/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6061091]

Not only was this cartoon drawn by Engels, but...

[Anonymous No.6061099]

...Der Eigene was the first periodical for homosexuals (1896-1932).

What does this make you think of Stirner now?

[Anonymous No.6061110]

>>6061099
It's not my concern.

[Anonymous No.6061116]

>>6061091
What's the big deal with Max Stirner in /lit/ anyway?

[Anonymous No.6061119]

Not only was this cartoon drawn by Engels, but...
he along with Marx comprehensibly bodied Stirner in The German Ideology.

[Anonymous No.6061135]

>>6061116
some guy thought the ego and its own was the best philosophical work ever made and made like hundreds of images of different stirner and made threads daily until other people bought a copy. the meme spread from there

[Anonymous No.6061143]

>>6061116
At least at this point he's to /lit/ what Neutral Milk Hotel are to /mu/, except NMH are worthier of checking out.

[Anonymous No.6061149]

>>6061116
See >>6061110 ?

Someone made a frog Stirner. Is important.

>>6061119
Like...

[Anonymous No.6061156]

>>6061119
Not really it's just filled with ad-hominenems and was never published.

[Anonymous No.6061157]

>>6061149
...this?

[Anonymous No.6061283]

>>6061099
You read the New Yorker, don't you?

[Anonymous No.6061301]

>>6061116
I've read in many of the university threads on here that Stirner is actually very popular among the students (primarily undergrads) at some top-tier/elite schools.

[Anonymous No.6061305]

>>6061283
No. Why?

[Anonymous No.6061313]

>>6061091
That only makes him so fascinating. That an image so utterly powerful as one of Spoomeister Stirner was produced by his ideological counterpart perhaps just for laughs. Fourty years after they had last met.

Immortal I.

[Anonymous No.6061316]

>>6061305
>milk
Lmao

[Anonymous No.6061367]

>>6061143
Stirner is worth checking out because without him the only egoist philosophies are
>objectivism
to get you laughed out of any respected institution.
or
>Sadism
get you in prison.

[Anonymous No.6061381]

EGO.. I...

[Anonymous No.6061389]

>>6061367
I totally agree he's worth checking out, but not *as* worthy when compared to the huge catalog of other richer and more important philosophy figures.

[Anonymous No.6061394]

👻👻👻👻👻👻👻™

[Anonymous No.6061441]

>>6061116

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhXA2zHCU

[Anonymous No.6061454]

more stirner pictures please

[Anonymous No.6061463]

>>6061091

[Anonymous No.6061464]

>implying stirner will not change your mind

[Anonymous No.6061475]

>>6061091
Engels was actually a great admirer of Stirner until his bully friend Marx forbade him to like him.

[Anonymous No.6061485]

>>6061099
Pretty cool, doesn't afraid of heteronormative ideology.

Of course fags today have strong homo ideology that Stirner would deride as well.

[Anonymous No.6061490]

post more Stirner

[Anonymous No.6061491]

>>6061313
Truly immortal!

>>6061367
Stirner worked as a schoolteacher for young girls. Rand would have given them spooks. de Sade would have given them welts.

[Anonymous No.6061509]

>>6061485
Oh, must add that Stirner didn't publish it. However, he inspired Adolf Brand.

[Anonymous No.6061578]

>>6061509
I know he didn't publish it, but what it make me think of Stirner is that he's pretty cool, since he's spookless enough to be one of the few thinkers to offer fags something they can work with.

Stirner's biographer, Mackay, was also a homosexual I think. And Max also influenced the whole Émile Armand fun loving fucking everything kind of anarchism.

[Anonymous No.6061600]

>>6061578
I see. (Embarassu~.)

[Anonymous No.6061638]

Egoism is just stoicism for edgelords.

[Brown Pill No.6061645]

>>6061638
But how can that Stirner doodle be wrong?
Just look at it

[Anonymous No.6061681]

>>6061645
His forehead is higher than I am when I'm smoking the purest of dank. I don't doubt for a second he had a prodigious intellect. It doesn't excuse, however, that he posited a philosophy of self-interest first and foremost but failed to secure his own best interest throughout his entire life. He went to debtor's prison repeatedly and he died broke, divorced and unaccomplished, with even his wife to whom the Ego and Its Own is dedicated devoting herself to the spookiest of spooks, the Catholic faith. Good meme, tho.

[Anonymous No.6061690]

>>6061600
>believes he is unique
besides that, im all for what he's about. but i most certainly dont think anyone is unique

[Anonymous No.6061698]

>>6061690
It's good that people are allowed opinions without comprehension. The world wouldn't be as colourful without it.

[Anonymous No.6061700]

>>6061681

But what about the Young Hegelians' milk shop

[Anonymous No.6061722]

>>6061681

Its not like he chose to write a text that generated no profit, or have his wife leave him, or die unaccomplished. Its simply what happened to him, despite his own wishes. Or maybe they were his wishes and he enjoyed inflicting pain on himself, I can't speak for Stirner. But you're stating events, not rebuttals.

[Anonymous No.6061738]

>>6061690
You haven't read Yung Max, have you? His use of unique isn't the conventional one.

Even in the conventional sense though, everyone is literally unique.

[Anonymous No.6061759]

>>6061681
Some spirits are just too free not to get into trouble, anon.

[Anonymous No.6061760]

ICH HAB MEIN SACH AUF NICHTS GESTELLT

[Anonymous No.6061768]

>>6061722
Considering Stirner puts so much emphasis on ghostbusting one can draw one of these two indications from his life: a) either he successfully performed ghostbusting on himself which shows that ghostbusting isn't fruitful, or b) he didn't successfully preform ghostbusting on himself which shows that he shouldn't be trusted because he was haunted.

[Anonymous No.6061778]

>>6061768
Inside everyone there is a skellington.
A spooky
Scary
Skellington.

[Anonymous No.6061779]

>>6061768
Stirner's philosophy isn't a self-help book aimed for success, it's a paradigm shift. You can still be a fuck up afterwards.

[Anonymous No.6061787]

>>6061722
Most people at least have the excuse that whatever misfortune befalls them is in some way due to the ideal to which they devoted themselves. Most people have the handicap of scruples. Stirner, however, writes eloquently enough that he believes in nothing but his own pursuit. With, then, the competency that he says no employer can pay him enough for, with the brilliant lustre of his uniqueness, he fails completely in every regard. Your post suggests he has no responsibility for the outcome of his own life. That is bollocks of the highest order.

Arguably, you can say, well, it didn't matter. He didn't pursue these things because he saw through them and knew they wouldn't bring him happiness. He was content in and of himself, sustained by by himself in himself, purely individual. Hence, my comment that egoism is stoicism for edgelords.

Honestly, this meme is pretty silly. Max Stirner writes in a deliberately edgy style, but his philosophy at its core isn't that edgy. It's heartbreaking, in fact, in its isolation, and that's how he comes across. Friedrich Nietzsche is the superior edgelord.

[Anonymous No.6061788]

>>6061768

>either he successfully performed ghostbusting on himself which shows ghostbusting isn't fruitful

One example doesn't prove anything. Just because one person failed in investment banking doesn't mean everyone else will. Furthermore, Stirner never even claims egoism will get you rich or successful, it wasn't concieved for that. Its an analyses of morality and how the individual relates to it. Its not a self-help book.

[Anonymous No.6061803]

>>6061787

>he has no responsibility for the outcome of his own life.

No I did not, I did not say that at all anywhere.

[Anonymous No.6061815]

>>6061768

Go read Bill Gates' books, Steve Job's books and please kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6061818]

>>6061787
I think Nietzsche is a lot more heartbreaking when you see how he wrestles nihilism for decades, ultimately fails to deliver on his magnum opus and all he can come up with is some cool future guy we should all work towards before going crazy and being a vegetable for ten years before dying of a stroke.

[Anonymous No.6061823]

>>6061803
You wrote, "Its not like he chose..." (>>6061722), in response to me listing his failures (>>6061681). That he didn't choose them suggests it happened outside his control. I say what happens to you is within your control, at least to a certain degree. That Max Stirner failed so spectacularly is very much a point against him. I'm not sure where the confusion of meaning has arisen.

[Anonymous No.6061829]

>>6061823
You can not lead a spook free lifestyle in a haunted society

[Anonymous No.6061852]

Is a deep knowledge of philosophy required to understand stirners work?

All I'm really going on right now is The Republic, some neetchay and wikipedia articles.

[Anonymous No.6061865]

>>6061818
Damn...

[Anonymous No.6061874]

>>6061818
I agree that Nietzsche as a person is more tragic. His philosophy, however, is way more edgy than egoism. Max Stirner beneath his provocative style seems somewhat egalitarian, particularly how he applies egoism to how working classes should wrest control back.

>>6061829
Max Stirner, then, you say, couldn't help but subordinate will to some spook because it was a haunted society? That's nonsense, friend. It's not because Max Stirner couldn't free himself of spooks that his life was a disaster. Nor was it spooked up people hiding behind every corner waiting to sabotage him. If the Union of Egoists somehow sprang into being, Max Stirner would still have very little to offer, as a second rate teacher whose only business enterprise failed.

[Anonymous No.6061878]

>>6061389

Recommend me some anon. Specific works.

[Anonymous No.6061880]

>>6061852
Do you want to understand the memes? Then yes.
Do you want to understand Stirner's relation to philosophy? Then no. You should read Hegel first, ideally also Feuerbach.

[Anonymous No.6061886]

>>6061880
>telling someone new to philosophy to read hegel
u r a sly 1, m8.

[Anonymous No.6061889]

>>6061874
What business?
Btw your reasoning is in need of a thorough ghostbusting

[Anonymous No.6061902]

>>6061889
It's some enterprise involving milk. I'm not entirely sure on the specifics. It's in Mackay's biography. Apparently, he wasted the last of his second wife's fortune on it in a last ditch effort to secure financial security. It's unrelated to the Young Hegelian's far more hilarious cock-up involving milk.

[Anonymous No.6061907]

>>6061157
Marks wrote more pages about Stirner than sterner wrote period.

We probably only even know who Stirner is because Marx critiqued him.
This is also how we know about Epicurus, because christian apologists couldn't shut up about how much they hated his materialism.

Let this be a lesson to critics.

[Anonymous No.6061911]

>>6061878
To pick something "around" Stirner, both in content and context: Hegel's, Marx', and Nietzsche's body of work has both much more potential to be further developed (the richness aspect), and also had far bigger influence on subsequent figures (the importance aspect).

[Anonymous No.6061928]

>>6061889
I'm aware that I'm conflating the philosophy with the person anyway, and we should take his philosophy on its own merits. They do, however, for me at least, appear intertwined. It's as I said, Max Stirner seems as if he altogether distanced himself from everything and cultivated a calm and indifference isolation within himself. That's where egosim as expounded by him leads, I believe.

[Anonymous No.6061954]

>>6061886
It is implied anon will have to read other philosophers before starting with Hegel. But I think just reading Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, which one should read anyway, gives a workable foundation for understanding him. The rest can be supplied by introductions.

[Anonymous No.6062009]

>Hippelianer

[Anonymous No.6062086]

>>6061902
stirner's milk shop went bankrupt because it was too patrician

>
Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

[Anonymous No.6062101]

>>6061902
stirner's milk shop failed because it was too patrician

>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

[Anonymous No.6062111]

>>6062086
>>6062101
>This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.
So their analysis of contemporary ideology was plebeian. A case of bad spook reading.

[Anonymous No.6062182]

>>6062101

this is too funny to be true

[Anonymous No.6062351]

>>6062101

Top laugh.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6062530]

>>6061099
Why would this bother a Stirnerist?

>>6061143
HA! Real funny getting that backwards.
I checked NMH out, and they don't even compare to Poi Dog Pondering. They're a forced meme, Stirner has legit threads and some forced goober threads

>>6061690
>I most certainly don't think anyone is unique
Who else is you? Who else has ever been you? And don't you try to pull a I'm-not-even-real argument.

>>6062101
Location location location. Poor Max.

[Anonymous No.6062679]

[Anonymous No.6062685]

>>6061823
>That Max Stirner failed so spectacularly is very much a point against him

What was his failure, exactly? Dying broke?

Stirner considered self-mastery the only good in the world, I don't think dying broke and unnoticed is points against him. Merely that the spooks of his time were greater than him.

[Anonymous No.6062785]

I'm too much of a pleb to read Stirner

[Anonymous No.6062797]

>>6062785
Stirner would say the term "pleb" is a spook, though.

[Anonymous No.6063453]

>>6061768

>Max Stirner wasn't rich and famous
>therefore he is a failure

pleb as fuck

[Anonymous No.6063457]

>>6061787

jesus are you like the philosophical equivalent of a mom or what?

Momism?

"Son, your treatise is nice, but what about success...we should add a little bit of how that, wouldn't that be nice? Oooh, and hard work too, I like the rest of it, but just add that, and don't forget family! Can't have a good philosophy without a little mom in it can we ;) ? "

[Anonymous No.6063460]

>>6061823
>That Max Stirner failed so spectacularly is very much a point against him.

Failed in what way? Maybe your definition of success and his were different.

And, when you think about it, you are thinking and posting and getting mad at some loser who died over 100 years ago, when he never even knew your name...think on that.

[Anonymous No.6063465]

>>6062785
just read wikipedia, maybe the stanford encyc if you feel brave.

Actually reading The Ego and Its Own is a step some full blown Stirnerists never even reach during their lives.

[Anonymous No.6063500]

>>6063457
>not basing your philosophy on chicken tendies and earning GBP

I'm LMAOing at your life

[Anonymous No.6063513]

>>6062785
Stirner is easy and sometimes even entertaining to read. You really have nothing to be anxious about.

[Anonymous No.6064983]

maxbump

[Anonymous No.6064994]

I'm just curious. Do we actually know what Stirner looks like or is this cartoon the only visual we got of this spook?

[Anonymous No.6065014]

>>6064994
Stirner is unphotographable and unpaintable. Sketchy drawings is all anybody has managed to produce before getting too spooked to continue.

[Anonymous No.6065237]

>>6064994

[Anonymous No.6066783]

>>6061135
It was more like he thought there was grand conspiracy against Stirner and I his relation to Marx what with poor referencing in newer editions of works.