Are they the same person?.

[Anonymous No.17406871]

Is this why Stirner is a caricature?.

[Anonymous No.17406957]

>>17406871
Of course not, one has a deep realisation on the state of god and the transfer of knowledge, the other just deconstructs society and says it's dumb because he recnostructed it

[Anonymous No.17406963]

Stirner would have called Nietzsche spooked and Nietzsche would have said that Stirner needed to construct a new system to fill the void left over by the systems that Stirner shit on.

[Anonymous No.17406974]

>>17406963
Neitzsche is the based one then

[Anonymous No.17407056]

>>17406871
Nietzsche was explicitly anti-socialist through and through (he supported the suppression of the Paris Commune). Stirner was anti-socialist himself, but wasn't against voluntary socialism such as co-operatives, communes. Stirner openly accepts nihilism; Nietzsche rejects it for the "over-man" who creates new value. Stirner was not racist, was in fact critical of Hegel's racism seeing it as another bullshit obscurantist tactic by him; where as Nietzsche himself was racist. Nor was Stirner a fan of aristocracy like Nietzsche was ; Stirner explicitly champions the lumpenproletariat, the vagabonds of society

[Anonymous No.17407057]

>>17406871
AHAHAH
Nice fucking try

[Anonymous No.17407079]

>>17406974
that's the atheist view

[Anonymous No.17407084]

>>17407056
>where as Nietzsche himself was racist
based on my own reading of his work, I'd say Nietzsche hated certain cultures for the ideologies associated with the cultures but was not racist, unless I'm mistaken.

[Anonymous No.17407091]

>>17406871
Where does that drawing of Stirner even come from? It's reddit. He didn't even have black hair.

[Anonymous No.17407095]

>>17406871
Yes

[Anonymous No.17407144]

>>17407091
If I remember right it was some "philosophy of the 19th century" introduction compilation book and the art style of this stirner caricature carried through the entire book. Stirner wasn't even a main focus, only like one or two pages dedicated to him (of which half were this exact drawing).
I guess this caricature only rose to attention and widespread useage because there are so few pictures of the man

[Anonymous No.17407155]

Einziger, the unique, is not defined by any idea or follows any general ideas. Stirner denies universal concepts because he sees them as fixed ideas that demand sacrilege often at the behest of humanity against the individual's own will. He sees every living thing as an unique, undefinable experience tied to its own flesh, its own blood that can interpret reality in any given way. Language, history, race, culture, religion, family, morals are nothing to him, but universals concepts invented by human beings to dupe individuals into an involuntary servitude for causes external to their actual interests. The conscious egoist is the individual that gains self autonomy through the possession of ideas & property for their own utilization using whatever power they have from either force or wit. He rejects that life has an ultimate purpose or even an after life. Bellum omnium contra omnes is all he sees for he is the embodiment of the Nietzschean Last Man denounced by Zarathustra.
>If religion has put forward the proposition that we are all of us sinners, I set another against it:we are all of us perfect! Because, in each moment, we are all we can be, and never need to be more.Because no defect sticks to us, sin also has no meaning. Show me a sinner still in the world, when no one any longer needs to do what suits a higher power! If I need do only what suits myself!

[Anonymous No.17407197]

>>17407155
Many people get the wrong implication that Stirner advocates for a "sociopathic" behavior, and to you can certainly draw that implication from his work (he doesn't care as he says so himself!), but his contemporaries noted him for being a "mischievous provocateur" , basically a playful shitposter in the modern sense, having a "casual indifference" towards others such he never a held grudge or hated anyone, never being rude, he was noted for being quiet and respectful but being snide when he wanted fuck with people for his own entertainment.

[Anonymous No.17407254]

>>17406963
Nietzsche would have called Stirner an Untermensch with no self-awareness instead.

[Anonymous No.17407372]

Stirner shit himself in the woods /lit/, a colossal Grizzly Bear charged at him and he froze where he stood. Sweat rolled down his "gotcha" shaped brow, and then dripped onto his leather, moleskin Boots. He quickly imagined scenarios where the bear would just run past him or false charge him only for it to just dissappear into the thicket. He wrote about the matter in a letter to his friend, Samuel Brook: "I was trembling with the utmost fear, my mind picturing images of my childhood that came like a visceral tidal wave, in a fraction of a second"

SPOOKED
TREMBLING
ABSOLUTE SHAMBLES
nice one /lit/

[Anonymous No.17407391]

>>17406871
How likely is it that Nietzsche used Max Stirner as a pen name?.

[Anonymous No.17407415]

>>17406871
They share some overlapping interest, but Neitzche didn't shit himself in the woods after being charged by a bear.
>be Stirner
>a bear is about you attack
>'hmm, spook'.
brainlet/10

[Anonymous No.17407444]

>>17406871
No. Engels and Stirner are the same person.

[Anonymous No.17407471]

>>17407444
Engles is actually Stirner's Superego

[Anonymous No.17407539]

>>17407444
Engels and Stirner were friends btw

[Anonymous No.17407557]

>>17406871
Pic related

The three on the left are young Samuel Beckett and the one on the right is Marc Bloch.

[Anonymous No.17407720]

>>17406871
No

[Anonymous No.17407733]

>>17407557
In his biography is said that stirner was blonde lmao

[Anonymous No.17407766]

>>17407539
didn't know that engels was a schizo

[Anonymous No.17407875]

>>17406871
Nietzsche is based
Stirner is cringe
It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.17407959]

>>17407056
>Nietzsche rejects it for the "over-man" who creates new value.
This might be the single biggest cope in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17407966]

>>17407091
Engels, I think.

[Anonymous No.17407971]

>>17407966
nah Engels drew the proper originals

[Anonymous No.17408224]

>>17407875
>Stirner is cringe
Filtered

[Anonymous No.17408239]

>>17407056
>wasn't against voluntary socialism such as co-operatives, communes.
?? Nowhere does Stirner talk of political theory

>Stirner was not racist, was in fact critical of Hegel's racism seeing it as another bullshit obscurantist tactic by him;
In the "Hierarchy", Stirner literally talks of Caucasian as being the final end of history. He uses the racial triad (among other triads) incessantly.

>Stirner explicitly champions the lumpenproletariat, the vagabonds of society
Except he doesn't. For Stirner, there only exists himself (the unique, aka the personified Absolute) and his property, aka creation, which he has alienated from himself. Now that he is conscious, he regains it.
Nothing Stirner says has any connection to material reality, don't forget that.

[Anonymous No.17408250]

>>17407391
Nietzsche was born a month after The Ego was published, so highly unlikely

>>17407539
Engels thought Stirner was a Benthamite

>>17406871
Stirner and Nietzsche have small parallels, but are unimaginably different, Stirner is the personification of the self-alienated Absolute of Hegel, while Nietzsche does his own thing, mildly influenced by Schoppy

[Anonymous No.17408296]

Both were retroactively refuted by Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.17408756]

>>17407959
The real cope is thinking you can have will to power, the last man, and the herd man, while simultaneously NOT having the overman.

[Anonymous No.17409377]

>>17407766
He is

[Anonymous No.17409935]

>>17406871
Bump

[Anonymous No.17410068]

>>17408239
>Nowhere does Stirner talk of political theory
He spends several sections attacking liberalism, communism, and even Proudhon's "anarchism" for essentially elevating morality as a fixed idea; a universal claim to things that will simply be used to constrict the behavior of an individual. What I was referring to, was "Stirner's Critics" where he says he is "not against socialism, but against sacred socialists." He's perfectly fine with some more hands of, socialist experiments such co-operatives since he ran one at one point. He's not in-favor of state socialism.
>In the "Hierarchy", Stirner literally talks of Caucasian as being the final end of history. He uses the racial triad (among other triads) incessantly.
As Landstreicher points, in the philosophical reactionaries, Stirner admitted he was using that method to mock Hegel to show his "final stage of history" to just be ludicrous. If you read that section carefully, he's developing the idea that revolutions simply replace one fixed idea with another, one tyranny of ideas with another that demand servitude to a cause at the expense of the individual. The problems that plague the world still remain; life is still filled with suffering because as he said:
>d. They have concepts oflove, goodness, and the like, which they would like to see actualized; therefore they want to build a kingdom oflove on earth, in which no one any longer acts from self-interest, but everyone acts "from love." Love is supposed to rule. What they've planted in their head, what is one supposed to call it other than-a fixed idea? Indeed, it "haunts their heads." The most oppressive phantasm is the human being. Just think of the proverb, "The road to ruin is paved with good intentions." The intention to completely actualize humanity in oneself, to completely become human, is of such a ruinous sort;
>Except he doesn't.
Incorrect, because if you were to follow his ideas, that's essentially what you end up with. An individual who's only concern is his immediate existence.
> We have only one relation to each other, that of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself
He also attacks people who possess those who purpose money as a fixed idea
>Isn't the lover, who abandons father and mother, endures all dangers and hardships, to reach his goal, self-sacrificing? Or the ambitious person, who offers up all desires, wishes, and satisfactions to the single passion, or the miser who denies himself everything to gather treasures, or the pleasure-seeker, etc.? He is ruled by a passion to which he brings the others as sacrifices. And are these self-sacrificing people perhaps not selfish, not egoists? Since they have only one ruling passion, they provide only for one sa tisfaction, but for this one all the more eagerly; they're completely absorbed in it. All that they do is egoistic, but it is one-sided, dose-minded, bigoted egoism; it is being possessed.

[Anonymous No.17410083]

>>17410068
>>17408239
Also to add to my post, he defends the vagabond against the bourgeois
>Humane consciousness despises both the bourgeois and the worker's consciousness; because the bourgeois is only outraged at vagabonds (at all who have "no definite employment") and their "immorality"; the worker is "disgusted" by the idler ("lazybones") and his "immoral;' because mooching and unsocial, principles. To this the humane liberal replies: The unsettled life of many is only your product, philistine! But that you, proletarian, demand the grind for all, and want to make drudgery universal, is a part of the pack mule life you've lived up to now still clinging to you. Certainly you want to ease the drudgery itself by all having to drudge equally hard, but only for this reason, that all may gain leisure to an equal extent. But what are they supposed to do with their leisure? What does your "society" do so that they'll spend this leisure humanly? It must again leave the leisure gained to egoistic taste, and the very gain that your society promotes falls to the egoist, as the gain of the bourgeoisie, the masterlessness of human beings, could not be filled with human content by the state, and was therefore left to arbitrary choice
He even defends Diogenes behavior as an example of conscious egoism,
>The Greek poet Simonides sings: "Health is the noblest good for mortal man, the next after this is beauty, the third is wealth acquired honestly, the fourth the enjoyment of social pleasures in the company of young friends." These are all the go od things of life, the joys oflife. What else was Diogenes of Sinope looking for if not the true enjoy ment of life, which he found in having the least possible wants? What else Aristippus, who found it in good spirits under every circumstance? They are seeking for cheerful, unclouded courage to face life, for cheerfulness; they are seeking to "be of good cheer."

[Anonymous No.17410117]

>>17408250
>Engels thought Stirner was a Benthamite
Do you have a source for this?

[Anonymous No.17410142]

>>17407197
>>17407155
Yes. I do not comprehend why he is so misread so frequently. I guess it is intentional.

[Anonymous No.17410177]

>>17408239
Another quote where Stirner makes it clear he sees vagabonds as an example of conscious egoism
>The formation of family ties, for example, binds the human being, the one tied down holds to a pledge, can be understood; not so with the prostitute. The gambler stakes everything on the game, ruins himself and others-no guarantee. One can include all who appear suspicious, hostile, and dangerous to the bourgeois citizen in the name "vagabonds"; every vagabond way of living displeases him. Because there are also intellectual vagabonds to whom the ancestral home of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressi ve for them to be willing to content themselves with the limited space anymore; staying within the bounds of a moderate way of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what grants consolation and reassurance to thousands, they leap over all boundaries of tradition and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed skepticism, these extravagant vagabonds. They form the class of the vagrant, restless, changeable, i.e., the proletariat, and when they give voice to their unsettled essence, they are called "unruly guys"
He consistently praises people who are unruly, skeptical, and essentially disobey tradition. If you're familiar with Stirner's life, this makes sense, since he was mostly a poor business man who did live this kind of lifestyle. He had to drop out college, his businesses constantly failed, he failed a publisher, his marriage failed - he was a guy who constantly was on the move and changing based on his circumstances for his own enjoyment and well-being

[Anonymous No.17410201]

>>17408239
>In the "Hierarchy", Stirner literally talks of Caucasian as being the final end of history. He uses the racial triad (among other triads) incessantly.
I read it as tongue-in-cheek, he obviously has a distanced view of the concept.

>Everyone is equally dear to God, if they adore him, equally acceptable to the law, if they are law-abiding; whether the lover of God or the law is hunchbacked or lame, whether he is rich or poor, etc., amounts to nothing for God and the law; in the same way, when you are about to drown, a Negro as a rescuer is as dear to you as the most excellent Caucasian; indeed, in this situation, a dog is no less to you than a human being. But for whom, on the contrary, wouldn’t everyone also be a more preferred or a more neglected person? God punishes the wicked with his wrath, the law flogs the lawless; you’ll let one speak with you at any time and show the other the door.

He also only briefly talked about these concepts. I do not know about incessantly.

[Anonymous No.17410209]

>>17410117
Max Stirner as Hegelian by Stepelevich. I read his stuff recently. He also released a new book on Stirner in December of last year with new translations of his work.
https://www.amazon.com/Stirner-Continental-Philosophy-History-Thought/dp/1793636885
Just steal when its on libgen, you can also find Stephan's work on there too

[Anonymous No.17410241]

>>17410209
Thank you. Sometimes you actually do learn something here on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17410354]

>>17410241
Also, when you approach Stirner, don't read him as a philosopher, or "Saint Max" - he's only giving you some advice. If you don't agree with him, that's fine, because again what you do isn't up to him or anyone else. Mock and forget him as much as you want, he would've hated people treating like a serious guy he was just a normal dude with nothing special about him

[Anonymous No.17410718]

>>17410354
I have already read Stirner and I like his work, but thanks for the advice. I just did not know about Stepelevich"s work.

[Anonymous No.17412046]

>>17407084
Nietzsche seems to believe it self-evident that Europe equals civilization. He has no regard for the lesser races in any of this writings

[Anonymous No.17412489]

>>17406974
>t. Spooked

[Anonymous No.17412578]

>>17406871
nah. nietzsche glorified strength while stirner did not

[Anonymous No.17412604]

Marx already debunked Stirner

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17412831]

>>17412604
Max debunked him before he wrote a thing about it

[Anonymous No.17413197]

>>17412046
thats not racism, thats nationalism/ethnocentrism but also factual

[Anonymous No.17414685]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17414726]

>>17407197
Thats a spooky interpretation. You are allowed to be a sociopath in his book.

[Anonymous No.17415503]

>>17412604
eww

[Anonymous No.17415566]

>>17410068
He doesn't attack liberalism or communism as poltical theories but as barriers to consciousness

>As Landstreicher points
Your post is worthless as is, why do you want to make it worse? Landistreicher is retarded, he has no context in Hegelianism. Read Lowith or Stepelevich.

>>17410083
>Also to add to my post, he defends the vagabond against the bourgeois
He doesn't defend the lowest of the society, he mocks humane liberalism for false compassion

>>17410177
Again, he doesn't defend them, just pins them against the humane liberalism.

>>17410201
>I read it as tongue-in-cheek
That's irrelevant, read it as it is
>I do not know about incessantly.
Marx in The German Ideology does a great job at putting all the triads Stirner uses as a basis for everything.

[Anonymous No.17415571]

>>17410209
>>17410241
Also in "Max Stirner and the Last Man" he puts Nietzsche and Stirner as polar opposites

[Anonymous No.17415592]

>>17406871
Cute lads, ok Egoists. Terrible about the whole lack of integration thing.

[Anonymous No.17416711]

>>17415566
>He doesn't attack liberalism or communism as poltical theories but as barriers to consciousness
You didn't read the book
>He doesn't defend the lowest of the society, he mocks humane liberalism for false compassion
He does, actually read the book,
>The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there.
Actually read the book, several quotes were posted to justify this position. Provide evidence from the text, or just pretending you know what you're talking about.
>Landistreicher is retarded,
You're retarded. Stepelevich's cites Landistreicher in his work, Stepelevich's recently released book on Stirner, idiot, its only a month old. Also, I really hope you're not citing him as a source for your argument because even he says Stirner is a post Hegelian who leaves Hegel's system entirely to create something new.
>Marx in The German Ideology does a great job at putting all the triads Stirner uses as a basis for everything.
Why the fuck would cite Marx as a source for understanding Marx, you idiot? Even Welsh pointed out that Marx told Engels they just ignore Stirner because their propaganda would work on the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.17416725]

>>17414726
You can be a sociopath, he isn't against that, but Stirner's behavior isn't necessarily sociopathic in sense that he's calling for you murder people. He's saying that murder is something you can do long as you're okay with. What you do is not my affair.

[Anonymous No.17416854]

>>17416711
>Read the book
Already have, multiple times
>Provide text
I wont do that, if you actually read the book you would know that Stirner doesn't write in ways which make out-of-context quotes viable. If one wills, he can make him out an anarchist or a social darwinist or a fascist, or even a communist. I won't waste time on contextualizing every single quote.

>But stepelevich
You clearly didn't read enough. Stepelevich's whole argument is that Stirner doesn't go against Hegel to create something new, but cintinues after Hegel, with the egoist being the absolute appropriating its creation. Even then, Stepelevich isn't perfect, I have found him using non-existent quotes multiple times, especially in regards to Stirner's influence on other young Hegelians, but he will do better than Wolfi or post leftist retards.

>Why the fuck would you cite Marx
Because Marx provides great parallels to how Stirner is plagiarizing Hegel (and even then he doesn't do the best job).
>But Welsh
Welsh merely quotes Marx's letter to Engels in which Engels sees a friend in Stirner, but Marx recognizes that Stirner is as dangerous as others from the group. Marx ignored Stirner only at first, either before reading or after just reading The Ego and His Own, which is understandable as Stirner was a marginal, unimportant member of the group.

[Anonymous No.17418235]

>>17416854
>Already have, multiple times
Doubt, you can't even defend your arguments using the text, I can.
>You clearly didn't read enough. Stepelevich's
No, you haven't - I know Stepelverich. I've talked to him. He's on twitter, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking. Even wolfi knows him, you dumbass.
>Stepelevich's whole argument is that Stirner doesn't go against Hegel to create something new,
Wrong, Stepelverich explicitly says that Stirner is a post-Hegelian. The only problem with Stepelverich is that he's a randian, and its a bit too apologetic for capitalism. But, strangely, why would someone like you talk about perfection; since when does Stirner's argument would not be consistent with a call for the perfect understanding of his works; do you not understand the fix idea? Way to treat him like a sacred text.
>Because Marx provides great parallels to how Stirner is plagiarizing Hegel
See, just more proof you're a fucking idiot lmao. And you cite Stepelevich; I'm about to have a talk with him about how fucking dumb you are. Obvious commie

[Anonymous No.17418318]

>>17416854
Retard, do you realize that Wolfi Landstreicher and Stepelevich have published together and wrote for the same journals, right? Are you actually going to be this retarded, and think Landstreicher doesn't know what's talking about; they've worked together for years you moron. And Stepelevich makes it clear that Stirner did defend the lumpenproletariat, the vagabondry through out the book.

[Anonymous No.17419087]

>>17418235
>cant defend your argument with text
I already expained how that line of arguing is faulty with Stirner, but sure, look at this quote:
They raise a mighty uproar over the “wrong of a thousand years” which is being committed
by the rich against the poor. As if the rich were to blame for poverty, and the poor were not
in like manner responsible for riches! Is there another difference between the two than that
of competence and incompetence, of the competent and incompetent? Wherein, pray, does the
crime of the rich consist?
Not to mention his constant berrating of paupers.

>Stepelevich states Stirner is post-hegelian
I already explained in what sense Stirner is a hegelian, and that Stepelevich isnt the word of God.

>Idiot for citing Marx
Lowith uses Marx as the most explicit connector of Hegel and Stirner, and as that Stepelevich is also trying to do, I don't think he would object to citing Marx. Though Stepelevich can post garbage from time to time, like the turd of an article he published in i-studies, or the plagiarized article regarding Stirner and Feuerbach, or faking quotes of Hyppolite or Jodl to favour Stirner, and on top he is nearlv 100.

Of the supposed friendship between Wolfi and Lawrence I can't find anything beyond them being published once in Modern Slavery.

[Anonymous No.17419105]

>>17419087
Meant to say
>in what sense Stirner is a post-Hegelian,

[Anonymous No.17419144]

>an actually interesting debate happening ITT that does not involve /pol/ bullshit
Rare sight on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17419177]

I thought Stirner was Engles

[Anonymous No.17419284]

>>17419087
>I already expained how that line of arguing is faulty with Stirner, but sure, look at this quote
No, idiot, that quote is consistent with Stirner. He doesn't hate the "poor" because they're poor; he doesn't like the fact they don't have the courage to fight back; to actually possess their keep in life.
>You long for freedom? You fools! If you took power, then freedom would come of itself. See, one who has power stands above the law. How does this view taste to you, you "law-abiding" people? But you have no taste!
If you read the quote about the workers' he says >The workers have the most enormous power in their hands.
To Stirner, natural "rights" do not exist; freedom is abstraction if one does not practice it through force and possession. He doesn't insult vagabonds ever in the book, and if you actually read the quotes, he praises them for the courage for not following bourgeois traditions.
>The bourgeoisie professes a morality that is most closely connected with its essence. Its first demand in this regard is that one should carry on a solid business, an honest trade, and lead a moral life. To it, the swindler, the whore, the thief, robber and murderer, the gambler, the penniless person without a job, the reckless one, are all immoral. The honest bourgeois citizen describes the feeling against these "immoral" people as his "deepest indignation." All of them lack a stable residence, the solidity of business, a solid, respectable life, a steady income, etc., in short, because their existence does not rest on a secure basis, they are among the dangerous individuals or lone drifters, the dangerous proletariat; they are "individual troublemakers" who offer no "guarantees" and have "nothing to lose:' and so nothing to risk.
>One can include all who appear suspicious, hostile, and dangerous to the bourgeois citizen in the name "vagabonds"; every vagabond way of living displeases him. Because there are also intellectual vagabonds to whom the ancestral home of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to be willing to content themselves with the limited space anymore; instead of staying within the bounds of a moderate way of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what grants consolation and reassurance to thousands, they leap over all boundaries of tradition and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed skepticism, these extravagant vagabonds. They form the class of the vagrant, restless, changeable, i.e., the proletariat, and when they give voice to their unsettled essence, they are called "unruly guys.

Read carefully, because clearly you do not. He dialetically shows the complete opposite of the bourgeois morality; its negation because its the result of conscious egoism.

[Anonymous No.17419335]

>>17419087
>I already explained in what sense Stirner is a hegelian
So what? He already pointed out he was using Hegel's method to mock him, so in a sense he is a "Hegelian", but he's not doing it out of admiration of Hegel; he's doing it to undermine the project of Hegelianism by showing the result is egoism, a moral nilhism.Again, you really shouldread The Philosophical Reactionaries or Stirner's Critics because you clearly have not.
>Stepelevich isnt the word of God.
If he isn't the word god idiot, why cite him? if he isn't the word god, idiot, why should listen to you; you're not the word of god either
Lowith compares fucking Stirner to fascists and think he was responsible for the holocaust are you fucking serious

[Anonymous No.17419355]

>>17406871
No and Stirner actually got laid and begot children instead of just fantizysing about how chad is to do so like virgin Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17419397]

>>17406871
>>17406963
>>17407254
>>17407057
>>17407095

yes

[Anonymous No.17419418]

>>17419284
That quote is consistent with Stirner, because Stierner isnt professing a political stance, but a philosophical narrative.

Aaaand once again you're mistaking his dislike of the bourgeoisie for his liking of the lumpenproletariat, which is nonexistent.
He does show a negation of bourgeois morality, but only as a part of Hegel/Bauer historiosophy (that is, the Absolute stopping its self-consciousness at social consciousness). If you paid attention more abstractly and less literally, you would see that he uses Bauer to destroy other young Hegelians, and then dunks on Bauer - who is the sole representative of humane liberalism - by proclaiming him ending in endlessness, as the Absolute which keeps its self consciousness at the level of humanity will not be in able to take back what it has self-alienated from itself (this exact argument sequence and conclusion is done by another young Hegelian, Karl Schmidt, though he mistakenly takes Stirner as also his opposite). Humane liberalism does not therefore refer to a political postion (at least not solely), but to a whole philosophical standpoint. Stirner does not propose a positive political programme, he can only negate it and oppose (according to his interest). He isn't even an anarchist as Sid Parker rightly points out in non-serviam #18. This is why he can consistently be an anarchist or a randian capitalist.

[Anonymous No.17419485]

>>17419335
>mockingly using dialectics
As Marx has pointed out, he nearly plagiarizes Hegel (sometimes word for word), it is clear that Stirner's use of dialectics, the triad, and other Hegelian elements is much more serious than simply mock.

>If stepelvich isnt word of God, ehy cite him?
Because he has good points. I already expressed that he is not perfect, but that he can be useful. You need to learn that you won't ever agree with someone 100%, and that you don't need to in order to cite him.

I don't recall Lowith saying Stirner is responsible for Holocaust, do you have a source for that?

[Anonymous No.17419904]

>>17419418
>Aaaand once again you're mistaking his dislike of the bourgeoisie for his liking of the lumpenproletariat, which is nonexistent.
This is not a position that's defensible using the textual evidence; you don't even show this with your non-sequitur about Baur because a vagabond ontology has nothing to do with "humane liberalism" or "anarchism." And, are you illiterate - I had pointed out that Stirner was not making a case for anarchism because of his attacks on Proudhon's morality, and his attacks on communism would rule out Bakunin too along with Bakunin's moralistic fetishization of violence and overthrow of the state. Even Plekhanov, as stupid as he was, was able to point out that Stirner is not a reciprocal theorist of either Kropotkin, Bakunin and people like them because their doctrines are from Proudhon - of all people. And, For someone who claims to understand Hegel - it would be so spectacular to say that Stirner's clear preferences for the lumpenproletariat does not exist when you see his life story, his actions, his history clearly being a factor in the way he thinks. The guy was a failed business man, had to drop out of college because he didn't have the money, he constantly was like a vagabond, on the move, to dodge debt collectors.He fucked over his wife, and took her money and ran. He was noted, by Bauer , to have no ambition and have an "easy indifference" about the world. He was also known for being socially isolated; the guy didn't even many friends and considered quiet. These things are no coincidence, and are reflected by the book itself. History and philosophy are connected, mr "Hegelian"
>This is why he can consistently be an anarchist or a randian capitalist.
No, because rand defends capitalism out of essence, she makes a moral justification for capitalism; another phantasm, another "fixed idea" - Stirner's capitalistic inclinations are only in lieu of the fact he doesn't see communism as an alternative. Again, he explicitly said he was not against socialism in Stirner's critics.
>not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists,
He also makes it clear again when he criticizes capitalism when talking about communism
He concerned immediate utility measured against himself, not idealogies
>Communism rightly rebels against the pressure that I experience from individual property owners; but still more horrifying is the power that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.
goism takes a different route for eradicating the propertyless rabble. but rather: Seize and take what you need! Thus, the war of all against all is declared.I alone decide what I will have
>Hegelian elements is much more serious than simply mock.
I wish you actually read his follow ups to The Unique and Its Property instead of just ignoring them.
>I don't recall Lowith saying Stirner is responsible for Holocaust, do you have a source for that?
How can you cite Welsh and not know this?

[Anonymous No.17419929]

>>17419485
>You need to learn that you won't ever agree with someone 100%,
No shit, its just ironic you're making this statement while arguing with me, and I'm pointing that out. Are you just autistic? Isn't that point of Stirner's metaphysics, dumbass? Case in point.

[Anonymous No.17420124]

>>17419904
Good, at least you recognize that he isn't an anarchist.
>his life story
He was a middle shool teacher at first and someone who lived off of loans afterwards, finally in the end he lived by selling his mom's estste. That is as unvagabod as it gets. He was no lumpen.
He did have friends, albeit not many, Bauer was one of his best friends, with whom he even lived for a short while, if I am correct.
>Randian
He can be a randian capitalist in sense of political implications, and also in misreading of him. The whole point of the segment was to show that his philosophy is at essence apolitical.

>Communism
I know very well hus stance towards communism, no need copy paste, it doesn't make you look smarter.

>I wish you actually read the follow ups
I have read Stirner's Critics of course, and while his authorship of The Philosophical Reactionaries is debated, I read it too. Alas, I had not read History of Reaction. If anything they reinforce the hegelian interpretation. I advise you to actually read them instead of reading Quinn's or Wolfi's introduction. TPR is pretty irrelevant, but SC gives more insight into the personified Absolute, though as Marx also notes, Stirner is a bit self contradictory when it comes unions - as there is both no equal to him, and he forms the union with his equals; yet all humans to him are equal only as property. Stirner is not a great thinker, so these issues are inevitable.

>How can you cite Welsh
I didn't cite welsh, I just recognized what he cited. Yiu still didn't give exact sources.

[Anonymous No.17420243]

>>17419397
good one

[Anonymous No.17420558]

>>17420124
>He was a middle shool teacher at first and someone who lived off of loans afterwards, finally in the end he lived by selling his mom's estste.
Not at all, look at his child hood. The man was raised without a father who died when he was a year old. He had no other siblings. He was always a man on his own, and the fact he lived off loans just further proves my point because the guy lived off of donations, like vagabonds do, and he often went to jail because he could not pay them back. Even as a teacher, he failed to get his phd. He was always poor and barely strapping by.
>lived by selling his mom's estste.
He literally blew all that money, and you realize he sold it because he was poor? The guy had no stable income source for most of his life, he was always just borrowing and stealing from people. He didn't own a factory like Engels or lived off it Marx. No one would describe Stirner as a well off person, not even contemparies did

[Anonymous No.17420589]

Fucking Marx and Engels were bragging about speculating in the stock market while stirner was in jail for not being to pay his bills

[Anonymous No.17420683]

>>17420589
Sounds entertaining. Got any more?

[Anonymous No.17420701]

>>17420558
Do you have concrete sources for this? As far as I know none of this is verified other than that he was in jail once for failing to pay debts.
After his estate was sold he was fairly financially secure.

[Anonymous No.17420729]

>>17420701
to add: I am mostly familiar with Mackay's tracing of his life, which paints a fairly favourable picture. By those accounts he lived a fairly average life with ups and downs.

[Anonymous No.17420747]

>>17406871
you might want to check the timeline in more detail

[Anonymous No.17420767]

>>17406871
Absolutely not. I will start off with a quote from Stirner.
>quote
At the entrance of the modern time stands the “God-man.” At its exit will only the God in the God-man evaporate? And can the God-man really die if only the God in him dies? They did not think of this question, and thought they were through when in our days they brought to a victorious end the work of the Illumination, the vanquishing of God: they did not notice that Man has killed God in order to become now — “sole God on high.” The other world outside us is indeed brushed away, and the great undertaking of the Illuminators completed; but the other world in us has become a new heaven and calls us forth to renewed heaven-storming: God has had to give place, yet not to us, but to — Man. How can you believe that the God-man is dead before the Man in him, besides the God, is dead?
>quote over
He then goes on to state that both ideals are spooks. Meanwhile, Nietzsche seemed to allow the Man part of the God-Man to live on in the idea of the Superman. Spooked.