/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18379509]

Anyone have that collection of quotes from famous philosophers pearl-clutching over Stirner?

[Anonymous No.18379557]

Ok, I think I found it:

>Stirner, [Klages] says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because “the day on which Stirner’s program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the ‘doomsday’ of mankind.”

>A philosopher of completely different intellectual background, the Marxist Hans Heinz Holz, expressed a quite similar view. He warned that “Stirner’s egoism, if practically realized, would lead to the self-destruction of mankind.” The ex-Marxist Leszek Kolakowski develops a similar apocalyptic vision when confronted by ‘The Ego’.

>The “destruction of alienation”, that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to “the return to authenticity”, and this would be “nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality […] the return to the pre-human status.” Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, “weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner].

>And Roberto Calasso, laureate of the “Premio Nietzsche” of 1989, writes: “From certain quarters is to be heard, that it goes without saying that a professional philosopher does not deal with such a matter as Stirner […] from the realm of culture Stirner still remains sequestered […] Stirner’s presence is particularly perceptible […] in authors who are completely silent about him or who talk about him in unpublished texts, which is to say, in Nietzsche and Marx.” Calasso too regards Stirner’s “Egoist” or rather “Owner” as an “artificial barbarian”, an “anthropological monster” etc.. ‘The Egoist’ is the “writing on the wall”, signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>In some authors who worked more carefully and were more disciplined, mention of Stirner looks like a (Freudian) slip. For example, Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner’s ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their “temptational power”.

>Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies (which he experienced as an existential affliction). Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had “let the cat out of the bag”. However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner’s name.

[Anonymous No.18379781]

>>18379557
>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had “let the cat out of the bag”. However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner’s name.
weird he had no issue talking how highly he thought of nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18379884]

>>18379557
>“the return to authenticity”, and this would be “nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality […] the return to the pre-human status.”
so its made up ?

[Anonymous No.18380168]

>>18379557
none actually say something cogent against Stirner desu

[Anonymous No.18381778]

Not letting a Stirner thread die. I miss Stirner posting so much. Much better that Guenon larping

[Anonymous No.18381784]

>>18381778
I here it comes in waves

[Anonymous No.18381860]

>>18381778
Inshallah

[Anonymous No.18382066]

>>18381778
Postan

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18382184]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18382189]

[Anonymous No.18382553]

Its incredible how so many people slander Stirner when he's just an authentic Ecclesiastes. There's a reason why some of his first translations were by fucking Christians.

[Anonymous No.18382580]

>>18381784
>>18381860
>>18382066
Who makes these?

[Anonymous No.18382767]

>>18382580
Egoists

[Anonymous No.18382808]

Is it just me or are the Buddha and Stirner answering the same question? They both realise that we want things but are unable to get them, the Buddha responses to this by just giving up whereas Stirner says to get what you desire you simply need to stop believing in spooks that’ll block your path

Just read the unique and it’s property and I’m amazed how people who I thought were enlightened like Socrates and the Buddha have always been spooked

[Anonymous No.18383382]

>>18382808
i stopped reading after the first line.

[Anonymous No.18383883]

I for one think Stirner fits into Hegel’s System, he simply provides the attitude an individual (die Individualisierung des Geistes) ought to have.

Plus his claims to hold onto the self control he learned through religion and his knowledge and science he was taught show that his book isn’t supposed to be holistic and maximal consistent.

[Anonymous No.18383962]

>>18382580
Me