Is he essentially the start and end point for modern philosophy?

>>2888321
Yes. A legend.

/thread

>>2888321
No. A joke.

/thread

“The Christian has spiritual interests, because he allows himself to be a spiritual man; the Jew does not even understand these interests in their purity, because he does not allow himself to assign no value to things. He does not arrive at pure spirituality, a spirituality such as is religiously expressed, e. g., in the faith, of Christians, which alone (i. e. without works) justifies. Their unspirituality sets Jews forever apart from Christians; for the spiritual man is incomprehensible to the unspiritual, as the unspiritual is contemptible to the spiritual. But the Jews have only "the spirit of this world.”

Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:31)

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:17)

>>2888321
yes

>>2889222
What did he mean by this?

>>2891107
The mindset in the Old Testament is fundamentally a worldly one, of worldly behaviors and worldly consequences, whereas Christianity has a fundamentally otherworldly mindset that's focused on immaterial matters of thought and after-life justice.

>>2888378

agreed

>>2889201

I'm not so sure

>>2888321
He is the start point, but not necessarily the end. He criticizes moralistic philosophical systems from a materialistic viewpoint, but leaves many questions unanswered. Is the hedonistic treadmill worth running? Why did people develop spooks in the first place if society is simply a collection of naturally, but not always, self interested individuals? How does one maximize their service to the ego? While he has a scathing commentary on many systems with a priori oughts, he fails to prove that egotistical materialism is the best alternative.

>>2892739

Do these things need answers though? Is Stirnerism more than anything a challenge to open ones mind and challenge their preconceptions?

Stirnerism never seemed prescriptive to me

>>2892751
That's exactly the problem. It does not affirm a method of life that is fulfilling to Stirner. Thus, the nature of his works inherently leave room in the field of philosophy, even if he's correct.