Spooky

He deliberately made his philosophy a caricature to get it through censorship. It's the exaggerated edginess he incorporated which gives it great energy and appeal. Plus, the philosophy itself is fairly unassailable. So Max Stirner gives everyone a free license to act like a dickhead in a way which is difficult to rebut.

>>8413965
What do you mean with caricature? You are probably aware of the accusations that are made that Nietzsche was actually heavily influenced by Stirner. I personally don't believe it, since I think that both the thoughts of Nietzsche and Stirner are logical from the natural progression of philosophy. But is Nietzsche a caricature too then? There are differences, but I would say that the main one is that Stirner is not out to save anybody, he offers no solutions; while Nietzsche is focused on creating a new man and new values. Anyway can you elaborate on your claim, I'm genuinely interested. The only thing I know about the censorship is that there was some initial censorship, but that the German states of the time basically deemed the book "too obscure" for the average Joe to have any real influence. Which is not really something that speaks against the philosophy or book itself...

>>8413969
>But is Nietzsche a caricature too then?
Literally physically yes, and also in the sense that you asked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQvk0t33i2Y

>>8413978
I tend to disagree... who would be left as a philosopher then? We should call Heraclitus, Epicurus, Plato, the whole Stoa, caricatures also. I'm against closed systems, I'm not an idealist either, I understand the guys opinion on Schopenhauer who tried to offer the "ultimate key" to everything, and failed of course. But Nietzsche and Stirner - I mostly see them as critics before anything else, and criticism is important. I don't expect solutions from them, a way to follow. I always deemed that philosophy is better at asking questions that are the impetus for us to actually work on our world and ourselves, then giving definitive answers.

Max Stirner's philosophy was, at least in my interpretation, intended to empower the workers - to make them recognise their own self-interest and act rationally in syndicate to undermine the hegemony and exploitation by the rich. Stirner hung around with proto-Marxists, and his life speaks to attempts to empower workers. He isn't, as he's usually understood, anything like Ayn Rand - he's the antithesis. He's most similar to Machiavelli. His philosophy was deeply subversive to the ruling class so he hid it behind an exaggerated edginess to get it by them in a time of heavy censorship. That's what I mean. People just tend to take his own misrepresentation of himself to get past censorship as legitimate and spread memes (also like Machiavelli).

Nietzsche similarly misrepresents himself in a caricatured form, but it's a philosophical posture rather than a political maneuver. The core of Nietzsche's philosophy (ten different people will argue ten different interpretations) is seeing things from as many possible perspectives as possible. It can be seen as influenced by Max Stirner in that it recommends an exalted consciousness and awareness to allow action in a more deliberate, life-affirming manner, but they're very different, to be honest.

So idk. They both caricatured themselves but in different ways for different reasons. Their similarities are arguably because Hegel fucked everyone up, and anyone philosophizing would by necessity do it encumbered with a fixation with the nature of consciousness and history.

>>8413988
Yes we should! We should!

Ah such excellencies! Aha!