How come Ayn Rand is a joke but Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy?

Stirner is cool and hip and edgy and for girls who wear chokers while Rand is for stodgy old men who regularly say things like "accounting practice" and "due diligence"

>american philosophers

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy
brilliant bait

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy
How come you're a joke that knows nothing about philosophy, yet feels confident to produce retarded statements like that?

Stirner is literally unknown outside of a handful of internet memes and old leftists.

Rand gets a lot of shit because aside from her leading a rather meme filled life became a beacon for insufferable and antisocial types.

>stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy

I can't tell if OP is retarded or trolling. Either way, funny post

both are for pseuds

underrated

>not aristotle

>Objectivism
My property, that is the capital which I own, is my own, fuck Commies
>Egoism
Everything that exists is my property, fuck you

Greek philosophy is totally different from modern philosophy, the outlook is different, the modern one focuses more inwardly and against man.

broke: ayn rand was an objectivist
joke: ayn rand was a liberal
woke: ayn rand was nazbol

Ayn Rand uses logic the way an english undergrad uses it and throws around "objectivity" as a buzzword. It sounds like a pile of excuses.

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy
the reason why he's better is because his philosophy isn't written around some hocus pocus standard, but his problem is that what he's saying is largely common sense and ultimately doesn't make much of a difference, since you can be an anarchist "within".... pretty much anything.

1/2

2/2

- Max Stirner

Egoism is a metaphysics, objectivism is political philosophy.

objectivism is the talmud for new york goys

Best Post ITT

>tfw never gonna have a big tiddy stirner gf

>if you take him literally and formally, and project your ideology onto him he's clearly leftist

>>if you take him literally and formally....
>"if you read what he actually writes"

>>project
you're the one projecting if you think this is right winged user

>and ultimately doesn't make much of a difference, since you can be an anarchist "within"
he dont want you to be an "anarchist" but an egoist. and although i risk to look like i wear a fedora, i think to be an "egoist within" is pretty hard. i mean, it imply a more or less constant autoanalisis

anyway he is a crash, he is pretty good with the critical thought and questioning ideas. the weakest part of his work is the proactive side, the "unión of egoists". (i dont think he put too much effort on this or simply he is really good with critique and the "unión of egoist" pale in comparison.)

Ayn Rand was a dumb bitch and Stirner is actually insightful.

That's more or less what I indented to get at, thanks for putting it better.

aind ran was spook

but i think a more or less constant autoanalisis change too many things of this world. you know?.

because ayn rand's objectivism just amounts to 'be greedy.' stirner is talking about things that can't be put into language—the lacanian subject acting spontaneously, not being a consumer cuck.

This fucking thread man.
I need more

really unfunny

i don't think I'm ever going to read Stirner. too many retards enjoy him

triggered retards

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy

>Ayn Rand
>Develop objective morality
>Max Stirner
>Attack the concept of morality

How can people compare these at all?

>discussing philosophy at all
keep it to yourself and shut up

>If every human being on Earth cooperated toward a common goal they would achieve that goal
wow so smart

This guy has an IQ of at least 500

They're completely different. Where Stirner rejects ideology and dogma, Ayn Rand just wishes to establish a society where Don Draper thrives to the fullest.

She says everyone should completely serve his self-interest, but on the other side she says we shouldn't use force to take what we want. She tries to establish rules to egoism where the ways of robber barons are legitimate but the ways of robbers aren't. Spooked out of her mind.

If one is to be consistent in egoism/individualism, one doesn't merely legitimise economic freedom, but also freedom to violence.

She's just an uninteresting counter-commie that worships capitalists instead of proletarians.

You're missing out on the /pol/ factor that nobody talks about. He calls different stages of mental development negroid, mongoloid and caucasian. He also talks shit about the Jews a lot.

>tfw oblomovian bartlebyist stirnerite welfare NEET

thanks for the property, fags, i'll do absolutely nothing with it

I don't trust /pol/. I've read 5 Evola books(Metaph. Of War, Metaph. Of sex, Meditation on the Mountain, Revolt, and Ride the Tiger) and they were all badly constructed and confusing

which spook caused you to read four more after disliking the first one?

The idea that a capitalist is necessarily not a proletarian and vice versa is at the root of the socialist fallacy. For simply if it were true, there wouldn't be an element lost when capitalists were removed, but instead, their roles remain to new "Knowledge Workers", at first inexperienced and obedient to irresponsible superiors. More common yet, is a true derail from the original wealth increasing path of the corporation due to the lack of a goal that can be either achieved or not like profit, replaced now by nothing except the unconditional lack of feedback. Again, if capitalists were not workers then their removal would be simple and of general success, yet the opposite is true, revealing a lost function not recognized by socialists. And finally, if capitalists are workers, then there is not a Worker Revolution to be had, but something else without a proper cause.

Ayn Rand was a fucking egocentric jew.

>The idea that a capitalist is necessarily not a proletarian
Marxists don't use the term capitalist in the modern colloquial sense to just mean 'person who believes capitalism is the best idea'. A capitalist in Marxist terms owns the means of production a proletarian does not, and therefore sells only his labor. It's a dichotomy by definition
If you intend to debunk an argument you really ought to understand what the arguments are in the first place

>implying this is anti-capitalism and not anti-state

existentialist comics fucking suck and the art is atrocious

>chokers

guilty pleasure

I think Stirner is a bigger meme than Rand
That passage reads as left

Because Stirner was part of a more prestigious intellectual network which resulted in him refining his style of argumentation while Rand's essentially comes off as inarticulate resentful flailings aside from a few high points of Fountainhead.

I mean, the man caused Marx such asspain that he devoted hundreds of pages to trying (and failing) to refute him.

>Stirner is considered the final boss of philosophy?
Literally by whomst'd?

It is quite literally plebbit

>anti-capitalism
not exactly, he's against the goverment

hehe... spooked

nigger if you actually read him, the entire last chapter of the ego and his own is consecrated to his view of anarco-syndicalism

>Ayn Rand just wishes to establish a society where Don Draper thrives to the fullest.
Yeah Rand isn't actually about self-interest, and her support of capitalism is simply accidental, contingent on the fact that she believes it is the best system for her "great men" to stand at the pinnacle of society.
Her whole system is about hero worship. If she had thought autocracy was the best system for John Galts to take power, she would be virtually undistinguishable from your everyday fascist.

Please actually read him. Please tell me how Stirner isn't anticapitalist

>Is "free competition" then really "free"? nay, is it really a "competition,"—to wit, one of persons,—as it gives itself out to be because on this title it bases its right? It originated, you know, in persons becoming free of all personal rule. Is a competition "free" which the State, this ruler in the civic principle, hems in by a thousand barriers? There is a rich manufacturer doing a brilliant business, and I should like to compete with him. "Go ahead," says the State, "I have no objection to make to your person as competitor." Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for buildings, I need money! "That's bad; but, if you have no money, you cannot compete. You must not take anything from anybody, for I protect property and grant it privileges." Free competition is not "free," because I lack the THINGS for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away!

>As long as faith sufficed for man's honor and dignity, no labor, however harassing, could be objected to if it only did not hinder a man in his faith. Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. Therefore he must become a master in it too, i. e. be able to perform it as a totality. He who in a pin-factory only puts on the heads, only draws the wire, etc., works, as it were, mechanically, like a machine; he remains half-trained, does not become a master: his labor cannot satisfy him, it can only fatigue him. His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other. For this laborer in another's service there is no enjoyment of a cultivated mind, at most crude amusements: culture, you see, is barred against him.

>Its principle, labor, is not recognized as to its value; it is exploited, a spoil of the possessors, the enemy.

>If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property.

>she believes it is the best system for her "great men" to stand at the pinnacle of society.
What a fucking idiot