/lit/ - Literature

>>4222769
One of the best.

Are you asking for real?

The majority haven't read him. There is a group of dedicated Stirnerites here, though.

The original lolsoedgy

>>4222769
the edgemeister

>>4222787
Spookholio!

>>4222769
The most swashbuckling of all quietists.

every thread is Stirner thread

>>4222769
Why is Karl Marx about to attack Nietzsche and Stirner?

>>4222865
They're both fascists and Marx is communist

>>4222874
>Stirner
>fascist
Get out of here spook.

One of my favorite anarchist thinkers along with Theodore Kaczynski.

Fuckin' spooks!

He's one of those characters on /lit/ that no one has read and yet discuss commonly. Other characters who share this quality include:
>Zizek
>Tao Lin
>Marx
>In many cases Nietzsche

And that's all I can think of at the moment.

>>4222865
He's too much of a little bitch to thank Stirner properly for making him get his shit together.

>>4222913
don't forget past flavours of the month such as:
>Kharms
>Joyce
>Rand
etc

>>4222786
From what I understood of him, I quite like him. I find it difficult to say if he contradicts himself in reference to the own. I'm not sure if the own (by which he means the self or personality I think) could become a spook in itself. He seems to be a proto-existetialist more than an nihilist, the idea of the creative nothing is quite similar to the idea of existence before essence. Definitely not an anarchist. I don't know why people seem content on labelling him as such. His view on history. i.e. materialist > idealist > egoist I'm sceptical about. His conception of property being the individual asserting itself on others I like (only in definition, not ethically).

So yes, I quite like him.

I ordered Der Einzige und sein Eigentum yesterday

wouldnt be suprised if wittgenstein read him

I think is an interesting figure but I would not like to live in a society adhering to his philosophy.

>>4225359

Why not? It'd basically look like utopian communism.

>>4225359
A Stirnerist could live as a serial killer but also like a saint. There is no one way of life connected to his philosophy. It boils down to acting on your own accord, which people often tend to do anyway, just less consciously. Stirner's philosophy isn't a "thou shalt be selfish", it's merely "thou shalt not act in a way that is not in accordance with how you would like to act". Stirner is quite a tender fellow:

>I love men too,—not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no "commandment of love." I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment[Pg 387] torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.

>[...]

>The feeling for right, virtue, etc., makes people hard-hearted and intolerant. Rudolph does not feel like the notary, but the reverse; he feels that "it serves the rascal right"; that is no fellow-feeling.

>You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.

>If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.

>>4225415
So he''s just gay?

>>4225427
kill yourself

>>4225415
>>4225367
I will have to study him more closely.

>>4222874
>Nietzsche
>fascist
Get out of here letzte mensch.

>>4225427
masterrace

>have books by stirner and other relevant philosophers
>can't read them because i get lost in the text and have no fucking clue what's going on

>>4225415
>You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.
Oh shit, didn't remember that.

Does that make it the first one to criticize people who like "the Human" more than individuals?
Can't think of an antecedent.

>>4225669
Oh come on Stirner isn't that densely written.

>>4225687
it's all the tiny 4chan posts. they've ruined my focus.

>>4225682
He's probably the first.

>>4225690

It's not hard to regain, brother. Don't give up.

>>4225719

Stirner is, to little pronouncement, arguably the logical first for many innovations in thought that today are seen as quite contemporary. Even the materialism that defines Marxism most likely wouldn't exist as is without Stirner.

>>4222769


maxter race.