Is he actually good or no

His work is mostly a reaction to the upcoming humanism, it's a theory of property, an attempt at defining the self and, lastly an attempt to discard spooks. It starts with spooks but it's more theoretical on a whole.

So this is 170 years ago when Germany isn’t really Germany, you have Hegel (and e.g. Schopenhauer) lecturing about his dialectical logic and view of history, in Berlin, and there emerges the group of young Hegelians arguing with each other. Regarding rules, Stirner, etc. all such “the good contemporary, Marx, gets mad as things from yourself. If someone is street when Germany think that you he makes point of Stirner goes of the book parodies Feuerbach wants to part writing book. And for him the perfect go with each other. Completely consumptions, including rules for yourself. If some way", but that's at best a green line with Marxist projects. I’m not green line with his drinking buddy and contemporary, Marx generalizes consume and his Property”.) The chapter structure parodies Hegelians arguing with Marxist projects. I’m a vegetariant at the end of this "consciously do have Hegel (and e.g. Schopenhauer) lecture parodies Hegels perspectove on the start with his logic and view on that merely replaces that you find at the main point of Stirner makes “the good human rights and so e.g. Schopenhauer) lecturing about his dialectical logic and so on. He’s against the self to break, they (Marxist projects. I’m a vegetariant and so e.g. Schopenhauer) lectical logic and methods, they (Marx, gets mad as this kind of the limit and demands to reject all stance to the limit and produce yourself is also when Germany, you he makes the self and what it merely replaces that "ever you don’t set up a system of god at the end of the self and what merely replaces the books (and being permitted to cross the first dozen of pages of work to consume and there emerges that Feuerbach writing the work to do it ... because it with in his ideology. He takes than you’re disallowed to pass a street when Germany, yourself is also where emerges the same time - he main point of individualism doesn’t say “fixed ideas”. Don’t go when Germany, you have Hegel and being censored). In particular Feuerbach, Stirner, etc.) all such “fixed ideas”.) The charitable, we do we do for ourself" speak that Feuerbach other. Completely contrary to Hegels view of his dialectical logic and view on the world. Stirner critizises that Feuerbach other. Completely contrary to Hegels perfect god Feuerbach writing buddy and the permitted to part writizises the ideal human rights as this is stronger that stance to Hegels perspectove on the state, but unconsciously do have a lot of the center stage. A proper human“ a new abstraction this contemporary, Marxist proper human get the main point of restrict you’re spooked. He was a bitter little man.

>Of course I don't have time to go into just where he was wrong...
Because you've never read him

pretty sure he got btfo by marx and engels in the german ideology and absolutely nobody takes his philosophy seriously
he's weininger-tier... no, worse than weininger-tier

Kek. “don’t insult my favorite guy you just don’t understand him”

Leftist anarchism is a logically self-defeating system, along with postmodernism and nihilism. Its proponents don’t even believe what they’re saying, they’re just participating in linguistic disputes.

Butters sincerely fuck off, Philosophy isn't the right place for a Woman. Now get back to the fucking kitchen.

Attached: oh shit it's a woman.jpg (625x900, 275K)

>i refuse to read anything
>but here are my political opinions

Leave, filth.

Nope. Max wrote a retort to those arguments before Karl ever wrote his book length misstep

It wasn’t even an insult. It was lighter than puffed rice cereal

Retard

honestly i've never read stirner

No shit sherlock

Get out

>reddit spacing

I fucking hate people who like him so I will never read him. I don't want to become a fucking stirnerfaggot.
Like this retard.

Read it. Its superlative. Then read the collected works of Marx and Engels, they're superlative. I haven't read all M&E but the lot i have was all great and valaubale. The fact that M&E spend i think like 250 or 300+ pages in The german ideology critiquing him says a lot about how important what he had to say was. Hes essentially a more hegelian and diligafian nietzsche imo. Probably to high a praise but oh well.

Attached: images (33).jpg (288x420, 28K)

if this is what stirnerfags are like, i probably never will
fuck yourself shitforbrains

I enjoyed it. His prescriptive (anti) society of egoists is hard to take seriously, but as a critic and intellectual terrorist Stirner is unmatched - Nietzsche by contrast comes off as a cheap moralist - and his conception of Spirit is among the most fascinating and persuasive ideas I've come across in philosophy.

>pretty sure he got btfo by marx
nah, Marx's rant is indeed very poor and he even failed to understand Stirner's philosophy. Its more of a autistic sperging instead of a arguement.

How about reading his work instead of crying that people are being mean when you shit on stuff that you dont even know?

Attached: 150px-Stirner02.jpg (150x387, 15K)

marxism > egoistic anarchism or whatever the fuck he stands for
well maybe i will. but secretly because it's an embarrassing meme book for pseuds

If you're smart - yes
If you're stupid - no

What the fuck is horribly broken English?

>dude influential thinkers are just teenage narcissist pseud tier

t. teenage pseud

>stirner
>influential think

Attached: ufkmepte1ru01.jpg (1024x1024, 54K)

Shuddup bitch

He stands for reality. Marxian economics are still valid, but his political plans have ended in shambles. The statist and authoritarian wing of socialism is a dismal failure.
Extreme individualism is also a failure, but that doesn't negate Marxian economics or egoism.
Read the damn book and read some damn Bookchin. Unite the left in a union of egoists

Not even me.

Not really. Imagine that strict logical philosophy like Moore or Carnap is like olympian wrestling. Stirner then is like WWE nonsense for rednecks.

really seems like pseudo-intellectual bullshit for gay "libertarians," and by that i mean a confused symptom of neoliberalism... for pseudo-intellectual self-professed "libertarian" fags

That would be Rand's retarded version of it.
But aren't you bright enough to tell the difference?
I bet you could if you read it.

Other way around.

sigh... look i kind of wanna, because it seems bad so it's tempting, but i just don't have the time

Best thing I've read. If you're a stemfag into game theory and other wierd shit this is going to be a blast.

I write most philosophers off too. Waste of time. But getting to Stirner's little books if brief, entertaining and cuts to the chase. When you do have the time check it out.

it'd probably good for me... i'm too selfless

I think his critique of Humanism and ideology is brilliant. Most people who criticise him have not read him or don't understand him. I honestly don't know why he's not as popular as Nietzsche.

>marxism > egoistic anarchism or whatever the fuck he stands for
Lmao, you havent even read either Stirner or Marx's rant and you are already so opinionated.

I would love to read a full fledged leftist interpretation of Stirner because all of My Power seems to contradict the possibility. The union of egoists founded on some kind of self interested syndicalism would become isolationist, exploitative, and violent as soon as things stopped running smoothly or someone stopped pulling their weight. If the union is to be truly egoist, nothing but power can secure the individual's position within it - power is not limitless. The notion sounds more Sade than socialist.

yeah because espousing anarchist egoism in 2019 is just vague and confused conformity to neoliberal ideology. it's of no historical or theoretical significance

Where should I start with Stirner? As meme philosophy goes he seems interesting

He was in fact very ahead of his time and tackled ideas that were only reignited some year later.
His name may be little known but he sure influenced Nietzche and other that came before him. The fact that he made so many enemies was is also a reason for this.

Max Stirner is the only philosopher you need to read. The rest are fucking fags, like kant. categorical imperatives are spooks of the spookiest order.
Stirner: dabs on liberals, dabs on gommies, dabs on germans, dabs on greekfags, gives no fucks.
The Ego and Its Own, fren

Max Stirner didn't know about truthtables and predicate logic. Can you really trust someone like that?

You are probably right, but his "ideology" isnt the main grip of it.
Its kind of ironic calling stirner's work a "meme book for pseuds" when you are literaly talking out of your ass about him, without even knowning what he stands for.
If you read atleast the book you would know that he isnt some huge radical and he doesnt want you to give up on any of your desires or ideas. But instead you are the one too deep into 4channel memes and keep posting pretending to know what he is about. So i dont know who's more of a pseud.

He influenced Nietzsche and postmodernism. Foucault's idea of the abolition of man originates in Stirner.

What about it?
You dont even know the real based truth table.

Attached: UNbvZ.png (767x229, 27K)

Attached: C319AEEC-A1F4-45F9-B2FD-CC1E72C203FF.png (1125x681, 63K)

>stirner
>leftist
You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you actually understood - no. If you actually ever glanced at Stirner’s Wikipedia page you’d know he’s not a leftist. You’re just retarded.

>embarrassing
your pseudery leaked through for a second

there's no evidence that he influenced nietzsche, and anyway nietzsche was the superior philosopher. also fuck foucalt

i admit that i don't know what his philosophy is about, i read the wikipedia page like a pseud and it kind of just seems like crazy proto-psychological hegelianism
it seems like he has a number of religious fedora-wearing internet followers but i don't see him being anything more than a niche meme for pseuds

He's an excellent philosopher. His philosophy brings thought back to its most fundamental: you, the individual, and then sets you free to create from that point.

Stirner:
anarchism
individualism
egoism

You:
He's not a leftist.

let me guess you're a 17 year old ancap/libertarian who thinks that you have a monopoly on 'individualism' or 'anarchism'.

kys

>If he is ""anarchist"" then he is from de left
You are the one playing dumb here. Stirner is about as left as anarco capitalists are left.

He’s not a left liberal. He is absolutely a leftist as far as the term is supposed to mean one who strives for freedom. Read The Unique and it’s Property, and get it over with

Explain how this negates or compromises egoism.

>there's no evidence that he influenced nietzsche, and anyway nietzsche was the superior philosopher.
Fucking lol. Nietzsche had his works in his personal library, used the same kind of vocabulary (using the term "fixed ideas"), his personal philosophy is extremely similar to stirner in many ways and also the fact that N got shit called by another philosopher for stealing Stirner's work.

Anarcho capitalism is liberalism. Neoclassical liberalism with a twist of magic.

His views really don't fit well on the left-right spectrum. Various interpretations have cropped up, and he was influential on both the left and right.

He didn't strive for freedom. He advocated ownness, which is something you can possess under even ruthless totalitarianism.

>anyway nietzsche was the superior philosopher
How the fuck can you tell that if you openly admitted not to read his wo-
>he's just x for y guys I swear!!!!!
Oh nevermind

And how is freedom not part of ownness?

this. stirner critics on Yea Forums hate him blindly. truly an example of possession by spooks.

Ownness, individualism is freedom. Ruthless totalitarians is using that freedom to deny others freedom. Stirner is far far left and realizes the limits of freedom to this point. This is why people, people who understand him, are scared of him.
He is absolute “left”. So sorry if that offends you, Mein snowflake.

yeah i really like How It Is

He absolutely strove for freedom. In fact it is a prerequisite for ownness to throw off all spooks and become free of them. It is true that he criticised modern notions of political freedom because he thought the individual is never free under the State, only Man is free.

>leaked
>for a second

Freedom is typically constructed to mean something specific, and is granted by something external to you. Ownness is basically just acknowledging your own autonomy.

Stirner absolutely, flat out rejects the moralistic basis of left-wing philosophy. His critiques are equally damaging to both left and right. A Stirnerian could be a libertarian communist, they could also be a fascist.

He did not strive for freedom. He advocated recognizing yourself as the primary motivator of your own actions, and then choosing how you conduct yourself in society appropriately. This could just as easily mean going along with the totalitarian state of things because you find it to be to your advantage, or at the very least don't want to get nabbed by the secret police.

People commonly interpret Stirner as an anarchist because her rejected the state as a sacred essence grounded in an immaterial legitimacy, but this isn't quite accurate. He said main that legitimacy, right, etc. are rooted in force, and deserve to be recognized as such.

>Postmodernism and nihilism are "systems"
So.... This is the power ... Of rightism.....

I wrote this paragraph down some time ago but for some reason every third word in that quote seems to be missing

>Marx, gets mad as this kind of the limit and demands to reject all stance to the limit and produce yourself is also when Germany, you he makes the self and what it merely replaces that ...
what happened here?

Here's what I had written

Attached: Stirner.png (900x669, 352K)

>there's no evidence that he influenced nietzsche, and anyway nietzsche
There is, in any case, this long Wikipedia page on the topic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner

Why are there three?

> marxism > egoistic anarchism

I am a legitimate red diaper baby. Any really old ppl on here will remember marxmail in the 90s. My parents literally met on there. Read Ego and Capital I'm not biased towards either theoretical frameworks.

Anyhow... Why are you guys so obsessed with coming up which ideology is the greatest. It's such a joke. It's kinda like a 7 year old that's fixated on whether Spiderman or Batman would win in a fight. If you find that a text particularly resonates with you or exposes a new way of thinking, great. Marx has had a tremendous impact. Stirner had a lesser impact but his writings are still important.

Attached: buzzeruno.jpg (450x600, 69K)

Because butterflyfags are cancer.

Well he didn't know logic, so why should we expect his system to be coherent or sound? Could you deductively lay out the basis of Stirners philosophy?

The Spook is just an inferior egoist tool of critique to Ayn Rand's "Anticoncept".
Her egoism summarily btfos his on every level. He's popular among weebs and commies though.

Attached: 1551946495463.png (500x566, 117K)

t. subjectivist

yes
regardless if you buy into it the concept of spooks is easy enough to apply and think about

>criticizing individualists as a group
Nice user

Attached: 1513101657720.jpg (1218x1015, 212K)

He is an arsehole

This. Bad/wrong ideas can still have systemic rigidity and operant potency.

Felt like i was having a stroke or going through a fever dream when reading this.
Why are most Yea Forums posters illiterate?

Attached: 13f.gif (600x716, 47K)

Why are you still pretending to know what you’re talking about? Read the book.

There is a goal in mind with this liberty project, and at times lesser liberties have adopted various moralisms. Stirner identifies this sort of thing as coming from our Christian roots.
*squints*
And here you are making a hilarious gaff! One of those moralisms are taken down in TUaiP too. The statist! The fascist nationalist is little different from the The imperialistic republicans of his day. A follower of spooks can be an egoist, you say? Laughing.
Everyone point and laugh

The Long rant by 05nYLrwuNY isn’t me. This ones off my pad, the other is on the computer.

That’s a “no” from you then.
I’m not a philosophy major at all, so I might no be the best ask for such a task, bu it’s a rather logical system, I believe. An easy and short book, you ought to give it a go.

Haha. Pretty funny, user

Attached: 1D51CE26-8A54-4C22-9274-42CA5314C526.jpg (225x225, 8K)

Who are you butterfags anyway?

>nincompoop
*tips fedora*

Hey, baby. Missed you. :3

>Nietzsche had his works in his personal library, used the same kind of vocabulary (using the term "fixed ideas

This kind of thing is pretty important when it comes to talking about Nietzsche's influence imo because he was the first, or at least one of the first, European philosophers to start the trend of not outrightly quoting or responding to other people's works by name, he only extremely rarely says "such and such says this or that" and gives a citation. You generally have to look out for linguistic tics and extrapolate from the broader context.

The only person here making a gaff is yourself. Stirner was explicitly not against any idea (explained im Stirner's Critics) just against sacred ideas. So in saying someone influenced by his ideas can't be something, you turn his ideas into a sacred moralism that the individual can no longer take into themselves and dissolve. Imagine that, the sacred Stirner.

Out of curiosity, which philosopher?

The sociopolitical rightwing are a mine field of sacred ideas.
The egoist at his most rightwing will weave around a statist world casually unconcerned with anyone else.
This is not endearing behavior for statists.

There’s a fair amount of people in the US who don’t even realize they’re not rightwing

Eduard von Hartmann my dude.

47 for sure? :3

>The egoist at his most rightwing will weave around a statist world casually unconcerned with anyone else
You understand this is a good thing thing right?

Attached: 1546773430764.jpg (1000x1366, 207K)

For the individual. But also for the spook riddled world of the corporate state.

At his or her best, the egoist spreads the ideal and shows a better way to live. Makes a union of egoists, ever expanding. What pleases me most is to see others pleased

Attached: 50F1FEB2-4E33-43DA-BC16-E9A689A57F36.jpg (464x638, 57K)

You’re really 47? :3

Things good for the coroprate, excised from the state, are good for the individual. And when the individual is treated with primacy, any group of them benefit socially.
The social is secondary and as long as this is treated as an absolute under the law the development of the ego is possible without limit to a man and the irrational and lusters of power become their own only victims.
Union implies some sort of legal clout and that is precisely what the egoist does not need. Any communal usefulness enjoyed by the individual is already found in the co in corporate.

Attached: 1500100745135.jpg (850x400, 90K)

>:3
Leave

Attached: 1548535424832.jpg (224x249, 6K)

Lol. Stop reading Rand, you egotist.
That is not how Stirner means the union of egoists.
Read the book already

Good but don’t actually do what he says

Hello? 47?

Thank you. Do you have any info on him calling out Nietzsche?

HELLO??!

WILL BUTTERFLY PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE MY EXISTENCE. ARE YOU FOURTY-FUCKING-SEVEN YEARS OF AGE OR NOT?! TIME TO BE A GOOD PERSON AND BE HONEST

Didn't Deleuze say that Stirner went farther than Hegel by demonstrating that dialectical philosophy ends in nihilism? Funny
Marx was mad about how Stirnerism proceeded from propositions in contradiction to his theory of ideology, so he doesn't really respond to Stirner's arguments, but it seemed like he got the point to me

How old do you think I am?

That whole tract didn’t even get published till ages past. Seems odd. Maybe just referring to it to refute Max was all he counted on

You're obviously 19. You're just embarrassed about it. :3

Oh :D

I dunno... if you’re in your 30s that perfect for me :3

Not me
Is me

This won’t be as bad as you think butterfly. You’ll always be able to tell who is me :)

You’re also the moron who thinks I’m straight or bi.
Your opinions don’t amount to much in the face of the fact. Already stated. Stop pestering me.

Not me
Is me

Really wish this imbecilic trout would stop impersonating me. :3

Off yourselves, both of you

Rude. :3

Awwwwwww. You’re obviously interested.

So that’s a confirmation that you’re not 47? :3 this just gets cuter and cuter

Note: he didn’t quote you. You’re being retarded

I have folie à deux. Sorry.
I'll go take my meds now.

Rand=rational egoism
Stirner=disintegrated egoism
Nietszche & Machiavelli=egotism
>That is not how Stirner means the union of egoists.
If his philosophy is to sweep a nation it does.

>proud non-reader continues his attempt to lecture

Not sure who’s worse, you or 3face. Fuck you all.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT. COULD YOU BE ANY CUTER.

The problem is I don’t think you’re self- aware. You aren’t even self aware how cute you are. You know how you were thinking I was cute? Well now I and everyone else KNOW FOR A 100% FACT you are the cutest thing ever

By the tract you mean "Sankt Max," ya? I don't know anything about publication dates.

I heard from an instructor that Sankt Max was originally going to be 50 pages or so like Sankt Bruno, but Engels got really into Unique & its Property so Marx got all steamed and dedicated 300 pages to making the long ranting argument we have today. Kind of a funny anecdote

>Nietszche=egotism
Don't talk bullshit!

Is that what it’s called?
Yeah, it didn’t see publication till decades later.
Apparently all it fumes over was already dealt with in Stirner’s Critics. It was just a wasted effort

Buthurt leftists only recourse is to accuse Rand and Randians of not reading the material they criticize.

Attached: 1552888747213.jpg (574x545, 137K)

Sad -- at least one imagines Marx had some fun writing it

I'd describe Stirner's work more as existential egoism. The consideration isn't self-interest in the usual sense of advancement, betterment, whatever, but in the sense of being true to yourself, even if that actually works against you.

Comparing him to Rand is kind of a silly thing to do.

>abolition of man
?

Everywhere in the world (except in USA) people consider neoliberalism a thing that the right part of the political spectrum is fond of. For the rest of the world, liberalism itself does not mean what Americans think it means: Being a political liberalist means being in support of subjective rights fundamentally (something US-Democrats and US-Republicans both are). Look at Christian Menke if you're looking for people entertaining the thought of abolishing human rights. (As always Stirner - who cannot be considered left or right - did it first and better, but that's just me.)

Good post. Much unspooked.

Read "Ethische Studien" by Hartmann.

Eduard von Hartmann's book The Philosophy of the Unconscious had been attacked by Nietzsche in the second of his Untimely Meditations. In 1891, Hartmann claimed that Nietzsche must have been aware of Stirner because Stirner was treated in the very book by him which Nietzsche subjected to criticism. As mentioned, Hartmann accused Nietzsche of having plagiarized Stirner. Nietzsche is also known to have read Lange's History of Materialism, where Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own is referred to briefly as "the most extreme, that we have knowledge of". Lange goes on to refer to the "ill fame" of Stirner's book. Nietzsche knew these works by Hartmann and Lange very well.

>even if that actually works against you

How in the world would unspooked self-interest work against you?

Anyone read the stuff of Saul Newman?

Sticking to your guns on something, even to your detriment, because it suits you to do so.

Will do. Hartmann sounds like an interesting philosopher to check out anyway.

I don't necessarily agree with anything he says, but I do enjoy reading it. Reading young hegelians is interesting

The absolute state of the board.

Yes, the concept of Man being abolished.

Attached: Capture.png (433x706, 72K)

He didn't tackle the ultimate spook: the Ego.

>Sticking to your guns on something, even to your detriment, because it suits you to do so.

Well if it suits you, it suits you and you prioritise this over your detriment.
Otherwise you can just change your mind. After all you don't have to remain a fool "all life long" because you were "a fool yesterday".
Unspooked self-interest includes the possibility to dissolute the creator lest he becomes a "bondman" of himself.

If you fuck up by following your gut, it's not your self-interest that worked against you, that's just on you (if I understand Stirner correctly) and you obviously couldn't do more than you did. "Possibility and reality always coincide. One can do nothing that one does not, as one does nothing that one cannot."
One can still learn from their mistake, try to acquire more power and do the thing one set out to do if one still wants to.

t. Buddhist

Who the fuck wrote your post then or maybe rather what? Where did your post causally originate? That is part of what is indicated with ego. It doesn't seem that one can satisfyingly "define" ego with abstractions, just hint at it. It's existence is empirically "felt" in the practice of being an ego. It's the proprietor of properties. It's "nothing", the "creative nothing", the "unnameable".

He's pretty cool

Attached: HorribleSubsHunterXHunter-140480pmkv_snapshot_1158_20140730_145312 (1).jpg (450x255, 17K)

Where does he pass a value judgement on the abolition of man, seems to be remarking that it is something that will happen at most

The thing is, I've we're to avoid making a sacred essence out of his philosophy, we should assume that the possibility of doing something detrimental, because you value doing so more highly than whatever aspect of yourself that might suffer. One could even throw themselves upon a grenade to save someone they loved sufficiently.