/lit/ - Literature

>>10797486
>similar theories without the autism and child murder acceptance have already been accepted
Which theories are you referring to and did you not understand the previous comments regarding how Stirner's egoism doesnt mean yay child killing?
>How are they more authentic?
Because they don't mistake ideological concerns as being their own or worse still as being more important than their own. Likewise its a useful tool for identifying hypocrisy.

Also funfact - Stirner provided the first translation of Adams Smith's Wealth of Nations and it was the go to translation for about 120 years

>What if you get off to killing children?
Having a sensation or desire doesn't mean fulfilling that desire is in your interest. In the same way that desiring to eat sugary foods and never exercise is a desire but not necessarily in ones interest. Our social organisation prevents such behavior.

>Stirner would say go ahead and do it.
Not at all, not only because of the above but simply because Stirner's theory is not prescriptive of any behavior. Indeed its one of the reasons why the book was also marketed as the billionaires bible in the US & UK.

>Stirner would say society judging you for this is a spook and you shouldn't feel any remorse.
Not true, a spook is defined by its relationship not it being intangible. If society tried to force itself to be ok with childkilling out of some ideological individualism that would actually be the spooky part.

>The Marx, hegel and stirner of their day.
Well with Stirners case I have shown how, he was completely different in his life/actions and his writings. Do you not accept those points or do you have a special understanding of Harris and Stirner?

>Show some examples of this.
Well to use the quote from my earlier post

>what was taken from God has been superadded to Man, and the power of humanity grew greater in just the degree that of piety lost weight: “Man” is the God of today, and fear of Man has taken the place of the old fear of God.

>But, because Man represents only another Supreme Being, nothing in fact has taken place but a metamorphosis in the Supreme Being, and the fear of Man is merely an altered form of the fear of God.

>Our atheists are pious people.

And another one

>Man is not the individual, but man is a thought, an ideal, to which the individual is related not even as the child to the man, but as a chalk point to a point thought of, or as a — finite creature to the eternal Creator, or, according to modern views, as the specimen to the species. Here then comes to light the glorification of “humanity,” the “eternal, immortal,” for whose glory (in majorem humanitatis gloriam) the individual must devote himself and find his “immortal renown” in having done something for the “spirit of humanity.”

1/2

>>8798178
>You can define behaviors as right or wrong

>>8788787
Irrelevant question as you cannot objectively define and validate 'merit' alone much less if you take into an account both mediums importance cross culture and cross time period

The Milkman

>>8499117
Just a bump for this in case that anon comes back

>>7446207
>- To what extent is Stirner just a limper, shallower Nietzsche?
To the same extent that Nietzche is just an obfuscated, rambling and syphilitic Stirner.

>- Why is Stirner so non-canon?
Political philosophy was the big trend at the time (Marx etc) and Egoism pretty much breaks political philosophy in general so he was kept hush hush for a long time. And because he only ever wrote one book and his personal life was generally a huge joke.

>- How did Stirner come to inhabit the same meme-sphere as Thomas Pynchon and DFW on /lit/?
The only known picture of him is that stupid looking smug pencil drawing so it's easy to post exploitable meme faces while greentexting something like ">spooks kek" in response to literally anything on this board.

>>6070359
Thank you very much.

I am Stirned.