[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 174 KB, 1533x961, 1417965019959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6637948 No.6637948 [Reply] [Original]

>people praise Stirner and his philosophy regarding the self and ego
>people loathe Ayn Rand for doing the same thing

Why?

>> No.6637963

>>6637948
Rand made it clear which political position she advocated, whereas Stirner left it open so that anyone can read it and assume it agrees with them and it's the other guy who's spooked.

>> No.6637985

>>6637963
You have chosen to misread Stirner in a bizarre way.

If you think Stirner supports your (or anyone's) identifiable position, you don't realize that Stirner really has "made a case on nothing".

You will never know when you have met a real Stirnerian. Hopefully, you never meet one.

>> No.6638018

It's possible to agree with someone's conclusions and still think that they have bad arguments and are a poor philosopher. There are lots of libertarians/free-market capitalists that think Rand is terrible.

For example, here Bruce Goldberg on Rand:
>[H]er latest publication, For the New Intellectual, offers a selection of those passages, with an overtly philosophical introduction which places the rest of the system in perspective. At last the eager student can get some sort of overview of the intellectual edifice which is presented for his acceptance. I must say at the outset that I have not found the offering very palatable. Not, let me hasten to add, because I disagree with the conclusions—free trade, a minimum of governmental interference in the economy, the immorality of altruism, are, I think, eminently justifiable intellectual positions. Rather it is the paucity of rational arguments, the frequency with which nonsense is offered as self-evident truth, the hysterical ranting against opponents who have had their views distorted beyond recognition, the amateurish psychologizing—in a word, the sloppiness of the whole thing, which forces me to regard it as a paradigm of philosophical incompetence. The temptation is to see it as a huge joke, a farce by means of which its creator can laugh at the gullible.

Nozick also has a compelling (and more detailed) critique of her here: http://www.nowandfutures.com/large/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick.pdf

>> No.6638226

>>6637948
Rand looked like a total bitch. Stirner seemed pretty cool.

>> No.6638231

Ayn Rand defends capitalism
Stirner knows it's a spook

>> No.6638264
File: 374 KB, 637x565, for the queen - fit ant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6638264

>>6638226
I also think people think that if a woman discusses aggressively, doesn't give of the vibe of wanting to follow kids-and-family, and then puts much effort in society issues that go beyond her private environment, then something must be wrong with her and her philosophy is probably too. Meanwhile Stirner feels like always talking to the reader, changing the frame of the individual reading it, not the world surrounding him.

>> No.6638275
File: 84 KB, 853x543, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6638275

Ayn Rand was spooked as all Hell.

>> No.6638360

Ayn Rand is a historically well-known person who wrote several often discussed works that describe her relatively well-understood philosophy.

Stirner is some obscure(to a wider audience, anyway) 19th century German who was who wrote a book on 'spooks' and whose likeness is only known through a pencil drawing by Engels.

Rand is a bitch, Stirner is a meme

>> No.6638377
File: 60 KB, 310x403, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6638377

>>6638018
>Goldberg

>> No.6638429

>>6637948
Most people know who Ayn Rand is and most of us (at least Americans) probably had to read her in school. Stirner is pretty obscure. Most of the people who know who Stirner is found out about him because they were interested in ideology similar to his. I'm willing to bet if most people knew who Stirner was, he'd be more of a joke.

>> No.6638437

>>6638377
You do realize that Rand was jewish herself, right?

>> No.6638447

>>6638377
/pol/, didn't you get the message to go and stay go?

>> No.6638518

Ayn Rand had a hard-on for capitalism and industrialism, both of which are spooks.

>> No.6638531

>>6637948
Because Rand is a horrible writer and comes off as propaganda. The other doesn't .

>> No.6638685

>>6637985
you have chosen to misread that post in a bizarre way.