Did he BTFO everyone?

[Anonymous No.14054227]

Why his sense of absolute freedom leads to what sounds as the ultimate sadness?

What reads come next? Moses Hess, maybe some Marx and Engels? Proudhon or Feuerbach?

Also are there any papers you are aware of to help better understand his "egoism" and how it can exist in modern society? I know the simplest answer would be something along the lines "Use everything and everyone to your own advantage" but as Marx and Engels pointed out that leaves people with deaf relationships, leading distant lives.

And also another question for those who have read his work and most of Nietzsche's, did the latter one add anything of his own or he simply expanded a 400 page book into a bunch of others? I haven't read most of Nietzsche's work besides Beyond good and evil, zarathustra, gay science and Twilight of the Idols which i haven't finished yet.

[Anonymous No.14054259]

I always think he looks like Schubert

[Anonymous No.14054274]

He can't BTFO me if I don't read him. Stirner BTFO.

[N No.14054287]

>>14054274
Based

[Anonymous No.14054956]

Guys google shows this image when you search for his name. Is this what he actually looked like? I prefer the drawing.

[Anonymous No.14055012]

>>14054227
>the ultimate sadness
That's more your perspective and ego really, Stirner professed his love for all men. A depressed man is going to be a depressed egoist.
There should be stuff on the anarchistlibrary, there's several egoist zines and old publications. If they don't have any of them then look for articles wolfi landstreicher has written and it'll get you to them. Henry Mackay had a gay one in the early 20thC and there's a feminist one from the same era also.

[Anonymous No.14055082]

>>14054274
congrats, you took the first step too become a perfect egoist, keep going

[Anonymous No.14055096]

Trump is the perfect atheist. Congratulations stirnirites, on finding your messiah.

[Anonymous No.14055104]

>>14055096

Egoist, I mean.

[Anonymous No.14055156]

>>14055012
>That's more your perspective and ego really
Always have been quite bleak but the way i see myself turning into an egoist for my own sake it comes with a really heavy burden. I have to stop caring for my childhood friends, girlfriend, parents and social constructs that kept me "enslaved" for all my lifetime.
If i start treating these relationships as meaningless connections with nothing permanent in them, the loneliness that follows is what causes my idea of ultimate sadness. No matter how much i will ponder on this idea it only leads back to the fact that no one really wants to be completely free. After all we don't live in an ideal world, we all have to serve a purpose that seems to be greater than us and the greater that purpose is the greater our happiness will be achieving it.
Thank you for the reccs.

[Anonymous No.14055255]

>>14054259
I thought I was the only one...

[Anonymous No.14055299]

Everyone and everything, proactively and reactively.
Other philosophers might as well shoot themselves.

[Anonymous No.14055327]

>>14054956
No, there are no photos of him

[Anonymous No.14056305]

>>14054956
It's a picture of Marc Bloch, french historian, and there is no picture of Stirner

[Anonymous No.14056513]

>>14054227
No. Stirner failed to realize that "spooks" are an inherent quality of any collaborative effort. Social controls serve a very specific purpose and arise automatically, due to the necessity of that purpose for collaborative efforts to not self-destruct.

Disregarding the value of norms is an incredibly naive failure of his, not realizing that the fundamental basis on which we are influenced by each other is ultimately inseparable from our interactions with one another. The fraction of quality empirical sociological study that has been performed has indicated that our sense of individualism is often overestimated or outright illusory. Even without getting into the measurable symbolic/memetic webbing that binds us, we have studied people who struggle to abide critical social norms. Anomies are a realistic reflection of Stirner's philosophy, especially in that they always act out of self-interest and reject the vast majority of social controls to do so. These normless souls are doomed to misery, they are incapable of functioning in any degree of a collaborative structure until they develop or adopt shared norms with other people (such as a counterculture) and are often destructive to such things in the first place.

By shirking "spooks" and our ethereal controls over one another, yet still cooperating, Stirner is advocating a material impossibility at this stage of our psychological evolution. The true consequence of Stirner's "Egoism" is hyper-individualistic, wherein human society does not exist as the frameworks to perpetuate cooperative effort don't exist. You should "speak" (language is a spook) to a feral child to understand the material reality of this.

[Anonymous No.14056564]

yes for as long as default hegelians stay asleep and saturates the wafflechung