/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19154501]

why were his writings never as popular as nietzsche's? his ideas are much more interesting, though similar

[Anonymous No.19154517]

You only think that because you are ignorant and easily impressionable.

[Anonymous No.19154518]

Unremarkable writer

[Anonymous No.19154538]

> just live like a nigger bro, lmao.
Wow, how very enlightening.

[Anonymous No.19154539]

>>19154501
Nietzsche was a more interesting and engaging writer. He also had more patronage than Stirner.

[Anonymous No.19154543]

>>19154501

Nietzsche isn't weighed down by Hegelian baggage, which makes him far easier to understand.

[Anonymous No.19154614]

>>19154501
Nietsche's obscure style makes him seem more enigmatic

[Anonymous No.19154629]

>>19154501
I tried reading him as an edgy teenager and it did not engage me. Hes a boring read

Nietzche on the other hand writes brief essays and twitter posts

[Anonymous No.19154714]

>>19154501
Stirner wrote treatises while N wrote Aphorisms. Stirner was writing under the shadow of Hegelianism while N was free to write about ancient history, religion etc in whatever way he wanted.
Hence Stirner is a footnote to Hegelianism and N is his own man, even tho he too is working within German thought even tho he denies it on and off.

[Anonymous No.19154964]

>>19154543
>>19154714
stirner wasn't an hegelian

[Anonymous No.19154974]

>>19154964
They won't understand what he did to the rhetoric even if you linked relevant diagrams.

[Anonymous No.19155056]

>>19154974
Young Heigelians have the mark and Stirner is the village men. Nietzsche merely fapped to it and went his own way.
https://exhentai.org/g/1705398/e1a5f808fe/

[Anonymous No.19155916]

>>19154501
His own philosophy paints him as a spook, retard. That's how stupid he is.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19155930]

>>19155916
t. Never read him club

[Anonymous No.19155946]

>>19154714
>Hence Stirner is a footnote to Hegelianism and N is his own man
First of all, no N is a man, let alone his own. Second of all, fuck niggers. Lastly, based spookbuster has more meems dedicated to him than reddit nihilism man could every dream of, ergo concordantly you're a faggot.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19155948]

>>19155946
>reddit nihilism man
Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist

[Anonymous No.19155970]

ATTENTION GAMERS: There's a fat dyke replying to my post

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19155999]

>>19155970
What’s your body fat mass, memer?

[Anonymous No.19156006]

>>19155999
bout tree fiddy

[Anonymous No.19156009]

>>19155999
i am underweight

[Anonymous No.19156038]

Nietzsche’s prose is a lot more engaging than Stirner’s. They are very similar though, e.g. they are both trying to break away from two giants in philosophy (Nietzsche from Schopenhauer, Stirner from Hegel) and pave their own way. I really don’t think a lot of people can handle the implications of Stirner’s philosophy. Nietzsche is a little bit easier to handle because he is a crypto-moralist.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19156041]

>>19156009
And I’m well under her weight >>19155957
And not fat at all

[Anonymous No.19156050]

One book versus many essays/books
Also:
One girl school teacher vs a professor
All about the reach and audience.

[Anonymous No.19156054]

>>19156041
wat is ur bmi

[Anonymous No.19156058]

>>19156041
>And I’m well under her weight
>posts an obese individual
well

[Anonymous No.19156068]

Nietzsche is engaged with history, stories, attractive metaphors, the Greeks, literature, poetry, drama, music, he's culturally much more attractive. He also deals with all facets of philosophy whereas Stirrer is just interested in ethics

[Anonymous No.19156123]

>>19156038
>Schopenhauer
>giant

[Anonymous No.19156140]

>>19156068
Stirner also dealt with history, politics and ontology. But yes, Nietzsche is ultimately far more comprehensive than Stirner.

[Anonymous No.19156147]

>>19154501
I like Stirner but he's nowhere near Nietzsche's level, stop. Nietzsche is a prophet.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19156148]

>>19156123
Yeah, I saw that too.

>>19156054
Not skeletal, not fat.
>>19156058
>obese
Oh dear. You haven’t seen obese.

[Anonymous No.19156155]

He blew out his shitpipe playing field hockey

[Anonymous No.19156168]

>>19156148
>You haven’t seen obese.
>Not skeletal, not fat.
So "big boned"?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19156177]

>>19156168
Okay

[Anonymous No.19156199]

>>19156168
Stop applying Western beauty standards to Butterfly!

[Anonymous No.19156227]

>>19156148
>not skeletal
Skeletal is superior aesthetic

[Anonymous No.19156229]

>>19156177
>why yes this cyclist with 5% bodyfat and huge muscles is just like me with my gracious rolls of belly lard and cellulitis

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19156264]

>>19156227
Emaciated women look similar to emaciated males. Drained of their sex, they lose —sex appeal.

>>19156229
That’s honestly 5%? Okay. I’m about 6 or 7%. Not as much curve to my hips, but I’m as athletic as this woman

[Anonymous No.19156267]

I like em both :)

[Anonymous No.19156297]

>>19156264
>Drained of their sex, they lose —sex appeal.
Maybe for u

[Anonymous No.19156308]

>>19156264
>I'm about
Just post pics. You owe anon this much for putting up with your crippling autism and general faggotry all these years.

[Anonymous No.19156314]

>>19156297
That puffy face makes her look bulimic

[Anonymous No.19156317]

>>19156264
>—
your using the pseud dash incorrectly lmao

[Anonymous No.19156323]

>>19156317
Stirner kind of used them like—that.

[Anonymous No.19156362]

>>19156323
Also, does anyone know what Stirner meant by “I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself create everything as creator”? Is Stirner implying that the Unique is an absolute or a kind of thing in itself?

[Anonymous No.19156379]

>>19156362
The point you have to get with Stirner is that he is making the same argument of the Greek Sophists - that philosophy is merely a rhetoric tool to persuade people to follow one's own egoistic cause. You're reading Stirner in a way that misses the point of the text because you are concerned with the heuristics of the text, and not the lesson of the text. You're suppose take what he says, and use it as a tool for your own ends.
> “I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself create everything as creator”?
Stirner is a strict norminalist - he's making the argument that individual is the measure of all things metaphysically, ethically, scienitifically et cetera - nothing in the world has value unless you assign something to it. If you're famaliar with Taoism, or Zen, Stirner is following the same logic of their non-dualism.

[Anonymous No.19156387]

>>19154501
Because he’s an egoist that actively promotes selfishly doing whatever you can without all the life affirming stuff the Nietzsche has and he makes commies seethe so a lot of people in the intelligencia would probably want to keep him buried.

[Anonymous No.19156391]

>>19156379
>nothing in the world has value unless you assign something to
That's not what Zen and Tao teach at all. Go sit with a Zen master and ask him if he thinks that.

[Anonymous No.19156395]

>>19156391
>That's not what Zen and Tao teach at all. Go sit with a Zen master and ask him if he thinks that.
You can take that non-sense back to /r/Zen. I'm not interested, and I don't appeal to their authority on the matter.

[Anonymous No.19156404]

>>19156362
"Nothing" as in an indeterminate, inexhaustible plenitude that can't be pinned down by one single interpretation.
Nothing as in no thing.

[Anonymous No.19156407]

>>19156314
Hot

[Anonymous No.19156408]

>>19156148
>Oh dear. You haven’t seen obese.
Sometimes I forget you're American.

[Anonymous No.19156410]

>>19156395
Stop trying to pretend you know shit about other philosophies if you don't. Leave them out of your egoist ramblings.

[Anonymous No.19156411]

>>19156410
Stop pretending I have to care how feel you, nigger. You're not boss of me.

[Anonymous No.19156413]

What actually is the ego? is it not just a construct of spooks? the regular human ego is nothing.

I just don't see how he is that interesting, especially when you realise the reality of metaphysics in the Guenonian/Traditionalist sense. Initiation properly understood is the answer to all of the dead-ends of profane philosophy. Evola realised this and wrote about it in his philosophical books which are not available in English.

[Anonymous No.19156415]

>>19156411
Stirner is actually a Marxist Deleuzian, or at least he uses the same logic as these two to come to slightly different conclusions.

[Anonymous No.19156417]

>>19156379
>If you're famaliar with Taoism, or Zen, Stirner is following the same logic of their non-dualism.
I’m most familiar with Mahayana Buddhism. The main difference I see between them is that (besides the obvious moral differences) the self seems to almost be treated as ineffable in Stirner’s writings. As a nominalist, shouldn’t he posit the self as conventional? Why does he put so much emphasis on something that is empty of substance and dependent? I kind of get a Taoist feeling in his treatment of it.

[Anonymous No.19156418]

>>19156379
>Taoism, or Zen, Stirner is following the same logic of their non-dualism
You don't understand those things at all. Stirner is like a parody or a satanic inversion of those.

[Anonymous No.19156428]

>>19156379
>Taoism, or Zen, Stirner is following the same logic of their non-dualism.
The presupposition of all authentic initiatic doctrines, including the ones you mentioned, is the abolishment of the ego to reach an objective state.

[Anonymous No.19156432]

I don't know. Doesn't Nietzsche touch upon more profound ideas? Could it be due to when Nietzsche wrote that his works were more acceptable/accessible to people who would agree with what he said?

I love Stirner memes though

[Anonymous No.19156450]

>>19156418
You're a nigger. I really don't care what you think of me.
>>19156417
He's closer to Gandhāran Buddhism, the Pratyekabuddhayāna. If you famaliar with things like Rhinoceros Sutra - you'll see some similarites in what Stirner taught. Or even Yang Zhu's texts. One of the things you should do about Stirner is not to take him too seriously, or you end up like this idiot >>19156418

[Anonymous No.19156464]

>>19156428
There is no "ego" in Stirner - its merely a lingistic term. People who understand Stirner don't go around calling themselves "egoists." People who assume Stirner had a political agenda assume he is a perscripitive egoist, when he is not, because he assumes we all egoists; its that some of us are duped ones who unconciously do not folow our true interests because of social pressures. More so, Saint Max doesn't believe one has a moral, or ethical obligation, to enlighten people to become concious egoists. Zhuangzi's concept of the "true man" is more akin to it.

[Anonymous No.19156468]

>>19156464
>People who understand Stirner don't go around calling themselves "egoists.
That's exactly what Stirner does in the second part of his book. Did you even read it, or are you just memeing?

[Anonymous No.19156476]

>>19156450
You're taking him very seriously, and suffering the consequences of being laughed at for your ignorance of true wisdom. I never made a personal comment towards you, yet you took it personally, which is about what one should expect from stirner kiddies.

[Anonymous No.19156486]

>>19156468
>That's exactly what Stirner does in the second part of his book.
No, you haven't read Stirner's Critics or the Philosophical Reactionaries where he clarifies this point. Its going over your head.
>>19156476
No, you're overly emotional, and I'm just fucking with you because you're too stupid to realize it. Might be the autism.

[Anonymous No.19156487]

>>19156229
>>19156264
Women will almost die on 5% bodyfat holy shot you people are retarded

[Anonymous No.19156492]

>>19156464
Ok, that seems like you're dodging, so what is the individual according to stirner, other than an aggregate of false constructs of these "spooks"?
>Zhuangzi's concept of the "true man" is more akin to it.
Only at the most superficial level, so really not at all, which is why I said this seems more like a satanic parody.

The doctrines you are referring to are metaphysical and recognise objective reality outside or beyond the self, and therefor go about destroying this "ego" to eventually uncover "true man," chink.

[Anonymous No.19156501]

>>19156486
>No, you haven't read Stirner's Critics or the Philosophical Reactionaries where he clarifies this point. Its going over your head.
You haven't read Stirner's book, The Ego and Its Own where he clarifies this point (he literally calls it the Union of Egoists as well). Its clearly gone well over yours.

[Anonymous No.19156505]

>>19156486
>No, you're overly emotional,
Any examples?
> and I'm just fucking with you
So you're merely pretending to be a self-important retard who spergs out after getting BTFO? you're projecting quite a lot

[Anonymous No.19156517]

Is stirner the epitome of midwit tier? it's like babbys first steps towards rehabilitation after marx/commie cuckoldry

>>19156432
you will get your ass beat or worse and nobody will like you for stealing things?

[Anonymous No.19156532]

>>19156492
>Ok, that seems like you're dodging, so what is the individual according to stirner, other than an aggregate of false constructs of these "spooks"?
The individual is the "the individual." I want to say "its not difficult to grasp", but if you don't understand the consequences of nominalism you will grasp it without grasping it - if you catch my drift.
>>19156501
No, you're stupid. The union of egoists was a gimmick; it was a figure of speech to describe the antinomian relationships we make with people to achieve our own ends. Like an idiot, you analyze Stirner some kind of serious philiosopher, like a psuedo, and you miss the point completely.
>>19156505
>So you're merely pretending to be a self-important retard who spergs out after getting BTFO?
Isn't that what you're doing after I just hurt your feelings after saying I don't what you think? This is also another lesson of Sancho, but you miss the point like the other idiot. Or maybe you're samefagging. Who knows.

[Anonymous No.19156538]

>>19156517
>Is stirner the epitome of midwit tier?
No, that belongs to Camus. Stirner actually follows atheism to its logical conclusions.

[Anonymous No.19156539]

>>19156517
>you will get your ass beat or worse and nobody will like you for stealing things?
That's from being caught stealing not from the action of stealing unless "wrong" is also possible consequences of an action .

[Anonymous No.19156540]

>>19156501
>The Ego and Its Own
Thats not even the name of the book, retard. So, thank you for exposing yourself, retard. That was the mis-translation, and this is why you keep missing the point, You keep using Tucker's old shitty translation that termed egoism into an objective concept,

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19156545]

>>19156408
https://youtu.be/uEJwbGBrXfk

>>19156487
Thank you. I’m about 25%

[Anonymous No.19156547]

>>19156517
>you will get your ass beat or worse and nobody will like you for stealing things?
Stirner says you are responsible for your own life, and you accept the consequences of what happens. He argues you must have the courage to do the things you want to do. A lot of the people here don't understand that because they're too moralistic and afaird to things.

[Anonymous No.19156554]

>>19156501
>The Ego and Its Own
>I've read Stirner
>Can't even get the name of the book right
/lit/ very has some very unitelligent people on tonight.

[Anonymous No.19156557]

>>19156540
>retardation
spook
>mistranslation
spook
>the point
spook
>concept
y'know that's a spook

[Anonymous No.19156562]

>>19156557
Well, I mean, the irony here is translations are also something Stirner cricticizes in his book; you can't really discuss Stirner without being paradoxical - but again that probably went over your head

[Anonymous No.19156563]

>>19154501
Pfft... 'cause he is a guzzler who don't actually believe in what he is writing... A kid that never grow.

[Anonymous No.19156565]

>>19156562
Don't care, haven't read it. I'm waiting for the Wordsworth edition of Ego and Its Own.

[Anonymous No.19156568]

>>19156532
>stirner kiddy thinks he hurt my "feelings"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Meanwhile, sticking to the point, you are virtually unable to satisfactorily deflect any criticism directed at your weak defense of this meme philosopher
>the ego doesn't exist, the individual is the individual, you don't get it because you and everyone else are stupid even though i can't explain any of this, btw it is somehow like taoism and zen because muh ego, don't make me explain how because i cant
I honestly hope for your sake that you are underaged.

[Anonymous No.19156569]

>>19156565
Are you a commie by any chance? Commies have this tendency to tell people you should read all these books. You're assuming I want you to read it, because that's kindahow commies operate. You people have tendency to fetish books for wisdom

[Anonymous No.19156571]

my dear butterfly
oh how I wish I could gaze
upon your fat ass

[Anonymous No.19156572]

>>19156568
>Stirner
>Philosopher
Wew lad.
I'm going to give you some advice; you need to have thicker skin. You're too emotional.

[Anonymous No.19156575]

>>19156572
>backpedaling projecting strawmanning
seeth cope dilate seething coping niggertranny

[Anonymous No.19156577]

>>19156532
So you can't explain what it actually is, which means it's nothing. I would agree with this, but then the problem is stirner doesn't actually provide any solutions, he is just deluding himself and others.

[Anonymous No.19156585]

>Hahahahaahaha
>Stirner is a philosopher
Just don't bother. He's never going to be something you understand. Go back to playing with your legos and jerking off to porn.

[Anonymous No.19156586]

>>19156572
I was humouring you, of course this hack retard of a meme isn't a philosopher, which is why you are so utterly unable to defend any of this bullshit, which falls apart right away, unlike Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19156596]

You can't explain it nor refute any criticisms of it, yet you claim others do not understand it. Everyone please note that this is the sort of delusion you should expect from "egoists".
oh sorry, that le doesn't actually exist xd. 200+ IQ right here!

Just read Evola and Guenon and learn what true initiation is, which rectifies all the quandaries.

[Anonymous No.19156599]

>>19156572
>>19156586
Neither of you ever read Stirner and all your knowledge of Nietzsche can be summarized by his Simple English wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.19156600]

>>19156572
Seems like you're too emotional since you can't even acknowledge the points people have been making itt, and just call people who disagree with you stupid like a child.

[Anonymous No.19156601]

>>19156596
>what true initiation is
a spook duh

[Anonymous No.19156608]

[Anonymous No.19156609]

>>19156599
Well then we have an excuse for not understanding him, unlike you, who can't even engage in discussion without getting humiliated by people who apparently haven't even read him.

[Anonymous No.19156610]

>>19156577
>So you can't explain what it actually is, which means it's nothing.
That's it is - its nothing. Its not something you can explain directly; you kinda have to read the text, and find your own meaning and use it for yourself.
>stirner doesn't actually provide any solutions,
He does, but he's implicit.
>"The Greek poet Simonides sings: "Health is the noblest good for mortal man, the next after this is beauty, the third is wealth acquired honestly, the fourth the enjoyment of social pleasures in thecompany of young friends." These are all the good things of life, the joys oflife. What else was Diogenes of Sinope looking for if not thetrue enjoyment of life, which he found in having the least possiblewants ? What else Aristippus, who found it in good spirits underevery circumstance? They are seeking for cheerful, unclouded courage to face life, for cheerfulness; they are seeking to "be of good cheer."
>"Thus, the sophists, with courageous impudence, speak the encouraging words "Don't be perplexed!" and spread the enlightening teaching: " Use your reason, your wit, your mind, against everything; with good and practiced reasoning one gets on best in the world, prepares for himself the best lot, the most pleasant life." They recognize in the mind the human being's real weapon against the world. This is why they so strongly hold to dialectical agility, language skills, the art of disputation, etc. They proclaim that the mind is to be used against everything; but they are still farfrom the sacredness of the mind, because they value it as a means,a weapon, just as cunning and defiance serve children for the samepurpose; their mind is incorruptible reason."
>"Egoism takes a different route for eradicating the propertyless rabble. It doesn't say: Wait and see what the board of equity will-give you in the name of the collectivity (because such a gift has always taken place in "states;' each receiving "according to desert;' and so according to the measure to which each was able to deserve it, to earn it by service), but rather: Seize and take what you need ! Thus, the warof all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have. "
Szeliga on Stirner,
>"He was -- and I speak here from the year 1841 onward -- simply an amiable and unobtrusive person, never offensive nor striving after brilliant effects either in phrase, conduct, or appearance. He was never drunk, was temperate in eating, cool, chaste, not a gambler, never angry, uninclined to philosophizing, being offhanded and joking during discussions. The general impression was of an intelligent, unimpressive good person. He was agreeable to be with, as he had no power to resist any request, and I know of no occasion where he made an accusation against anyone or spoke badly about someone behind their back. His basic attitude was one of easy indifference."
Again, you think of Stirner's book as a "self help" book. Its more of a doing thing than a talking thing.

[Anonymous No.19156617]

>>19156610
>He was never drunk, was temperate in eating, cool, chaste, not a gambler, never angry, uninclined to philosophizing, being offhanded and joking during discussions.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.19156619]

>>19156596
Evola had a better understanding of Stirner than the retards in here trashing the connection between it and Taoism/Zen. Even Evola acknowledged that connection, and that was largely why he merged his understanding of Stirner with that kind of mythicism. There is a mythicism to Stirner that a lot of people miss because they're retarded atheists who are dunderheads who don't actually examine these types of things

[Anonymous No.19156626]

>>19156601
kek not at all

[Anonymous No.19156628]

He's pretty barebones and didn't write much. People kind of thought he was a cunt too.

[Anonymous No.19156632]

>>19156619
When Evola acknowledged it is was in the same context that I have acknowledged it in, which is a perversion/profanation/parody of initiatic teachings.

[Anonymous No.19156635]

>>19156628
>People kind of thought he was a cunt too.
big surprise

[Anonymous No.19156638]

>>19156632
>perversion/profanation/parody of initiatic teachings.
I'm shocked nothing is sacred to Stirner.

[Anonymous No.19156641]

>>19156619
I’ve seen people connect Stirner to advaita vedanta, Evola, Marxism, process philosophy, post-structuralism, and so on. Perhaps he was just a vague writer?

[Anonymous No.19156647]

The people who make Stirner memes have a better understanding of Stirner than the retards here saying he's a philosopher. If you just made memes of Stirner, and mocked him, you would 100% get him without ever having to read a word he said.

[Anonymous No.19156659]

>>19156641
Yeah, he was purposely vague. He's just mocking philosophy, and using it as a tool, like the sophists, to manipulate people in doing the things he wants them to do - like laugh, or cry, or get angry. Evola understood that, and that's a lot of peple have made parallel's with his personality and Stirner's personality. I recommend you read the "Julius Evola: The Sufi of Rome" (the name in itself gives it away) get the idea of the kind of thing Stirner going for - delivery, personality, also play a part even in the philosophy in itself. Its difficult to describe because of the heavy sarcasm in Stirner's text along with the implicit references to things

[Anonymous No.19156665]

>>19156641
Ride the Tiger is basically Evola's traditionalist version of Stirner's Unique and its Property.

[Anonymous No.19156672]

>>19156638
stirner was a spiritually blind midwit

[Anonymous No.19156677]

>>19156647
Good, so we can just disregard him without even having to justify it. Thanks for clearing that up since you can't even explain him.

>>19156659
Evola goes far beyond Stirner who is, as you admit, basically a joke.

[Anonymous No.19156688]

>>19156677
You miss the point because you're using philosophy, ltieral nobodies, as some form of intellectual self validation. You just don't get it because you take him too seriously, and it might just be autism. Autistic people have a tendency to believe they are being challenged when they aren't. You just have to constantly act like you have a stick up your ass.

[Anonymous No.19156703]

>>19156677
>"ring your stencil, Mr. Kuno Fischer, I have the urge to call Hegel a “sophist.” But let’s hear our glorious sophist-hunter himself: “Sophistry is the mirror-image of philosophy — its inverted truth.” Thus, wholly the same truth, but in the opposite position? Oh, the position doesn’t matter to us. We look at the picture from above and call it a “sophist”; we look at it from below and call it a “philosopher” “tel est notre plaisir.”
>"Does “the unique” demolish the thought process here? No! He lets it quietly run its course; but also doesn’t let it demolish his uniqueness, and he laughs at criticism as soon as it tries to force him to help solve a problem that he has not posed, laughing at your “earth-shattering thoughts.” The world has languished long enough under the tyranny of thought, under the terrorism of ideas; she is waking from the heavy dream, and the day of joyful self-interest follows."

[Anonymous No.19156733]

>>19156476
>or your ignorance of true wisdom
>Stirner
>Wisdom
The man literally mocks wisdom. Nobody has to care about the truth or what's "wise" , you psued.
>" Principle upon principle! Demand after demand! I oppose you with the principle of egoism. I only want to be myself; I despise nature, humanity and its laws, human society and its love, and I cut off all compulsory relationships with them, even that of language. To all the impressions of your duties, all the expressions of your categorical judgments, I oppose the “ataraxia."
Stirner threads usually don't go this bad; we have a lot of faggot redditors here tonight.

[Anonymous No.19156747]

>>19156688
I'm not that interested in profane philosophy, so you are very mistaken when you say that I am using it as a form of self-validation. I am not an egoist faggot, I am merely interested in stirner and others insofar as they approach objective metaphysical "higher" truths.

You are spiritually blind and your adherence to this joke of a "philosopher" will only make it worse, as you continue to project with this petty passive-aggressiveness, which is no-doubt a symptom of your insecurity. "You" are nothing, you do not really exist, and stirner only exacerbates this problem, look no further than the man himself. You are right, it is kind of funny in a way. I have disdain for plebs.

[Anonymous No.19156767]

>>19156733
Yes, you halfwit, you have identified my argument, do you feel special now? do you feel self-validated like the dumb egoist that you are?
>redditors
>t. le everything is a spook and nothing matters except myself that actually doesn't matter/exist, or something...don't make me explain it because it's not that complicated xD

[Anonymous No.19156807]

>>19156747
>>19156767
>"But there is a weighty “therefore,” a powerful implication in Stirner’s book, often, indeed, to be read between the lines, but which entirely escaped the philosophers, because they don’t know actual human beings, or themselves as actual human beings, because they always only deal with “humanity,” “the spirit” in itself, a priori , always only with the name, never with the thing and the person. This Stirner speaks in a negative way with his sharp, irresistible critique, with which he analyzes all the illusions of idealism, and reveals all the lies of unselfish devotion and sacrifice. "
Its always these stupid philosophers, and wannnbe philosopher students like yourselves, and retards who are obessed with literalism who miss the point of Stirner's words completely. Stirner does not care about "humanity." He doesn't give a fuck about being "wise", "right", or "smart" or even liked or understood by a majority of people. He doesn't want to save you people from your problems or tell you what to do. He's not asking you for your acceptance. He's not looking for a social combination that solves all your pathetic political problems.He doesn't want to be compulsed to be your friend or your teacher. He does not respect the authority of your words. What he wants to do is to enjoy himself. He does not care what happens to you. He wrote his book for his wife, and to make some money, and for hundreads of years all these dumbass people are reading him like some bigshot philosopher who wanted to be Marx or Hegel. The world simply an endless fight all against all. I will just bully you, mock you, and disrepect you because I can, and I will, there's nothing you can do to stop me.
>" No, I write because I want to
give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresawthat these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even ifI saw
the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought:-still I would scatter it. Do with it whatyou will and can, that's your affair, and I don't care. "

You're just retards who just don't understand what's being said here because he's esssentially making fun of people like you. Since you're autistic; you don't understand you are the butt of the joke. There's no "egoism" , or anything of that ontological non-sense here you clowns are obesseing with. The more questions you ask, the more you talk about it - the more you'll never get it. Nor, do you really have to get it - because who cares if you do?
>"We have only one relationship to each other, that of usefulness, usability, advantage. We owe each other nothing, because what I seem to owe to you, I owe at most to myself If I show you a cheerful expression in order to likewise cheer you up, then your cheerfulness matters to me, and my expression serves my wish; I do not show it to thousands of others, whom I have no intention of cheering up. "

[Anonymous No.19156865]

Book worms, and wannabe student philosophers, are people who don't understand Stirner and never will. They'll be the butt of the joke because they seek wisdom in words when there is no wisdom to found. You're fucking fool to be mocked, and used, as I however I see fit - as the idiots you've read have used you for their own political and moral ends.

[Anonymous No.19156868]

>>19156807
>claiming others are autistic while going off on an assblasted tangent about what you think stirner represents
i wish you were baiting

[Anonymous No.19156886]

>>19156865
Aha I get it, so the real wisdom is that there is no wisdom. How very wise.

[Anonymous No.19156945]

>>19156865
sounds like cope for getting BTFO because your meme philosophy is self-refuting

[Anonymous No.19157009]

>>19156807
you are by far the most autistic person itt m'dude

[Anonymous No.19157294]

>>19154501
>his ideas are much more interesting, though similar
You never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19157312]

>>19156540
>>19156554
>It's not the name of the book
Yes, it is, it is one English translation. "ACKSHULLY it's THE UNIQUE AND ITS PROPERTY." Would you prefer it if I quoted the German title? You idiots are peak pseud. Glad I quit the thread after posting that and wasting more of my time. Here's a tip: Go read the book I just mentioned instead of posturing like ignorant idiots about things you have no clue of.

[Anonymous No.19157319]

>>19156532
>The union of egoists was a gimmick;
Top kek, I knew you'd retort with this. "It's just purposeful irony even though he gave no hints of this in the text!" Literal mouthbreathing retards.

[Anonymous No.19158291]

>>19156123
> He doesn't know the giants that were influenced by Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.19158314]

>>19155946
>Lastly, based spookbuster has more meems dedicated to him than reddit nihilism man could every dream of, ergo concordantly you're a faggot.
Do you not see the irony in this? in how reddit this sounds and how reddit "spook memes" tend to be? Not to mention bragging about "spook memes" to begging with.

are you underage?

[Anonymous No.19159413]

>when police kill ppl is ok, but when i do it is wrong???
Woah.... So profound, stirnerbros...

[Anonymous No.19159649]

Nietzsche can teach ya, but Stirner will learn ya ;^)

[Anonymous No.19160132]

>>19154501
He is the equivalent of those idiots who have anime pictures, thats why nobody takes him seriously, just like nobody takes seriously those othe retarded guys.

[Anonymous No.19160424]

>>19156317
>pseud dash
Don't tell me that you're intimidated by the em-dash! Only someone who's severly retarded and gay—and I do hope that neither of these words describe you, anon—would get intimadeted by punctuation; I mean seriously, you sound like one of those queers who pisses and shits themselves when they come across a semi-colon!

[Anonymous No.19161272]

>>19154614
>Nietsche's style
>obscure

[Anonymous No.19161285]

>>19154964
>an hegelian

[Anonymous No.19161507]

>>19161285
AAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[Anonymous No.19161582]

>>19156413
I think the ego is just the self

Which is why being an egoist is also calling being full of one's self

[Anonymous No.19161643]

>>19161582
>I think the ego is just the self
Stirner once said that he is most himself when he forgets himself, so I don’t think that’s true.

[Anonymous No.19161648]

>>19161643
Well you only focus on one thing at a time, so really I think it's a reference to how you act normally when you're not self-reflecting on everything you do like an autist

[Anonymous No.19161674]

>>19161643
Stirner freedom is when you have no responsibilities. This is on cue with that because Stirner is not like Rand - calling for a rational egoism. His egoism is purely nominal - its unique to his own living experience. This is why he attacks Hess in Stirner's critics for accusing him of calling for a "sacred individual." Again, Stirner's arguments are no different from the arguments made by the Greek Sophists - who he directly praises in the Unique and its Property and the Philosophical Reactionaries.
>"In one sense the doctrine of the Sophists embodies a valuable truth. Man, in so far as he is sharer of the universal mind and is true to the truth as it exists for all men, is indeed the measure of the universe. But the Sophists, as we have seen, made the individual man, with his subjective feelings and desires, the standard of truth and right. They acknowledged no universal faculty in man, and were led to the conclusion that whatever appeared to any individual to be true, was to him true; and whatever ministered to his personal advantage or pleasure was for him right and good. The later Sophists indeed pushed the doctrine of Protagoras to its last consequences and taught that the individual ought to follow solely the impulses of his own nature."
Once you understand this - you understand why his arguments are so unpopular. You also understand why Marx hated him because Stirner's sophistry is a weapon that undermine the goals of any philosophical system by hijacking it for selfish ends.

[Anonymous No.19161684]

>>19161648
Perhaps. But I don’t think he means the self as in our everyday identity.
>[F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world.

[Anonymous No.19161702]

>>19161684
So he's seeing himself as the collection of all that can be associated as 'of him', aka all his thoughts and feelings, rather than just the singular 'I' in his brain?

[Anonymous No.19161731]

>>19161702
I think he is calling himself nothing. And since all things are nothing to him, he proclaims himself as all and nothing.

[Anonymous No.19161746]

>>19161731
But how can one be nothing? Is he proclaiming himself to be 'nothing' because it is but a mere spooky abstraction compared to what's really inside or something?

I hate this shit when Philosophers say something is collectively one thing as well as the opposite of that thing

[Anonymous No.19161768]

>>19161746
>Is he proclaiming himself to be 'nothing' because it is but a mere spooky abstraction compared to what's really inside or something?
Well, Stirner doesn’t really see there being any “essence” to the word (and probably himself)
>By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it—emptiness; emptiness is—world's essence (world's doings).
So matter too would be empty for Stirner. If everything is empty, it makes sense to proclaim oneself as “all and nothing.”

[Anonymous No.19161788]

>>19161768
Oh I see so the fundamental collective (all) is still there, it's just that it lacks any defining essence (nothing)?

Thanks for explaining anyway anon

[Anonymous No.19161809]

>>19161788
>Oh I see so the fundamental collective (all) is still there, it's just that it lacks any defining essence (nothing)?
Yeah. It’s not literally “nothing,” it just lacks any essential existence.

[Anonymous No.19162011]

>>19161809
Very good anon

Having definable essence or not is damn son