I really like his thoughts about creating your own reality, making your own decisions, acting without fear of falling short of one's ideals, and his admonision of tribalism (a lession America especially is sorely in need of now more than ever). It seems, however, that he deifies the individual and rejects society entirely, which isn't tenable. There may be few, truly universal "common goods," but if there are none, then what is the foundation on which we build solidarity with each other? We can reject beliefs, labels, categories and value systems and form our own realities, but we are not islands. There must be some basis on which we relate to one another. I have not read or understood enough of his work to know if he is actively anti-society, but if so, he is deluded or deficient, because social bonds are not optional. That beef aside, I find his philosophy empowering, hopeful, optimistic even. Thanks for the thoughtful essay.