4chan archive /lit/ (index)
similar threads
2014-05-15 06:51 4893317 Anonymous (Stirner.jpg 220x567 22kB)
What do you guys think about Max Stirner?

2 min later 4893322 Anonymous
he's spooky

4 min later 4893325 Anonymous
>>4893317 A shitty proto-Nietzsche. No point in reading him

8 min later 4893336 Anonymous
why is /lit/ so damn obsessed with this guy

10 min later 4893339 Anonymous
/lit/'s constant jerking off of the guy has pretty much guaranteed that I can't take him seriously.

11 min later 4893343 Anonymous
Is that caricature his only recorded image, or what? It's all I ever see. He definitely has a bit of hype built up around him, but his writings are probably just in the right place at the right time.

19 min later 4893364 Anonymous
>>4893336 It is probably like three shitposters and one ramping his game up because people have been complaining about the bullshit cancer lately

33 min later 4893401 Anonymous
>>4893336 3/4 of /lit/ is still in middle school that's why.

39 min later 4893420 Anonymous
>>4893317 i'm about to read The Ego and Its Own. i've read Nietzsche before (Zarathustra, Antichrist, excerpts of G&E). why should or shouldn't i read Stirner? i always find /lit/ casually dismissing things without any reasons given. could someone give me some actual opinions as to why Stirner is trash or worthwhile, and not just hurl thinly veiled insults at the general community?

41 min later 4893428 Anonymous
>>4893420 Are you retarded? Are you just making up hate for one of the most posted people to bitch? The point is this thread and the other one filled with his head on animal bodies are -shitposting-.

1 hours later 4893506 Feminister (1399727922045.jpg 998x766 70kB)
>>4893343 His writings have actually been close to "suppressed". Here's an interesting article on that http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enni etzsche.html#k3. >Given the widespread contempt for, and the still more prevalent ignorance regarding Stirner some pronouncements about him, voiced by prominent thinkers, are worth our attention. Ludwig Klages for instance, does not believe that Nietzsche knew of Stirner. Nevertheless in his study of Nietzsche, he was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." He concedes to him that his thinking, in comparison to Nietzsche's, is "often more radical, less circumlocutory, analytically more exact", and that he "gives ultimate conclusions, for the most part, with more conciseness." Klages regards Stirner as that "antipode of Nietzsche, who in any case should be taken seriously." Stirner, he 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." (11) >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]." (12) 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. (13)

1 hours later 4893507 Feminister (1389232176092.png 1077x1107 232kB)
>>4893506 >It is remarkable that these authors did not find Stirner worthy of any argumentative criticism, that their strong words about him were usually uttered in rather remote places, in an apparently casual or accidental way. The small selection of material reviewed above should be sufficient to substantiate the phenomenon of an obviously intensive -- though nevertheless largely clandestine -- Stirner reception. It articulates itself sotto voce, reckoning that the educated audience already knows what is meant when insinuations are voiced regarding Stirner's demoniacal antagonism to culture and his absolutely malignant ideas. >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". (14) 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). (15) 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. (16) The never-revealed motivations of such partisans -- whose clandestine number is difficult to estimate -- are presumably similar to those of the apocalyptic visionaries mentioned above. >Other authors (for instance, from recent times, the aforementioned Ottmann and Safranski) display an attitude of soberness and superiority; nevertheless, opposite Stirner a puzzled ambivalence is noticeable in them, which they endeavor to overcome -- and young Marx was the prototype for this -- by deploying the previously discussed petit bourgeois thesis. >There can be no doubt regarding the absolute enmity felt by these thinkers towards Stirner. It is limited or obscured only insofar as they found it necessary to take care that it did not augment Stirner's value in any way. This enmity is evinced much more frequently among philosophical authors than among theologians, but seldom does a member of either group allow himself to go so far as to phrase such unambiguous words as that early admirer of Nietzsche and professor of philosophy, Karl Joël. In his opus magnum Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion." (17)

2 hours later 4893640 Feminister
>>4893420 You should read Stirner because he made the greatest argument for moral nihilism of any philosopher, amongst many other forms of nihilism. The concept of ideology as shibboleth, the rejection of peoples, of nations, of mankind itself.

2 hours later 4893641 Anonymous
>>4893640 >Feminister kill yourself

2 hours later 4893642 Anonymous
>>4893641 >dropping trip and samefagging because nobody cared about your post the first time spook'd!

2 hours later 4893649 Feminister (gif.gif 300x165 270kB)
>>4893642

2 hours later 4893667 Anonymous
The Ego and His Own is a good book, too bad Feminister with his incessant praise starts to give it a bad reputation. Feminister should move on with other books, rather than treat this one as a holy grail.

3 hours later 4893675 Anonymous
>>4893667 The entire board should stop shitposting four fucking topics about stirner and the neechee beechee every goddamned day.

3 hours later 4893681 Anonymous
Hey Feminister

3 hours later 4893684 Anonymous
>>4893681 Yes retard, we get it. You like to say hello to yourself and pretend you are popular. Go away now.

3 hours later 4893685 Anonymous
>>4893640 >>4893641 >>4893642 >>4893649 >>4893681 all Feminster. 2spookyasfuck

3 hours later 4893686 Anonymous
It is my not so humble opinion that Stirner made his name with nonsense, appeals to selfishness and godlessness, and that there's not very much to him besides that.

3 hours later 4893690 Anonymous
>>4893684 Wow, you're sad.

3 hours later 4893692 Anonymous
I'm pretty sure people on /lit/ like Stirner only because of the cool little made-for-4chan sketch of him.

3 hours later 4893703 Anonymous
>>4893692 Read the book, it's good. Then you will understand that you could bring his views in any thread that shows up here, and if you are not Feminister, you won't feel the need to perpetually bich about spooks.

3 hours later 4893715 Anonymous
>>4893690 Oh so you're legitimately some cancerous new fuck who goes around trying to initiate a dick sucking with the shittiest tripfag. Go drown in salt.

3 hours later 4893719 Anonymous
░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▐ ░░░░░░▄▄▄░░▄██▄ ░░░░░▐▀█▀▌░░░░▀█▄ ░░░░░▐█▄█▌░░░░░░▀█▄ ░░░░░░▀▄▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▀▀ ░░░░▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀ ░░░█▀▄▄▄█░▀▀ ░░░▌░▄▄▄▐▌▀▀▀ ▄░▐░░░▄▄░█░▀▀ U HAVE BEEN SPOOKED BY THE ▀█▌░░░▄░▀█▀░▀ ░░░░░░░▄▄▐▌▄▄ ░░░░░░░▀███▀█░▄ ░░░░░░▐▌▀▄▀▄▀▐▄SPOOKY SKILENTON ░░░░░░▐▀░░░░░░▐▌ ░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░█ ░░░░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░█ ░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░▐▌SEND THIS TO 7 PPL OR SKELINTONS WILL EAT YOU

3 hours later 4893737 Feminister
>>4893667 I'm pretty well read, but Stirner demolishes most other philosophy. He makes it difficult to take a lot of other texts seriously, they just read like bullshit after him. He's not the end all of philosophy, but he is the end of moral philosophy and all ideological justification that isn't an appeal to self interest of the reader. >>4893681 heyya

3 hours later 4893747 Anonymous
>>4893506 >posting Laska links Welcome to the fold! Have you read his debate with Hoevels? It's hilarious!

3 hours later 4893755 Anonymous
>>4893737 Something i have always wondered since the first time i saw you in a stirner thread, do you consider yourself ideologically compatible with mainstream feminism in Sweden? (Im only assuming you are a Swedish feminist from your trip)

3 hours later 4893764 Anonymous
>>4893692 I worked on a PhD on Stirner for about a year, I have two articles published on him and one book review, I held to talks on him (one of them at an international conference on anarchism, the other at a German Stirner-scholar-meeting)

3 hours later 4893767 Anonymous
>>4893755 he's a gay man, there is no place for them in feminism

3 hours later 4893770 Anonymous
>>4893715 Keep tryharding crybaby faggot

3 hours later 4893791 Feminister
>>4893747 [handshaking intensifies] Nay, I can't seem to find it. Could you link it? >>4893755 I'm a Californian. My name is Feminine Minister Feminist-er than you Feministin'

3 hours later 4893793 Anonymous
>>4893791 Oh well, that explains a number of things

3 hours later 4893799 Feminister
>>4893793 ?

4 hours later 4893820 Anonymous
>>4893791 >Could you link it? http://www.lsr-projekt.de/mspraxis. html this is the first reply by Laska to Stirner. There's some truth in the debate and lots of funny name-calling.

4 hours later 4893891 Feminister
>>4893820 Marvelous! You might find this interesting https://www.aacp.com/pdf%2F0211%2F0 211ACP_Shapiro.pdf

5 hours later 4893903 Anonymous
>>4893891 I generally think that among the different terminologies that have been used to 'explain' Stirner's thought, a radical (early Reich) version of the psychoanalytical triad makes a lot of sense. Spooks are the super-ego, more or less, which also explains the main weakness of Stirner: A strong optimism about the ability of the individual to overcome heterodox values. It's remarkable that Stirner already makes the connection between duty, morals, suppression of urges, and libido (the description of the girl who gets horny is very lucid).

5 hours later 4893915 Feminister
>>4893903 Well Freudian psychoanalysis isn't exactly steel rules, but you're right in that Stirner puts some faith individual capacity to overcome superego--if you looked at that article, you'd have seen that guilt is very connected with OCD's; if social values are anything like OCD's, they are extremely difficult to ignore even when you are totally conscious of how irrational they are (and the guilt associated with both tends to have been forcefully ingrained). On the other hand, capacity for moral nihilism isn't central to Stirner's argument, but rather his hopes. Is the superego something that can't be realistically done away with? It's purely psychologically constructed, it's animal training, so I'd say that it isn't something one is inherently cursed with. But for numerous reasons and interests, there is going to be massive resistance to abolishing it (Freud being a good example).

5 hours later 4893949 Anonymous
>>4893891 ⇒a study from 2011 revealing a banality that was already well-known and trivial when Freud first publically postulated it a hundred years ago Wow, it's fucking nothing. >>4893915 ⇒Is the superego something that can't be realistically done away with? The super-ego is an outdated artefact of evolution. As a self-diagnosed sociopath I control my super-ego. Feels good to be superior.

11 hours later 4894598 Anonymous
>>4893506 >>4893507 >>4893640 Feminister confirmed for dumbest person and worst shitposter of /lit/

11 hours later 4894603 Anonymous (1390000925143.jpg 680x680 66kB)
How anti-semitic is The Ego and its Own?

11 hours later 4894615 Anonymous
>>4894603 Stirner basically calls Jews filthy heathens who are firmly entrenched in the world and never even reach the idealist stage let alone the proper egoist one, but this relates to the tendencies of Judaism. So he's not so much an anti-semitic as anti-judaic, kinda like Schoppy but for different reasons. Although anti may be too strong a phrase for Stirner, he just mocks them.

12 hours later 4894728 Anonymous
>>4893949 >Self-diagnosed sociopath careful on those edges brotslav

13 hours later 4894841 Anonymous
>>4893317 His name literally means "highbrown".

24 hours later 4896885 Anonymous
>>4893420 This guy here. This book is fucking fantastic. I honestly feel like this is the book that I got into philosophy to try to find, no joke. It's coming at a pretty perfect time in my life, too. His Child>Youth>Man thing is me, 100%, and I'm just at the cusp of Youth to Man. No "oh that might apply to other people and me I guess" like the Camel>Lion>Child. I felt like Stirner was talking TO ME, I was electrified. True egoism... Jesus Christ, that was such a scary thought before, but I can't seem to remember why.

25 hours later 4896970 Anonymous
>>4894603 >How normal was anti-Semitism for Stirner's time.

25 hours later 4896980 Feminister
>>4894603 Not at, really. If there's anything racist, it's the use of the categories Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid for the advancement of mindset. Stirner rejects all peoples and religions, he holds the Jews to the same standards; Jews should cease to be Jews, Germans should cease to be Germans, Christians should ceases to be Christians.

25 hours later 4897031 Anonymous
>>4894603 He said that he appreciated that the jews were more focused on this life rather than the afterlife.

25 hours later 4897086 Anonymous
>>4894598 er... what? those are probably among the best feminister posts I've seen on /lit/.

7.495 0.161