stirner vs nietzsche

>>9411288
Neither, the redpill is my guiding light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner

wolfi landstreicher

File: Lacan .jpg (360KB, 800x658px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 800x658px

>>9411297
How did either philosopher overcome the fact that the subject is inherently an internally divided entity?

>>9411306
it's a process of becoming out of the divisions guy

>>9411288
I love Stirner but even I've gotta say Nietzsche is by far the better philosopher. Stirner was great at what he did, but he didn't do much.

>>9411364
yeah dude, that was the genius of the whole fucking thing. if he didnt have that last section where he goes off the rails about unions of egoists he'd have had a flawless victory.

>>9411288
i hate this picture. it was probably made by some fedora neckbeard

>>9411958
But Mickey is correct.

"Stirner laughs in his blind alley; Nietzsche beats his head against the wall."

-Albert Camus

>>9412215
I don't get how people subdued by either language or biology think themselves into such wretches either. Camus's rebellion is the only method that doesn't lead the hamsters who've escaped their cages to the horror of the vast empty living room. The will doesn't triumph without expression, and therefore Stirner is a fool. And Nietzsche took the individual to mean more than it does, and so he too, though not so much a fool, is wrong in proscribing what is actually just description.

Read Kittler. Or did I tell you enough of myself.

>>9412245
camus's method and nietazsche method are THEIR methods

>>9412215
what did he mean by this

File: r e d d i t.png (286KB, 889x592px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 889x592px

>>9413115
Stirner on right

Nietzsche on left

>>9413127
They're both on the right.
Left would be someone like Cioran.

>>9411306
Nietzsche talks about it costantly: for him consciousness has always been a multitude of vague, conflicting personalities, volitions and desires.

Stirner does not bother with defining said consciousness, but he himself doesn't stick to the consciousness-soul paradygm.

>>9413167
>They're both on the right.
dip

it's kinda what camus meant and you know it

>>9411306
What is there to overcome?

Stirner is just Hegel on meth ; he doesn't make sense outside of his hegelian context, hence the numerous misreadings of uncultured burgers who read him.

Anon, my son, you have two choices. Angry lower class man who has barely read philosophy, ranting about the most childish inclinations, or humorous philologist who dissects the entire world of high culture with the intent of ennobling his readers.

....


SPOOPS!

>>9413566
ive read it not in context and in context and it is stronger not in context and not at all difficult to grasp what he's saying

The third path: knowledge is worthless

>>9411288
The real question is which one I should start with? I'm more interested in Nietzsche, and what I've heard from Stirner seems obvious enough. Not that I agree with him on the implications.

>>9413870
I'll pray for you.

>>9413893
Glad to know

>>9413881
>implications
you lose

>>9413870
that's not necessarily contradictory to either m8

>>9413917
don't you mean "worthless to know"?

>>9413881
stirner doesnt cover nearly as much as nietzsche does, hes mostly concerned with egoism

>>9413127
as a nihilist i have to say the accurate description are the 2 pictures at the same time.

>it's another philosophy thread on a literature board

Go fuck yourself