FRR Books Podcast: The Unique and Its Property by Max Stirner, a close reading Part 1

This podcast covers the translator’s introduction and stops at section 1.2 Human Beings of Ancient and Modern Times.

The book can be read online here:

The book can be obtained here:

FRR is expanding our scope by attempting a larger project.  Instead of doing one podcast on a book we are doing a slow/deep/close reading of Wolfi Landstreicher’s translation of The Unique and Its Property by Max Stirner.  We attend a reading group together which is slowly working its way through the book, so every other week we will read a portion of Stirner, attend reading group, then record a podcast on the section we read and the thoughts and ideas that came up during reading group.  We will rotate different hosts through the series of podcasts.  We are doing this because we would love to have had this type of discussion available to us when reading some of the books that we love the most, so we are doing it ourselves.  We are also attempting to do a close reading which means to read something more than once, many times over, taking notes, discussing it, and engaging deeply with it.  Feel free to email us or comment on this page if you have thoughts/feelings/whatever about it!

In Episode 1 we discuss the following:

  •   Is there an individual/self.  Stirner is not an individualist?  It is not an individualist book
  •   Relationship between Taoism and Stirner
  •   Can anyone actually be an egoist?
  •   Rydra strong arms the conversation and questions objective reality through Stirner
  •   Abritrary nature of values and a transient idea of an “I”
  •   Can nihilism/egoism be separated
  •   Talk of translation in general
  •   How do we apply the implications of this reading


This podcast was produced by rydra wrong

The sound and editing was done by The Big Cat

The hosts of the show were Kahar, Chuck, Nev, and rydra wrong….we are different “people” now


2 Replies to “FRR Books Podcast: The Unique and Its Property by Max Stirner, a close reading Part 1

  1. > “In one sense, we have no choice about anything … but on the other hand … I experience my life as having all kinds of choices.”

    I resolved this issue by applying Daniel Dennett’s typology: physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. All three of these perspectives are useful in understanding reality. Using the wrong one leads to “the blind men and the elephant” – that is, misunderstanding an elephant for a snake because you felt its trunk, or a tree because you felt its leg.

    What I’m getting at is that one understands reality using all three perspectives, and that determinism (the physical stance) and free will (the intentional stance) are both valid when appropriate. For questions about DNA or blood type, the physical/deterministic stance is probably better. For teaching someone mathematics or philosophy, an intentional stance is likely better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.