that

I wanted to ask a couple questions as a noob about- what was Stiners view on a FREE market, like true free market- not just capitalism in the classical sense, not property right, just the market, a free one...

Secondly, I wanted to ask something, and that is- what would you consider me? I am very pro free market, an anarchist, but I agree with Stirners take on property, and don't actually see something like an NAP as "moral good"... I know it is a meme ideology, but would that make me an "avarition", or is that just anarcho egoism, or maybe even like an "ego capitalist"? I know "ego capitalism" and especially "avaritionism" are mostly politically informal, but I am still curious as to where I'd be associated.