\documentclass[DIV=12,%
               BCOR=10mm,%
               headinclude=false,%
               footinclude=false,%
               fontsize=11pt,%
               twoside,%
               paper=210mm:11in]%
               {scrartcl}






\usepackage[noautomatic]{imakeidx}



\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[shortlabels]{enumitem}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\def\hsout{\bgroup \ULdepth=-.55ex \ULset}
% https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/22410/strikethrough-in-section-title
% Unclear if \protect \hsout is needed. Doesn't looks so
\DeclareRobustCommand{\sout}[1]{\texorpdfstring{\hsout{#1}}{#1}}
\usepackage{wrapfig}

% avoid breakage on multiple <br><br> and avoid the next [] to be eaten
\newcommand*{\forcelinebreak}{\strut\\*{}}

\newcommand*{\hairline}{%
  \bigskip%
  \noindent \hrulefill%
  \bigskip%
}

% reverse indentation for biblio and play

\newenvironment*{amusebiblio}{
  \leftskip=\parindent
  \parindent=-\parindent
  \smallskip
  \indent
}{\smallskip}

\newenvironment*{amuseplay}{
  \leftskip=\parindent
  \parindent=-\parindent
  \smallskip
  \indent
}{\smallskip}

\newcommand*{\Slash}{\slash\hspace{0pt}}


% http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/3033/forcing-linebreaks-in-url
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,hidelinks,breaklinks=true]{hyperref}
\usepackage{bookmark}

\usepackage[english,shorthands=off]{babel}
\babelfont{rm}[Path=/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/,%
 BoldFont=LinLibertine_RB.otf,%
 BoldItalicFont=LinLibertine_RBI.otf,%
 ItalicFont=LinLibertine_RI.otf]{LinLibertine_R.otf}
\babelfont{tt}[Scale=MatchLowercase,%
 Path=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/cmu/,%
 BoldFont=cmuntb.ttf,%
 BoldItalicFont=cmuntx.ttf,%
 ItalicFont=cmunit.ttf]{cmuntt.ttf}
\babelfont{sf}[Scale=MatchLowercase,%
 Path=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/cmu/,%
 BoldFont=cmunsx.ttf,%
 BoldItalicFont=cmunso.ttf,%
 ItalicFont=cmunsi.ttf]{cmunss.ttf}



\let\chapter\section


% global style

\pagestyle{plain}




\usepackage{indentfirst}

% remove the numbering
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-2}

% remove labels from the captions
\renewcommand*{\captionformat}{}
\renewcommand*{\figureformat}{}
\renewcommand*{\tableformat}{}
\KOMAoption{captions}{belowfigure,nooneline}
\addtokomafont{caption}{\centering}







\deffootnote[3em]{0em}{3em}{\textsuperscript{\thefootnotemark}~}


\addtokomafont{disposition}{\rmfamily}
\addtokomafont{descriptionlabel}{\rmfamily}


\frenchspacing
% avoid vertical glue
\raggedbottom

% this will generate overfull boxes, so we need to set a tolerance
% \pretolerance=1000
% pretolerance is what is accepted for a paragraph without
% hyphenation, so it makes sense to be strict here and let the user
% accept tweak the tolerance instead.
\tolerance=200
% Additional tolerance for bad paragraphs only
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{30pt}

% (try to) forbid widows/orphans
\clubpenalty=10000
\widowpenalty=10000





% given that we said footinclude=false, this should be safe
\setlength{\footskip}{2\baselineskip}
\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}

\title{Saint Max: Stirner and Eastern Orthodox Theology}
\date{Presented on 29\Slash{}04\Slash{}2026}
\author{Giulio Ardenghi}
\subtitle{}






% https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.text.tex/6fYmcVMbSbQ/discussion
\hypersetup{%
pdfencoding=auto,
pdftitle={Saint Max: Stirner Orthodox Theology},%
pdfauthor={Giulio Ardenghi},%
pdfsubject={},%
pdfkeywords={Max Stirner; Orthodoxy; christianity; Nikolai Berdyaev; Blumenfeld; Gilles Deleuze}%
}


\begin{document}









\thispagestyle{empty}


  \strut\vskip 2em
  \begin{center}

  {\usekomafont{title}{\huge Saint Max: Stirner and Eastern Orthodox Theology\par}}%
  \vskip 1em
  
  \vskip 2em
  
  {\usekomafont{author}{Giulio Ardenghi\par}}%
  
  \vskip 1.5em





  
  {\usekomafont{date}{Presented on 29\Slash{}04\Slash{}2026\par}}%
  


  \end{center}


  \vskip 3em
  \par







Saint Max: Stirner and Eastern Orthodox Theology


Giulio Ardenghi



\bigskip



\bigskip


While attempts to integrate Christian theology with the philosophy of Nietzsche have been and are


still being made, the same cannot be said in the case of a thematically similar, yet even more radical


thinker: the German philosopher Max Stirner (Johann Caspar Schmidt, 1806-1856). Similarly,


contemporary scholarship on Stirner (Newman, Blumenfeld) tends to see him mostly as a political


theorist or a critic of ideology. Max Stirner, whose political and philosophical matrix is rooted in the


Left-Hegelian current, is famously known for his egoism and philosophy of the "Unique" (Der


Einzige). He envisions a subject whose absolute character cannot be defined by, much less reduced


to, its national, political or religious belongings. My paper shall argue that, despite the fact that the


resolutely atheistic and egoistic character of his philosophy is, on the whole, absolutely


irreconcilable with the communal and spiritual nature of Eastern Orthodox theological anthropology,


Stirner's rejection of every reductionism makes him a more fruitful dialogue partner for Orthodoxy


than generally assumed. Outstanding Orthodox authors from St. Gregory of Nyssa to Nikolai


Aleksandrovich Berdyaev articulate a religious anthropology that is fundamentally rooted in God's


infinite depth and, as such, escapes every conceptualization from the social to the metaphysical,


thus sharing Stirner's non reductionistic approach. Hence, a closer reading of Stirner, paired with an


equally close reading of the aforementioned, and of other, Orthodox theologians and philosophers,


will show that the philosopher of Bayreuth can become a challenging and, in a sense, kindred spirit


to modern Orthodox approaches to contemporary problems on human dignity and personhood, and


establish a new and unexpected bridge between the intellectual traditions of the East and the West.



\bigskip


Introduction



\bigskip


Eastern Orthodox thought, especially in modern times with the so called neo-patristic synthesis


represented by authors such as Vladimir Lossky and Georges Florovsky and by their successors, has


usually been very careful to highlight the differences between itself and Western theological and


philosophical systems. This did not, however, deter modern Orthodox thinkers from acknowledging


their debt to Western philosophy, and even from seeking out similarities and parallelisms between it


and Orthodox theology. A case in point is represented by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre,


whom the Russian Orthodox theologian Pavel Evdokimov considers especially close to Orthodoxy


(1989, p. 37). The Greek Orthodox philosopher Christos Yannaras reaches independently the same


conclusion (2015, p. 248).


Something similar is true when we switch our attention to another situation, namely, the German


philosophical landscape in the wake of Hegel. Even here, post-Hegelian philosophers would not


concern themselves to a tradition like that of Orthodoxy, and, when they analyzed and criticized


Christianity, it was mostly Catholicism and Protestantism that they had in mind. Yet, the scenario


changes when we acknowledge that, on the part of the Orthodox, there was a significant interest in


Hegel and in his philosophical heirs.


To demonstrate this, we need to look no further than the example of Ludwig Feuerbach. Once a


brilliant student of Hegel, Feuerbach became, later in life, one of his fiercest critics. In any event,


Feuerbach is most famous as a foremost antagonist of Christianity, and of religion in general. His


so-called projection theory is of utmost interest here, for it received much attention not only from


his fellow German left-Hegelian philosophers, but also from foremost Eastern Orthodox thinkers.


Simply put, this theory argues that it is not God who created human beings, but it is rather human


beings that, in a sense, created God. Thus, God is but a projection of the human being’s idea of his


own fulfilled potential, externalized in the lofty concept of an omnipotent God (see Feuerbach


1989).


Feuerbach’s reversal of the traditional account of creation may be seen as one of Max Stirner’s


fundamental points of departure. “Saint Max”, as Marx and Engels sarcastically dub him in their


book The German Ideology, does fundamentally share Feuerbach’s view that Christianity is a form


of alienation, but argues that Feuerbach’s logic needs to be pushed further ahead. In Stirner’s own


words:


The highest essence may be the human essence, but precisely because it is his essence and not he


himself, it doesn’t matter at all whether we see it outside him and view it as God, or find it in him


and call it “human essence” or “the human being.. (\dots{}) It dwells in heaven and dwells in us; we


poor things are just its “dwelling,” and if Feuerbach destroys its heavenly dwelling and forces it to


move, lock, stock and barrel, into us, then we, its earthly lodgings, will be very much overcrowded.


(Stirner 2017, pp. 54-55).


Thus, Stirner is employing his typical rhetorically charged language to argue that Feuerbach is, in a


last analysis, guilty of the same error that he imputes to Christianity. Feuerbach has merely shifted


the focus from an external idea of God to a likewise external and general idea of Man. But the


philosopher of Bayreuth is by no means content to bow to such general idea, for he does not accept


to let himself be defined even by his own humanity. In other words, to both theism and humanism,


Saint Max opposes his egoism. By this word, we should note, Stirner does not mean some kind of


crude selfishness or narcissistic pettiness, but rather the rejection of all “fixed ideas” that reduce and


subordinate me to a general whole. In his estimation, God is one such idea, just as are the State and,


as we have just seen, Man.



\bigskip


Whence Comes the Unique?



\bigskip


\noindent As we already saw above, there is much in Stirner that may remind us of the theories of a later and


much more famous German philosopher, namely Friedrich Nietzsche. It is unclear how familiar


Nietzsche actually was with Stirner, and if he ever had the chance to read his master work The


Unique and Its Property. In any case, the 20th century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze felt the


urge to address Stirner in the very book that he devoted to the study of Nietzsche. The latter is in the


end a more original philosopher than the former, argues Deleuze, because Stirner, as radical as he


was, and despite his own efforts, does not carry forward a true rupture with Hegelian dialectics1.


According to Deleuze, Stirner does indeed poke a massive hole in the Hegelian system, but he does


so unwittingly, for his intended critique of Hegel is not the strongest weapon he has against his


master. To be more specific, Stirner, with his focus on appropriation and on use of fixed ideas


(“ghosts”) as mere tools to be discarded once the egoist no longer needs them, reveals that he is


himself a dialectician, for, Deleuze says, “the unique ego turns everything but itself into nothingness,


and this nothingness is precisely his own nothingness, the ego’s own nothingness” (1983, pp. 161-


162).


Modern Stirner scholars, however, tend to be skeptical about Deleuze’s interpretation. Jacob


Blumenfeld, for instance, calls our attention to the fact that Stirner does not postulate his ego as the


philosophical foundation upon which his philosophy is to be built, for, otherwise, the ego would end


up merely another spook just like God, Feuerbach’s Man and Hegel’s Absolute Spirit2. Stirner, pace


Deleuze, should not be counted among the dialecticians, for his philosophy does not presuppose a


first moment of a dialectic which sublates a second moment and reaches a synthesis in which it is


itself and other than itself at the same time. Identity is, with Stirner, a much more slippery affair.


Stirner’s ego does indeed take appropriation of things and ideas, but this does not mean that such


appropriation involves a change or a becoming within the ego itself. Stirner’s ego, as we already


saw, is not just another fixed idea, nor does it lay claim to be a sort of static foundation, but can only


be approached phenomenologically. Thus, the ego consumes things and consumes even itself, but


from this it does not follow that the ego which consumes is always the same, fixed reality. As


Blumenfeld has it: “to “consume myself” is thus to continually negate and recycle my own self-


expression of who I take myself to be; I block myself from becoming fixed in an identity.” (2017, p.


24). In other words, I may avail myself of the attributes of Man or even of those of God, if those


things align with my purposes, but not necessarily is the “I” which takes the attributes of Man the



\bigskip


1 Of course, the one who supposedly accomplishes this task is none other than Nietzsche himself, who, according to


Deleuze, is thoroughly familiar with the philosophy of Hegel and his heirs, including Stirner.


2 For another critique of the post-structuralist reading of Stirner see Newman (2001).


same as the “I” who will later go on to appropriate those of God. With this move, one may suppose,


Stirner is attempting to overcome both Hegel and Descartes. The former he fights by beginning his


case with nothing, with the absolute negation of positive and universal principles (instead of


postulating them first, and then proceed to negate them), the latter he challenges by denying any


fixed substance even to the ego cogito, for the ego cannot demonstrate its own existence by way of


appeal to universal elements like thought or reason.



\bigskip


Mystery and Man



\bigskip


\noindent If we take seriously, as Stirner does, the famous Athanasian formula according to which “God


became a human being to make human beings divine” (2017, p. 330) then it becomes clear that in


Christian theology in general, and Orthodox theology in particular, humankind occupies a place of


primary importance. Therefore, if we accept Christianity, then the doctrine of the Incarnation


reveals itself as the ultimate anthropodicy: we are no longer allowed to philosophize as though


human beings were but a meaningless phenomenon in a largely blind and impersonal universe, but


are obliged to accept that God took human nature upon himself in order to raise and mingle it with


his own divine nature. Certainly, Orthodox eschatology tends to be cosmic, in the sense that


everything that is actively created by God will in the end be transfigured and joined with him, yet


human beings are created in a place of royalty within creation. We can now see why Orthodox


thinkers such as Viktor Nesmelov or Sergei Bulgakov tend to see Feuerbach’s project with some


sympathy, even though, as can be easily imagined, they do not share his conclusion that “therefore


God does not exist” (Zwahlen 2012, p. 188). The similitude between God and human being, in the


Orthodox tradition, is not due to an idealization and an externalization of humankind’s own


qualities into the idea of God, but to the very fact that humanity was created in God’s image. There


is no space here to elaborate on the debates concerning the interpretations and theological


understandings of the notion we have just seen, so we need to move directly to one implication that


should be crucial for any attempt to put Stirner and Christianity in dialogue, and whose credits


belong to the 4th century Church Father St. Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory, as one of the major figures


in the development of Christian apophatic theology, chooses divine mystery as the point of


departure for his own anthropological theories. If humanity can be truly said to mirror his Creator,


then it needs to mirror every one of his attributes. Now, if God is unknowable in his essence then


Man must by necessity mirror such unknowability. In other words, if humanity was created in the


image of the ineffable God then it must, in a last analysis, be ineffable as well (Op. Hom, PG 44,


11). It may be pointed out that unknowability and ineffability are not positive qualities that one


possesses, but rather presuppose an observer who fails to know or conceptualize something, yet it


seems clear from Gregory’s apophaticism that God escapes every conceptualization for he exceeds


the mental or linguistic categories necessary for such conceptualization to take place. So, if human


nature carries a similarity with divine nature, and divine nature is impossible to grasp for the senses,


then the same will be true in the case of human nature as well.


Thus, if with Feuerbach we see Man projecting into God his own attributes, with Gregory the


situation it is reversed, for Man does indeed display all the attributes that pertain to God, but he


does so because he mirrors them by way of carrying God’s image. Now, for someone like Stirner,


this would probably make little difference: whether human nature is rooted in God or not, in the


moment in which it is taken as a fixed idea, then the ego will dissolve it whenever it sees fit. The


problem is, however, that if we follow Gregory of Nyssa instead of Feuerbach (and, unavoidably, of


Stirner) then humanity can no longer be said to be “fixed” but it is rather mysterious and


fundamentally unknowable. As a result, human essence holds out nothing for Saint Max to truly


appropriate, it cannot be dissolved or reduced to nothing, for, in a way, it is already nothing, namely,


it cannot be reduced to a thing, nor can it be deduced from general rules or observations. According


to the bishop of Nyssa, “concepts create idols” (PG 44, 376C; 1978, p. 81), and the dissolution of


idolatrous conceptualizations is a necessary part of the mystic’s ascent towards God.



\bigskip


The Unique and Human Personhood



\bigskip


One thing that must be pointed out given all of the above is that Gregory of Nyssa was still talking


about human nature in general terms, rather than trying to formulate a philosophy of human


individuality. Throughout the entire 20th century, Eastern Orthodox theology has been animated by


ardent debates concerning personhood. One of the protagonists of these debates is the Russian


Orthodox existential philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, who is of particular interest here because he


comments directly on Stirner in several of his works. Berdyaev reaches a similar conclusion as


Deleuze, in the sense that he also considers Stirner the one who reveals the nihilism to which the


Hegelian dialectics leads (2009, p. 26), albeit he does not seem to see particular similarities between


him and Nietzsche. While Berdyaev accepts Stirner’s rejection of fixed ideas and of the primacy of


the general over the particular, he nevertheless cannot conceal a hint of disappointment when he


says:


It might be expected that Max Stirner would be an extreme individualist and that to him the highest


value would be the individually unique. Nothing of the kind. (\dots{}) It is absolutely clear that the


Unique of Max Stirner is not the single man, not the human person, but a pseudonym of the divine.


(1949, p. 33).


By positing the ego as the only reality, and the rest of the world as tools to be used for the ego’s


benefit, Stirner is effectively denying any intrinsic value to the cosmos and to the Other. The “union


of egoists”, a non-committal agreement in which each egoist will benefit from the others so long as


it suits his own purposes, that Stirner theorizes is thus far from the spiritual community based on


love and freedom that Berdyaev has in mind.


Stirner, perhaps surprisingly given the “destructive” nature of his philosophy, is a pedagogical and


upbuilding author.3 He does not affirm his ego by actively seeking domination over others or by


ranking human beings in categories like Nietzsche will do. Nevertheless, the very fact that the ego


will resist its own objectification by affirming himself and only himself, with the entire world as its


property, will ultimately condemn him to commit to the very logic of objectification that he sought


to reject. If the world is for my ego to consume and the relationship with the Other is reduced to a


temporary association, then I end up seeing the world and the Other as objects of which I avail


myself only so long as that helps me attain my goals.4



\bigskip


Conclusion



\bigskip


One of the most suggestive passages in The Unique and Its Property reads as follows:


\noindent Christianity took away from the things of this world only their irresistibility, it made us independent


of them. In the same way, I raise myself above truths and their power: as I am above the sensory, so


I am above the truth (2017, p. 396).


Stirner’s criticism revolves around the notion that truths are merely tools to appropriate, they are not


sacred, and Christianity promotes a servile attitude to them. It is clear, however, that he is talking of


truths in the sense of fixed ideas, of ghosts that we are led to believe would be such as they are even


without us observers. Stirner acknowledges that Christianity liberated us from the bondage of “the


world”, but the liberation does not stop there. As it were, it is precisely the truth that shall set us free.


In order to take truths as things that can be appropriated, Stirner necessarily takes for granted that


they are also fixed ideas, which only the ego can surpass. We therefore see how, to employ


Berdyaev’s terminology again, Stirner can only save the ego from objectification, but will


nevertheless yield the world to its hands.


Despite all this, Stirner may join Nietzsche in the ranks of the brilliant diagnosticians who exposed


the faults of a Christianity too entrenched in this-worldly logic and oblivious to the infinite royalty



\bigskip


3 “You are certainly more than a Jew, more than a Christian etc., but you are also more than a human being. Those are


all ideas, but you exist in the flesh” (Stirner 2017, p. 156). We should also remember that Stirner spent many years


as a teacher, and his first published essay, The False Principle of Our Education, deals precisely with these matters.


4 For a direct comparison of Stirner with Berdyaev, see Tsonchev (2021).


of humankind. Christian, and Orthodox theologians in particular, may thus benefit from a


confrontation with Stirner in matters of anthropology and synergetic soteriology and eschatology.



\bigskip


Bibliography



\bigskip


- Berdyaev, N.A. (2009): The Beginning and the End (R.M. French trans., B. Jakim foreword).


Semantron Press.


- Berdyaev, N.A. (1949): The Divine and the Human (R.M. French trans.). Geoffrey Bles.


- Blumenfeld, J.(2018): All Things are Nothing to Me: The Unique Philosophy of Max Stirner. Zero


Books.


- Deleuze, G. (1986): Nietzsche and Philosophy (H. Tomlinson trans.). Continuum.


- Evdokimov, P. (1989): The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty (S. Bigham, trans.). Oakwood


Publications.


- Feuerbach, L. (1989): The Essence of Christianity (G. Eliot trans.). Prometheus.


- Gregory of Nyssa (1858).: On the Making of Mankind (J. Migne ed.). Patrologia Graeca (Vol. 44).


- Gregory of Nyssa (1978): The Life of Moses (E. Ferguson, A.J. Malherbe trans. J. Meyendorff


foreword). Paulist Press.


- Newman, S. (2001): Spectres of Stirner: A contemporary critique of ideology. Journal of Political


Ideologies, 6 (3). pp. 309-330.


- Stirner, M. (2017): The Unique and its Property (W. Landstreicher trans.). Link


ps:\Slash{}\Slash{}theanarchistlibrary.org\Slash{}library\Slash{}max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property


- Tsonchev, T (2021): Person and Communion: The Political Theology of Nikolai Berdyaev. The


Montreal Review.


- Yannaras, C. (2015): The Schism in Philosophy: The Hellenic Perspective and its Western


Reversal (N. Russell trans.). Holy Cross Orthodox Press.


- Zwahlen, R.M. (2012): Different concepts of personality: Nikolai Berdiaev and Sergei Bulgakov.


Studies in East European Thought, 64 (3-4). pp. 183-204.









% begin final page

\clearpage


% if we are on an odd page, add another one, otherwise when imposing
% the page would be odd on an even one.
\ifthispageodd{\strut\thispagestyle{empty}\clearpage}{}


% new page for the colophon

\thispagestyle{empty}

\begin{center}

The Anarchist Library (Mirror)



\smallskip
Anti-Copyright



\bigskip
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{logo-yu.pdf}
\bigskip

\end{center}

\strut

\vfill

\begin{center}


Giulio Ardenghi

Saint Max: Stirner and Eastern Orthodox Theology



Presented on 29\Slash{}04\Slash{}2026


\bigskip


Conference Presentation at the 4th Academic Conference "Philosophy of Religion in the East and West". Almaty Theological Seminary and John Paul II University in Krakow, 27\Slash{}04\Slash{}2026 - 02\Slash{}05\Slash{}2026. Almaty, Kazakhstan.
   

       

       

       

       

       

       

   



\bigskip
\textbf{usa.anarchistlibraries.net}


\end{center}

% end final page with colophon


% end closing pages



\end{document}


% No format ID passed.



