Who was greater, Nietzsche or Stirner?

Nietzsche. His philosophy covered a great deal more ground than Stirner's. I'd say Stirner's was more solid, but vastly more limited.

>>1904007
Nietzsche attacked the superficial. Stirner attacked the fundamental.

>>1904007
neechee derived "ought"s out of simple "is"s. this is what gives you the illusion that his work "covers more ground", when in reality it covers only imaginary ground past what stirner covers.

stirner was infinitely more based because nothing he said was wrong or baseless, unlike the neechers.

>"become what u are lol!!"
spooked as hell. you already are what you are.

They were both spooks.

>>1904019
Both attacked the fundamental. Stirner attacked the very roots of ideology itself, but Nietzsche attacked the truck and branches of the ideologies. Both critiques have their place. Nietzsche also took on a lot more subjects than simple ideological criticism.

>>1903989
stirner = 4chan
nietzche = reddit

>>1904028
Nietzsche is only more impressive because what he attacked was above ground where people can see it. When people think of a tree, people think of the trunk and the branches and the leaves, not the roots. People understand that more easily. And because he doesn't completely kill the tree like Stirner does, he allows the tree to grow back in a different form. Stirner just kill the tree completely. And if you think of the tree as the trunk, the branches, the leaves, you don't see what Stirner has done, or the significance. You just see him as killing the tree. But if you understand trees, you understand the roots are the invisible base from which a tree grows, upon which all other parts rely upon and are built upon.

>>1904055
2deep4u the post

>>1904055
the tree in your analogy is subjective artificial abstraction. the fact that nietzsche tried to invent a "new tree" isn't impressive, it's what makes him look retarded compared to stirner. "religion is fake, here's a new one for you LOL whoops I mean existentialism isn't a religion!!"

>>1904062
roots are deep tho

>>1904067
> the fact that nietzsche tried to invent a "new tree" isn't impressive
It's impressive to people that want a tree. Stirner just killed the tree. Nietzsche provided an alternative tree.

>>1904073
in your analogy, "tree" is literally synonymous with "spook". you're claiming that it's impressive for someone to try and create an artificial abstraction for people to follow because "muh feelings".

by your logic, L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith and flipping Shia Labeouf are all equally impressive, for they do equal things using an equal amount of logical reasoning and tangible bases.

>>1904094
>you're claiming that it's impressive
You're acting like impressive is an objective judgement. It's subjective. Spooks are impressive, they impress people, they make an impression, that's what makes them spooks. You are completely misunderstanding what impressive means.

>impressive
>evoking admiration through size, quality, or skill: grand, imposing, or awesome.

>>1904115
shut the fuck up please I don't care about what you say anymore

>>1904119
Why are you so mad? All I'm saying is spooked people tend to be easily impressed by Nietzsche. What Stirner has done is more important, but less impressive to most people.

>>1904115
no, you're just shifting goalposts after realizing that you've been defending spooks. the OP question was "who was greater", and you answered neechee, even though he designed excessive illogical arguments and stirner did not.

Kierkegaard

File: image.jpg (13KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x168px

>>1904115

>evoking admiration through size, quality, or skill: grand, imposing, or awesome.

>>1904124
No I'm not. I did not answer "neechee". I attempted to explain why people found him more impressive. You've been arguing about an imaginary argument.

>>1904126
Yes, you can ask any teenager, they think ubermesnch is grand, imposing and awesome. Stirner tends to evoke the opposite response unless you're Engels.

>>1904145
but you did. isn't this >>1904007 you?

"who is greater?"
you: "Nietzsche"

then you got proven wrong and now you're shifting goalposts to "I didn't say he was greater I said he was more impressive!"

which he also wasn't because it's not more impressive to have your works riddled with non-sequitor than someone who has logically flawless writing, unless you're making a semantical argument such as "some people are more impressed!" like some kind of buttmad fool desperately finding a goalpost you can still fit a ball through.

>>1904160
No, >>1904019 is me. Then >>1904028 tried to defend Nietzsche, and I countered using his own tree analogy in >>1904055. Note that when "impressive" is used, it is used in conjunction with the dismissive "only"
>Nietzsche is only more impressive because...

Thereupon you got offended in >>1904094 by the word impressive which you perceived as praise.

File: uramemeharry.jpg (6KB, 197x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 197x200px

>>1903989
Stirner was the first meme

>>1904181
so what you're saying is that you've been on an irrelevant tangent the entire time, ignoring the OP's topic altogether? that's not any better.

if you refer to the OP post, the topic was "who was greater", not "who had a larger number of people that found them impressive". you can pretend that you were arguing only the irrelevant side of this from the beginning all you want. in the end you either tried to move goalposts or were never on topic in the first place. I'm sorry that I presumed you were intelligent enough to be posting on topic, simply using words like "impressiveness" for loose synonyms of "greatness". I'll be sure to assume people are as retarded as you at minimum in the future.

>>1904197
You seem to be deeply offended. I stated my opinion in the second response in this thread. >>1904007
>Nietzsche attacked the superficial. Stirner attacked the fundamental.

I then defended my position in response to replies. Nietzsche is superficial relative to Stirner. I then attempted to explain why some people might perceive Nietzsche to be greater, because he is more impressive to them, used in a pejorative sense, and why Stirner is often underappreciated.

You seem to think you can win an argument by reframing it to a ghost you've been chasing.

>simply using words like "impressiveness" for loose synonyms of "greatness"
"Great" has an even more positive connotation than "impressive" so I think you must be somewhat mentally challenged if you think your word choice is better than mine. I was not using "impressive" as a synonym for "great" that's your own lack of understanding. I specifically chose a word other than "great" because my intended meaning was not "great"

Does continuing to make a fool of yourself really serve your self interest?

Stimer is reddit: the dude. Netcheese is vastly superior.

>Stirner

Y'ALL NIGGAS NEED JOSEPH CAMPBELL

>>1904228
>Nietzsche is superficial relative to Stirner.

He's not really, they just attacked different things. Stirner critiqued the concept of the ideal itself to destroy left-Hegelianism, Nietzsche criticized the roots of western morality to suggest that we come up with something better.

>>1904055
Both are credible philosophers, acting flippantly dismissive with one of the most significant philosophers of the 19th century only makes you look like a jackass. Nietzsche covered areas such as psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics, which Stirner didn't.

>>1904094
>in your analogy, "tree" is literally synonymous with "spook". you're claiming that it's impressive for someone to try and create an artificial abstraction for people to follow because "muh feelings".

You haven't actually read the Ego and Its Own, have you? Stirner isn't the mad spookbuster /his/ makes him out to be. There's nothing wrong with abstractions; they're useful, they're healthy, and everyone has them. Even fucking Stirner said he had his own spooks.

>>1904539
You just proved his point.

>>1904565
Oh eat a dick. I doubt anyone badmouthing Nietzsche in favour of Stirner has even fucking read the Ego and Its Own, let alone anything by Nietzsche; all that's been demonstrated so far is a fucking meme understanding of these thinkers.

Why does everything on /his/ boils down to a semantics fight

Stirner = Gentoo
Nietzsche = FreeBSD

>>1904578
>I have no argument because I never read them so I'm just going to accuse him of not reading it

>>1904055
>And because he doesn't completely kill the tree like Stirner does, he allows the tree to grow back in a different form
Wrong. If we're to continue your analogy, Nietzsche goes to the roots, too — and he pulls them out. What he does that Stirner doesn't do is plant a new tree. Stirner just pulls it out and says "this land is mine now," without planting anything else.

>>1904960
>implying planting a new tree was a good thing

>>1904960
By that analogy, he might pull it out from the roots, but then Stirmer salts the earth

Nietzsche not even a question

>>1904972
What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.

Creation is power.

>>1904981
Are video games the ultimate good?

>>1904987
They're the most fun pastime. But there's a limit to how much power you can derive from them, since they're just little amusing things we made.

>>1904996
It's the feeling of power, not the actual possession of power though.

so does anyone actually believe that getting rid of spooks would be positive for society or even possible? I don't see how it is an argument in itself but I guess that is why it's just a meme.

>>1905067
Right. The greatest power isn't felt from playing a video game though (if we're still talking about them).

>>1904975
Hardly. Both of them leave the land to be planted on. Nietzsche suggests it would be to your benefit to do so, Stirner doesn't give a rat's ass.

>>1905447
No, both are like pulling weeds from the ground, but Nietzsche says you should plant a pretty flower instead, Stirner says do whatever the fuck you want, something that benefits you, because it's your land.

The main differences between Nietzsche and Stirner are the Nietzsche takes forays into the nature of knowledge, human psychology, and metaphysics (being successful to varying degrees on these) and suggests that creating a new grand narrative would ultimately be to your benefit, whereas Stirner does not.

Contrary to what some people claim in this thread, Stirner's philosophy isn't actually that deep. It isn't unnecessarily shallow either. It's pretty much exactly as in-depth as it needs to be to accomplish its aim (which is pointing out that despite its claims to the contrary, left-Hegelianism is not some sort of anti-superstitious liberation of the human condition; it's just a new paint-job on the old ideas). He accomplished his aim spectacularly (utterly wrecking idealistic left-Hegelianism), but the philosophy itself is fairly bare-bones. I feel in this regard it serves excellently as an intellectual foundation, but it offers little in the way of insight.

On these grounds, and the fact Nietzsche would ultimately become an incredibly influential philosopher in the 20th century (though Stirner was as well, indirectly by being a major influence on Marx) that Nietzsche is greater as a philosopher. Both are pretty fucking great however.

>>1905474
>No, both are like pulling weeds from the ground, but Nietzsche says you should plant a pretty flower instead, Stirner says do whatever the fuck you want, something that benefits you, because it's your land.

I would say Nietzsche would suggest that you utilize the land, rather than leaving it barren, whereas Stirner would suggest doing whatever suits you (even if that means letting it be barren).

>>1905477
Except all the shit that Nietzsche says that goes beyond Stirner is incoherent. If Stirner points out a new paint job, Nietzsche covers a canvas in literal shit and calls it art. Stirner only went as far as he needed to because that was all he knew could be actually justified. Nietzsche just wanted to replace one paradigm for another, still clinging to a paradigm.

>>1905488
Nietzsche says 100 times as many normative things as Stirner does. Which is why people like him. Nietzsche gives those normative answers, even if they're wrong, people want those answers.

>>1905496
>Except all the shit that Nietzsche says that goes beyond Stirner is incoherent.

In what way? All of his ideas seem pretty coherent to me. Perspectivism, will to power, eternal recurrence, master morality, slave morality, ressentiment, perspectivism etc. are all pretty damn coherent. I'm not going to claim all of his philosophy is perfect, but it's all pretty coherent and intelligent.

>Nietzsche just wanted to replace one paradigm for another, still clinging to a paradigm.

He never really suggests a new paradigm he suggests that creating a new paradigm would be to our benefit, but he never suggests a new paradigm.

>>1905501
He also wrote a shitload more, and there's nothing wrong with a philosopher making normative claims, and before you start rambling about abstractions and spooks I'll point you to >>1904548

>>1905508
I said perspectivism twice. Dang.

>>1905477
Seems reasonable to me.
In the end, I suloose we need to clarify the question. Is one greater in scope or are they greater in efficiency/accuracy?

>>1903989
Nietzche tackled moral issues in a way and with an style that simply leave you "wtf man"

You have to be a little bit like him to actually undestrand him.

File: spooks.png (3MB, 1468x5376px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1904548
yes, I have actually, here's the section on "spooks" because apparently you haven't if you're implying I was incorrect in describing his analogy as representing a "spook" in a very literal sense. the tree in his analogy represented "a philosophy", or a "method" of life. an abstract "ought" that you use for decision making. a spook.

>>1904228
haha wow you expect me to read all of that buttmad text? dude, you already ousted yourself as either off-topic or a goalpost shifter, I have nothing to gain from interacting with you at this point. this is an anonymous board, you can engage me in conversation while pretending to be someone who didn't make an ass of himself if you like.

>>1905525
Indeed, and Nietzsche doesn't suggest you find some new abstraction to enslave yourself to. He suggests you create a new narrative to help drive yourself forward, give yourself purpose in life, and make sense of a senseless universe. It's hardly the same as saying "serve humanity because of common bonds of humanity" or some shit.

>>1905520
Nietzsche is greater in scope, no one debates this, but it is also his flaw. Stirner was to the point, concise and rock solid. Nietzsche wrote what came to mind, which makes him more interesting and more relateable, but it means he also meanders and often lacks any sort of proper justification and not all of his works are deep and insightful.

Think of Stirner as a 6 page A+ term paper that is absolutely flawless. Think of Nietzsche as an A- 17 page term paper on the same prompt that goes off on whimsical tangents and flowery prose, who spent a lot of time brain storming and putting ideas down on paper, but not as much time pruning and refining those ideas.

>>1905531
neechee is essentially telling you to spook yourself, and he implies that humans need something like this in their lives, for some baseless reason. that instead of subscribing to an artificial source of meaning, to create an artificial source of meaning for yourself, and that humans [i]ought[/i] to do this. you're right that it's not the same as "serve humanity because of common bonds of humanity" or something of a similar nature, but it's equally grounded in reality and equally non-sequitor. like, literally: why? that simple question defeats the main flesh of his arguments. this is why I stick to the phenomenologists.

>>1904045
Reddit is Freud, 4chan is Diogenes

>>1904585
Why does semantics frustrate plebs so much? Of course meaning is important in a field as theoretical as philosophy.

Stirner is more of a blank slate. Nietzsche upholds a specific kind of man. Stirner is more concise and honestly more consistent, but Nietzsche has better prose and draws from a broader pool of knowledge. I personally prefer Stirner but I don't think his style has more merit than Nietzsche's, there's something to be said for Nietzsche's artistry... he wasn't trying to write an essay.

>>1903989
One of them doesn't promote cuckoldry.

>>1904067
>, it's what makes him look retarded compared to stirner.

For Stirner, the "tree" also exists, it's just the "ego" or the "Unique One".

Either way it's obviously you've never read neither Stirner nor Nietzsche.

>>1903989
Me.