Memes aside, what do you guys think of Stirner?

>>1347534
A meme.Probably NIeztsche plagiarized him

>>1347534
I like a lot of what he says. He really delves into the nitty gritty regarding the problems with political religion and his prediction regarding Marxisms evolution into a cult was spot on.

A lot of people don't actually bother to read his work and instead spout memes.

>>1347534
Fedorafag

>>1347534
I am torn. Do I like Stirner because he is my property or because he is a 4chan spook?

>>1347566
OP here, yeah I want to read his actual work before forming an opinion on him, because most people just lump him in with Rand, F.A. Hayek, etc., although I've heard he has a difference in opinion on certain issues with them.

I think it is disappointing that, given the recent Hegel resurgence, very few people have tried to understand Stirner in the light of Hegel.

Hegel and Stirner are similar in deep and profound ways. Stirner employs Hegelian concepts in innovative and even sarcastic ways to overcome Hegel in Hegelian fashion. Stirner is the true heir to the Hegelian tradition.

Truly, Stirner is the Marx of anarchism.

>>1347534
I agree with him on a lot of things.

He's an absolutely fantastic philosopher with a rock-solid piece of work. I think his ideals make a perfect foundation upon which to build further beliefs and values.

He was the thinker the 20th century deserved, but not the one it needed back then. So they ignored him: because he could take it, because he was not Their thinker. He was a quiet revolutionary, a selfish meme, a Creative Nothing.

He succeeded where the both the reactionaries and the post-structuralists failed: he created a cutting critique of modernity that is basically unassailable.

>>1347566
There was no Marxism when Ego and His Own was released.

>>1347583
People who think he has anything in common with private property worshippers like Rand and Hayek have profoundly misunderstood him.

>Have you ever seen a spirit? "No, not I, but my grandmother." Now, you see, it’s just so with me too; I myself haven’t seen any, but my grandmother had them running between her feet all sorts of ways, and out of confidence in our grandmothers’ honesty we believe in the existence of spirits.

What an absolute madman

File: 1464465699679.jpg (22KB, 483x695px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 483x695px

>>1348894
Based Adorno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAMk_ZYO7g

>>1347534
He's unimportant. I literally wouldn't have heard of him if it weren't for spook shitposters on /his/.

His importance has been completely overblown in the tiny little backwater that is 4chan. They have made him into a cult; if fat psychologically broken neets scattered across the internet can form a cult.

He is an interesting oddity if you are interested in Anarchism, Marx, or Nietzsche.

Anything actually within his books is more interestingly expressed in the above three or elsewhere.

>>1349388
It's always funny seeing people getting flustered about Stirner while simultaneously denying he matters at all without bringing up any actual points.

>>1348703
he's written more than the ego and his own

>>1349388
write another book about it, Engels

>>1348703
Well that's good to hear, I'm definitely more interested in reading him then.

>>1349163
Wat

>>1349388
He absolutely destroyed left-Hegelianism. This is a historical fact.

He also expressed the concepts in his philosophy without the contradictory, delusional bullshit you'll find in those other three.

>>1350336
>He absolutely destroyed left-Hegelianism. This is a historical fact.

He apparently didn't, because the legacy of it still exists today among a lot of people.

Probably because of the horrible essay Saint Max though.

>>1350346
Hmm, I should have been clearer there.

He absolutely destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism. What came after is materialistic left-Hegelianism, and this shift was largely spurred by Stirner, both in being responsible for undermining the core of the idealistic strain, and for encouraging Marx to take up his later materialistic approach.

>>1350352
I agree wholeheartedly. He dealt a crushing blow to the idealism, but yes, Marx and Engels started developing the materialistic dialectic after it instead.

But the point is that the essay Saint Max never even lends a credence to anything Stirner said, it's literally a wall of shitposting, because Marx, unlike Engels, wasn't willing to admit that Stirner had a point.

>>1350373
Saint Max did point out that Stirner's philosophy pays little attention to material conditions, and can often achieve a net result that winds up with a person acting not particularly differently than they did before. Which isn't wrong, but I think misses the point of Stirner's work, which focuses primarily on getting you to think of why you believe or do what you do.

>>1350384
It does pay attention to it; he specifically defines property as only that object that you have the power to defend from others.

He actually has a pretty solid conception of property.

But yes, he doesn't talk about material conditions in the same way as Marx because I doubt he believed it had the same effect on society as Marx believed.

>>1350410
>He actually has a pretty solid conception of property.

This I absolutely agree with (not that I've disagreed with you much so far), I absolutely love Stirner's view of property. Every other conception I've seen seems to act as though the act of somehow claiming something etches your ownership of it into a cosmic ledger. Stirner eschews this entirely, and brings it back to its most primal, naked, and honest form.

I think he couldve been the Father of Psychology if he had wrote his book in a less abrasive style and wrote a few more than he did
Tbh I like him. His brain doesnt work like mine does I relate more to Nietzsche's or Camus's way of visualizing stuff so I find his perspective interesting

>>1348703
Stirner knew Marx personally dumbass
Probably heard many of Marxs ideas before they were ever set to paper

>>1350513
>Stirner knew Marx personally dumbass

He really didn't though. He knew Engels, but not Marx.

File: 12650904287525549.jpg (36KB, 649x536px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 649x536px

>>1350500
>I think he couldve been the Father of Psychology if he had wrote his book in a less abrasive style and wrote a few more than he did

>>1347534
Probably the one anarchist philosopher whose ideas are actually solid and well thought out.

I'm curious though, what would a Union of Egoists actually look like?