/lit/ - Literature

>you have no ego
>you have no self

lol no, edgy kids

>>2443766
A brother at last!

DON'T ACT LIKE YOU DON'T AGREE

>>2333134
Brofist.

>>2319641
>he ad hominems Stirner without reading the book or at least understanding him and knowing the historical background

They all took him seriously, they were even afraid of him in an intellectual way. Marx spend a lot of time writing hundreds of butthurt pages about Stirner. Also, Stirners philosophy isn't individualism, it's egoism. Individualism usually glorifies the individual as an idea and is another form of idealism. Stirner is more of an moral solipsist without being an ontological solipsist.

The whole ignoring Stirner trend exists merely because nobody has ever been able to refute his work and because it scares people tremendously. It undermines every work written after him.

It probably isn't the kind of 'anarchism' your looking for but I would feel bad not to at least direct you to my main man Max Stirner.

The king of egoism/egoist anarchism. Do check him out.

Hello /lit/erati,

I have some questions:

1. Have you read The Ego and its Own by Max Stirner?
2. If so, did he convince you to agree with his philosophy?
3. If not, what arguments do you hold against him?

I'm asking this because in my experience Stirners philosophy is the hardest one to refute of anything that I've seen until now. I can see why one does not wish to agree with I'm, but I'm very curious about how one does this in a rational way.

The only way to do so would be to deny the ego as just another 'spook', but even if one does so it doesn't imply any moral considerations. So you would still be free to do as you please, just as you are according to Stirner. And even this argument may be flawed, since Stirner doesn't seem to suggest that the self is an actual, unchanging entity. He might just be the philosopher that killed Nietzsche, even before Nietzsche was born.

>>2186747

Would you please be so kind to share some names of the most 'Stirnerite' contemporary anarchists you can think of? I'm very interested in modern interpretations of his work from people who actually agree with him.