Is the ego and its own worth reading ?

>appeal to academia
Extremely weak

It's /r9k/ philosophy in its essence, you might as well subscribe to r/braincels while you're at it

what is the point of this thread

you already know what the general critical consensus is, or else he would be altogether forgotten. fine, so you want Yea Forums's opinion, but then you've surely seen the stirner memeing here, surely seen him posted here a hundred times before. what are these specific anons in this specific thread going to tell you that a whole history of endorsements will not?

is he worth reading? couldn't you have been more specific. "yes", he's worth reading. now what? are you going to take this answer this time or not? what are you even doing here?

It has some definite flaws but overall it is a great book. I don't know why people are dismissing it here as 'r9k philosophy' and the like without actually showing why they think that. I think Stirner's critique of ideology and spooks is pertinent even to this day. Stirner's Critics should be read after the Ego and Its Own, it's a very short read read that clears some things up and refutes objections.

Of course not, its not in their self interest to promote something that destroys the spooks that took so long to cement into society and give them power.

It's also not true, I know people personally in academia who write about Stirner

No. That's why I haven't.

Yeah there are few exeptions, but they did it for themselves as the academia doesnt really talk about him, ever.
People also very often misinterpret people that talk about stirner and fail to understand that they, themselves are also unconcious egoists.
There was a guy on youtube that made a video where he talked about his academic research on stirner and how people that attended his presentations get all butthurt and fail to understand what he is saying.

It's of no concern to me

>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.
>penguin takes all mention of Stirner out of Camus' Rebel
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.
>Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner's ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power"
>Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies

>implyign there is an unspoken conspiracy to hide Stirner as much as possible

Attached: 1537462136891.jpg (613x771, 50K)

/r9k/ subscribes to too many spooks

Attached: stirnerpill.jpg (750x534, 43K)

>worth reading
that's entirely on you. you should be able to extract some value from any situation.

I will be honest with you, user. It's a good book but you need to start with the greeks for it. I'm not fucking around here, the main point of this book is that stirner takes a giant shit on all of western thought up until Marx.

I've read introduction to western that cover the greeks philosophy and analytic philosophy

I've also read the republic but I feel like that's enough greeks for me

Yes.

Now listen to this:
youtube.com/watch?v=9B8fq-PmaHc

Attached: 1426921925870.png (185x180, 9K)

>The idea of a group of people containing certain characteristics is merely a spook
How can you take a statement like that seriously? His 'goal stage' is childish and literally a spook.

I don't think Socrates ever had an estonian punk band make a song about him.
That should be proof enough he's peak philosophy.

He is the most based philosopher of all time.
Anyone that disagrees is simply spooked.