/lit/ - Literature

>>18403330
Yes but only because the results wouldn't be as she thinks

>>12786689
Engels was actually friends with Stirner and a fan, he tried to get Marx into him but Marx reacted bitterly

>>11638265
Reminder: he was literally a cuckold

>>11005222
It most likly was never intended to be published in such an extremely polemical form, Engels would have edited it down a bit

>>8438653

>Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name? No, into the trash he goes because his philosophy is uninteresting and offers exactly -zero- accessible explanation of the world or anything. Zeeerooo. Ok?

You sound just like Marx when he was shitting himself, too.

I can smell the denial.

>>8408364
>Actually yeah, come to think of it has anyone produced a decent critique of Stirner? I've seen bits and pieces but they always resolve into personal preferences rather than logically reasoned alternatives.
One man was so autistic that he wrote a critique of The Ego and His Own which was longer than the source material

>>8369893

>Marx shat on Stirner directly.

Yeah, and he still didn't manage to refute him.

Funny, that.

>>8343851

No.

Stirner got the last laugh, for making Marx waste so much time.

>>8339007

Pic related.

Funny thing is that Stirner was still right.

>"What I'm telling you, men of Athens, is the truth...that's the reason, I am almost certain, that I am so hated; and that in itself is proof that I am right." - Socrates

The same applies to Stirner, even if truth is spook. His ideas had people shitting themselves, whereas the allegedly 'revolutionary' ideas of Marx/etc were comparatively tame.

The latter didn't want to do away with the 'system', merely take the reins by force and then reform it. As for Stirner:

>Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection [Empörung] leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hopes on “institutions.”

See pic related.

>>8167738
I thought Marx wrote a response to Stirner as well or something? (pic related)

>>8136858

>It doesn't surprise me that he scared the living shit out of Marx.

Even funnier when you read Marx's 'rebuttal'.

>>8110227

I'm just finishing Beyond Good and Evil.

It's terrible. Nietzsche's writing style is quirky as fuck; you can just imagine him fidgeting, blurting out, pre-emptively bouncing off the walls of the Basel Mental Asylum where he would later stay until his death. That said, it might be the translator's fault.

He had a couple of good ideas, nothing mind-blowing though. The actual ideas he's championed for (Übermensch, morality that is 'beyond Good and Evil', etc) are terrible.

I could imagine a good debate about just 'who' his prophesied 'New Philosophers' are (hopefully not those Post-Modernist/Structuralist hacks), or if they've even appeared yet, but that's about it.

Schopenhauer was better. Hoping to de-spook myself with Max.

>>8067171

Now I get it, you're a spook.

>>7832652
OH MY GOD

>>7768561

>

Stirner was the original fedora.

>>7357302
The German Ideology

>just be urself and dont fear the ghosts xd
seriously? that was it?

Why couldn't he handle the awesomeness that is Max Stirner?

Can someone summarize Karl Marx' argument against Max Stirner? I want to know if it's worth getting into.