/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17787822]

>The most-often reproduced portrait of Stirner is a cartoon by Engels, drawn forty years later from memory at biographer Mackay's request. It is highly likely that this and the group sketch of Die Freien at Hippel's are the only firsthand images of Stirner.
What if Stirner was just a character Engels came up with to fuck with Marx, like some practical joke?

[Anonymous No.17787830]

In the end.... Shtirner was the spook..

[Anonymous No.17787930]

>>17787822
That doesn't seem likely because his existence was acknowledged by every other Young Hegelian.

[I REALLY HATE WOMEN No.17787938]

>>17787930
Engels must have been quite the trickster then

[Anonymous No.17788020]

>>17787930
They were obviously in on the joke.

[Anonymous No.17788105]

>>17788020
You know, people from /lit/ have visited his grave.

[Anonymous No.17788121]

>>17788105
spookers gone spook'n

[Anonymous No.17788169]

>>17788121
https://entitosovrano.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/max-stirner-is-winning-the-staring-competition/

[Anonymous No.17788260]

>>17788169
Beautiful

[Anonymous No.17788262]

>>17788121
>>17788169
What I find the most interesting is the fact that Stirner's grave was located in East Germany and was maintained by the East German government.

[Anonymous No.17788277]

>>17788260
What makes Stirner so remarkable was the fact that he was right about communism's horrors, and he ultimately, yet sadly, never got the credit he deserved. A silent, yet humble, hero of individual liberty and freedom.

[Anonymous No.17788340]

>>17788277
He and Engels were friends.
Also you sound spooked.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17788370]

>>17788277
>communism's horror

[Anonymous No.17788468]

>>17787830
10/10, books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.17788483]

>>17788340
No, he wasn't. Stirner hated communism, and Engels was two faced rat who shit talked him after he broke with the Young Hegelians. You're one of those degenerate "communist egoists" who've never even read a page of Max

[Anonymous No.17788653]

>>17788483
>>You're one of those degenerate "communist egoists" who've never even read a page of Max
I am neither a Communist or an Egoist or anything of the sort.
>>Stirner hated communism, and Engels was two faced rat who shit talked him
Also, it was Hegel who recalled that they were "Great friends". He did become more critical of his work later in life, but that's irrelevant.
>Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
>For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
>Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
>When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
>Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
>Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
>You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
>You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law.
And later:
>But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic cause-and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals.

>>after he broke with the Young Hegelians.
If you meant Stirner, he was never really aligned with them. He socialized and responded to Young Hegelians, but Stirner's views were always contrary to theirs and he mocked and satirized them from the very start. Engels' attitude towards him mostly changed after they incorporated materialism into their version of Communism.

I don't understand why Anarchists treat their flawed ideology like some sort of dogma. They were obviously just intellectuals responding to each other.

[Anonymous No.17788697]

>>17788653
>I am neither a Communist or an Egoist
Whatever you say
>Also, it was Hegel who recalled that they were "Great friends".
Hegel was dead, you fucking retard.
>I don't understand why Anarchists t
Stirner wasn't an anarchist - he attacked him the book. In fact, he never mentioned anarchism a single time in his book. You just exposed yourself of being a faggot. Try again, commie.

[not that anon but No.17788715]

>>17788697
>not an Anarchist
what does it take besides not wanting a state to be an Anarchist?

[Anonymous No.17788775]

>>17788697
>Hegel was dead, you fucking retard.
I obviously meant Engels.
>Stirner wasn't an anarchist
Yet he had a profound influence over the anarchist movement. Also most of the early Anarchist theorists were anarchists in all but the name, the term "anarchist" had not quite caught on yet.

Also, there is no need to seethe over internet arguments.

[Anonymous No.17788791]

>Stirner was an egoist
>Stirner was an anarchist
Do you why wonder how people know you don't know what you're talking about? Yes, the so called Anarchist Stirner that mocked Proudhon through out his book. Yes, the anarchist Stirner who rejected the concept of fixed ideas, such as anarchism, was an anarchist. The man who rejected fixed ideas was also an egoist. No, its not like Stirner addressed this retarded argument that was used against him by Hess. No, Marxists, socialist degenerates have totally not continued to regurgitate this strawman against him.
>>17788715
Was Marx an anarchist because he didn't want a state, you retard? Stirner has no set ideas or beliefs. The man mocks philosophy, and these retards with the "earth shattering beliefs" you morons bring up. The only thing he cared about was smoking cigarettes at the bar, and translating for money. Anarchists want a revolution - Stirner wants to enjoy himself. Anarchists are clerico-liberals who want to save man from man, Stirner has no fucks to give about man or mankind. Anarchists want to fight against "tyranny" and "justice." Stirner wants to sleep on a bench gazing at the Berlin sky. Anarchists want duties, and principles, Stirner wants nothing but self cultivation until death dissolves him. He could not care less about anything but his own well-being.

[Anonymous No.17788805]

>>17788775
>I obviously meant Engels.
No, you meant Hegel. You are that retarded.
>Yet he had a profound influence over the anarchist movement.
So what? Opportunists will always appropriate the words of dead men for their pathetic causes. There is not a single being immune to this, and no, he actually wasn't popular among anarchists. Proudhon and Bakunin are the ones who popularized "anarchism" two theorists that Stirner had dismissed in his book, you know, the book you clearly have never read in your life, yet, have so many opinions on.

[Anonymous No.17788834]

>>17788775
>Yet he had a profound influence over the anarchist movement.
Kautsky said Jesus and Plato were communists - what is your point?

[Anonymous No.17788849]

>>17788805
>No, you meant Hegel. You are that retarded.
You are being hysterical and disingenuous.
>he actually wasn't popular among anarchists.
He certainly is now
>Proudhon and Bakunin are the ones who popularized "anarchism" two theorists that Stirner had dismissed in his book
Irrelevant since anarchism is more of a blanket term than anything. It doesn't have a canonical set of writings or a coherent worldview that is held by all anarchists.
>yet, have so many opinions on.
None of the things I said are opinions at all. In fact, I don't have fixed opinions.

[Anonymous No.17788855]

How the fuck is this atheist so popular on a religious board?

[Anonymous No.17788876]

>>17788855
Nice digits.

[Anonymous No.17788895]

>>17788855
Stirner has been a meme for more than a decade. He has outlived the entire new wave religiosity that you alt right faggots have decided is now cool and edgy. Calling things a spook will never NOT be funny. Fuck you tranny catholic faggot.

[Anonymous No.17788916]

>>17788855
>religious board

go back

[Anonymous No.17788927]

>>17788855
>How the fuck is this atheist so popular on a religious board?

newfag

[Anonymous No.17788939]

>>17788277
>A silent, yet humble, hero of individual liberty and freedom
if this is a shitpost its fucking brilliant

[Anonymous No.17788943]

>>17788849
>You are being hysterical and disingenuous.
I'm literally citing your fucking post you retard. You said Hegel. Did you not?
>He certainly is now
He's not though. People still don't even know who is, and in fact, they hate him once they realize he endorsed murder and infanticide.
>Irrelevant since anarchism is more of a blanket term than anything.
You retards call anything you dislike "anarchism." Your mind is filled with belfries to point where your schizophrenia sees anarchists every where.
>None of the things I said are opinions at all.
You literally just gave your opinion about Stirner being an anarchist while failing to show it besides proving you're retard that skims wikipedia articles.. Are you a solipsist now? Anyways, retard, I just find it so funny when people talk about Stirner without understanding what he said - the people who do understand Stirner are people understand Hegel. Once you understand Hegel, a person I know you haven't read yet believe you have any right to name drop, knows the meaning of Stirner's words and his beautiful book. Its actually quite profound because the conclusion of his thought defines our age - the atomization of the individual - the nihilistic consumer without any worries in the world. The individual who has superseded philosophy, into the void, the pro-found meaningless of life - a discovery of his own self autonomy to be free. No longer does man have to waste his life, his time, with rats, pious preachers as such you. He just lives and fades away into the soil whence he came as do all people and their naive ideals.

[not that anon but No.17788953]

>>17788791
No, but that's because he wants to use the state to disassemble the state.
I mean he clearly cared enough to write the book so he was after something more than what you're saying; if he only cared for himself, if love didn't come naturally to him, why even bother trying to get people to take spooks held above them back into themselves? You act as if doing that isn't be revolutionary.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17788954]

>>17788895
This board is deteriorating

[Anonymous No.17788959]

>>17788791
>Was Marx an anarchist because he didn't want a state, you retard?
from todays perspective he literally was an anarchist. communism is indistinguishable from left anarchism.

[Anonymous No.17788964]

>>17788943
Whatever, seethe.

[Anonymous No.17789028]

>>17788953
>No, but that's because he wants to use the state to disassemble the state.
Nope. You're saying things he said said, and you don't understand him at all because you make the ridiculous assumption he was prescriptive.
>I mean he clearly cared enough to write the book
He wrote because he wanted to have fun - he tells you this explicitly, but you know, reading is hard, and its even harder to prove your arguments you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
> why even bother trying to get people to take spooks
You understand what he means by the concept of "spooks" because your understanding of Stirner comes memes and wikipedia. Stop embarrassing yourself. The concept of "spooks", "fixed ideas" was an ontological methodology used by Stirner to point out the hypocrisy of idealists, such as yourself, who act as if your actions, your questioning, your statements don't have an ulterior motive.
>revolutionary.
Holy fuck, I really hope you're not implying Stirner was a revolutionary. You're becoming more cringe every time you act like you know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17789047]

>>17788959
Its not though - you know Marx's positions very well. Marx wanted a state to regulate and control consumption and a transitional period. The "Anarchists" were Proudhonists who defended private property and despised communism. The Anarcho-Communists, like Bakunin, were denounced by Marx since he saw their calls for self management being little more than just self managed capitalism. Even to this day, Marxists hate anarchists - they had various splits over their disagreements. They could not be farther from one another. Only morons, like you, who have little no understanding of Marx, or even his history with Anarchists, spew this shit because you are a faggot who gets your entire world view from twitter.

[Anonymous No.17789062]

>>17788775
>Yet he had a profound influence over the anarchist movement
So did fucking Nietzsche - was he an anarchist now?

[Anonymous No.17789064]

>>17788855
Stirner has unwittingly become the prophet of a secular cult. Beware of his angry priest, for he may excommunicate you for your heresies.

[not that anon but No.17789082]

>>17789028
I'm talking about Marx before the line break.

C'mon kid he has a good thing that he's trying to share. If people took him up on it the world would change, it would be revolutionary. although maybe not in your incredibly narrow sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.17789083]

>>17789047
t. hasn't read marx

[Anonymous No.17789120]

>>17788715
Not him but Stirner isn't necessarily against states in general, he just rejects any obligation to them and any moral authority that they claim over him. My reading on him when it comes to that was basically if you find a state to be beneficial that's fine, but no matter how great a state might be generally, that doesn't make it any better the one time it decides to really fuck you. The judgement on how likely one is to do that, how beneficial one might be, and whether that benefit is worth the risk, is entirely up to you. Nothing he says necessitates the outright rejection of states, it just causes a different attitude towards them.
Of course the sort of person who happily embraces Stirner's ideas that justice and morality and every other sort of obligation or ideal is totally worthless also tends to be the sort that doesn't much like states, so you're going to see a lot of overlap between Stirner and anarchy.

[Anonymous No.17789130]

>>17789047
you are refuting something i didnt say. my wording was pretty bad so let me say it more clearly.
communism as marx described it is indistinguishable from anarchism, but self identifying anarchists and marxists heavily disagree on how to get there.
communism as an ideology is very different from anarchism, but communism as a state of global society is essentially the same.
>>17789083
t. pseud
he is correct

[not that anon but No.17789159]

>>17789120
>Antistate worship =/= Antistate
Hadn't thought of it like that but I suppose you're right. Thanks for setting me straight here.

[Anonymous No.17789888]

>>17789082
Its ironic you post a passage I've read, and have saved, because you ignore the second sentence where he explicitly calls out the hypocrisy. Conscious egoism is the aufheben, the residue that is the product of coming to the self realization of that hypocrisy so you don't have base your affair on their desires and needs.
>I write because I wish to make for ideas, which are my ideas, a place in the world. If I could foresee that these ideas must take from you peace of mind and repose, if in these ideas that I sow I should see the germs of bloody wars and even the cause of the ruins of many generations, I would nevertheless continue to spread them. It is neither for the love of you nor even for the love of truth that I express what I think. No—I sing! I sing because I am a singer. If I use you in this way, it is because I have need of your ears!
>>17789130
No, because you're comparing collectivist anarchism to communism as if these are the only currents that have or need to exist - as if they aren't anti-communist anarchists who have no plans who make anarchism anything but anarchy.

[Anonymous No.17790250]

>>17789888
That doesn't ring contrary. Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying?

[Anonymous No.17790472]

>>17790250

[Anonymous No.17790505]

>>17787822
Why aren't there any pictures of this mfer but plenty of Marx and Engels

[Anonymous No.17790546]

>>17788775
>Yet he had a profound influence over the anarchist movement.
Plato had a profound influence on christianism, this doesn't make him a christian.

[Anonymous No.17790777]

>>17790505
I have this photo of him

[Anonymous No.17791034]

>>17790777
Kek
fantastic get

[Anonymous No.17791113]

>>17788943
>You said Hegel. Did you not?
have sex

[Anonymous No.17791348]

>>17787822
Why does this image come up when I Google his name??

[Anonymous No.17791385]

>>17791348
That's just young Samuel Beckett

[Anonymous No.17791406]

>>17791348
>>17791385
After a quick google search, I found the culprit. You can blame it on the anarchist subreddit:
https://old.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/7y1pdp/remember_that_time_i_thought_a_picture_of_samuel/

[Anonymous No.17791445]

>>17787822
I don't think anyone would even give a shit about Stirner if we had his actual picture instead of this crisp, stylized drawing. It's the philosophy version of people posting cute anime girls.

[Anonymous No.17793002]

>>17787822
>drawn forty years later from memory at biographer Mackay's request


His widow i think, or a woman he knew was interviewed later on radio and confirmed that he looks nothing at all like all the sketches.

He was also a passive chain smoker.

[Anonymous No.17793029]

>>17788943
Nice post

[Anonymous No.17793524]

Post rare stirners

[Anonymous No.17793626]

>>17793524

[Anonymous No.17794015]

>>17787822
I am Max Stirner reincarnated. I tried to read my old works but could not but that does not matter, what proves it is I rebuilt my philosophy form the ground up in a basic form with no knowledge of my previous life.

[Anonymous No.17795402]

>>17789047
>The "Anarchists" were Proudhonists who defended private property
The problem, if you do that, is that you are just keeping the same social relation, but just LARPing with an other name: anarchist instead of Capitalism.
You cannot tame commodity. As long as there is money, and commodity, people will do the same thing: trade, exchange, accumulate Capital. If it is to have an half-measure, we might as well keep Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17796641]

>>17788483
>You're one of those degenerate "communist egoists" who've never even read a page of Max
Lmao holy fuck please be joking.

[Anonymous No.17796661]

>>17794015
Bro you gotta start taking your meds

[Anonymous No.17796701]

Stirner literally 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 I was flipped from one mood to the next. My heartrate was irratic. My brow sopping wet with sweat. My philosophy had achieved me nothing in the face of the ineffable sublime. I slowly meandered back to my lodgings with uncontrolled excrement seeping down my garments"

SPOOKED
TREMBLING
STIRNER IN SHAMBLES
nice one /lit/

[Anonymous No.17796702]

>>17796661
nah he might be on to something