Editing Max Stirner (section)

=== Possible influence on Friedrich Nietzsche ===
{{main|Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner}}
The ideas of Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche have often been compared and many authors have discussed apparent similarities in their writings, sometimes raising the question of influence.<ref>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, p. 187; R. A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in ''Modern Philology'', Vol. 56, No. 1, August 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, September 1947, pp. 828–843; Seth Taylor, ''Left Wing Nietzscheans, The Politics of German Expressionism 1910–1920'', p. 144, 1990, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York; Gilles Deleuze, ''Nietzsche et la Philosophy'', Presses Universitaires de France, 1962; R. C. Solomon and K. M. Higgins, ''The Age of German Idealism'', p. 300, Routledge, 1993.</ref> During the early years of Nietzsche's emergence as a well-known figure in Germany, the only thinker discussed in connection with his ideas more often than Stirner was [[Arthur Schopenhauer]].<ref>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 called ''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 it 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.</ref> It is certain that Nietzsche read about ''The Unique and Its Property'', which was mentioned in Friedrich Albert Lange's ''History of Materialism'' and [[Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann]]'s ''Philosophy of the Unconscious'', both of which Nietzsche knew well.<ref>"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, October 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.</ref> However, there is no indication that he actually read it as no mention of Stirner is known to exist anywhere in Nietzsche's publications, papers or correspondence.<ref>Albert Levy, ''Stirner and Nietzsche'', Paris, 1904.</ref> In 2002, a biographical discovery revealed it is probable that Nietzsche had encountered Stirner's ideas before he read Hartmann and Lange in October 1865, when he met with Eduard Mushacke, an old friend of Stirner's during the 1840s.<ref>[http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsche's initial crisis] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020022410/http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html |date=20 October 2017 }}. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109–133.</ref>

As soon as Nietzsche's work began to reach a wider audience, the question of whether he owed a debt of influence to Stirner was raised. As early as 1891 when Nietzsche was still alive, though incapacitated by mental illness, Hartmann went so far as to suggest that he had plagiarized Stirner.<ref>Eduard von Hartmann, Nietzsches "neue Moral", in ''Preussische Jahrbücher'', 67. Jg., Heft 5, May 1891, S. 501–521; augmented version with more express reproach of plagiarism in: ''Ethische Studien'', Leipzig, Haacke 1898, pp. 34–69.</ref> By the turn of the century, the belief that Nietzsche had been influenced by Stirner was so widespread that it became something of a commonplace at least in Germany, prompting one observer to note in 1907 that "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."<ref>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, July 1908, pp. 400–426.</ref>

From the beginning of what was characterized as "great debate"<ref>[in the last years of the nineteenth 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, August 1958, pp. 29–30.</ref> regarding Stirner's possible positive influence on Nietzsche, serious problems with the idea were nonetheless noted.<ref>Levy pointed out in 1904 that the similarities in the writing of the two men appeared superficial. Albert Levy, ''Stirner and Nietzsche'', Paris, 1904</ref> By the middle of the 20th century, if Stirner was mentioned at all in works on Nietzsche, the idea of influence was often dismissed outright or abandoned as unanswerable.<ref>R. A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in ''Modern Philology'', Vol. 56, No. 1, August 1958, pp. 24–37.</ref> However, the idea that Nietzsche was influenced in some way by Stirner continues to attract a significant minority, perhaps because it seems necessary to explain the oft-noted (though arguably superficial) similarities in their writings.<ref>"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'', p. 70, 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|Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement In New York City]]'', p. 197, Illinois, 2007.</ref> In any case, the most significant problems with the theory of possible Stirner influence on Nietzsche are not limited to the difficulty in establishing whether the one man knew of or read the other. They also consist in determining if Stirner in particular might have been a meaningful influence on a man as widely read as Nietzsche.<ref>"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).</ref>