Was he autistic?

Which study was this?

I don't think so. He was a weird motherfucker, who probably had a screw or two loose, but I don't think it was autism. His philosophy leaves too many grey areas in how you approach life, and doesn't have any of the characteristic obsession over minor details.

It took an insect to kill him. I've always found that very odd.

Infection is a hell of a thing without antibiotics.

Somehow, a random death like that seems oddly fitting for Stirner.

Were there any actual photographs of him? Everything I've seen on him is drawn.

The only known depiction of him is the Engel's sketch, which was made nearly 20 years after he had last seen the guy.

No, it's just dominated by Germans.

nature.com/mp/journal/v21/n3/abs/mp201512a.html

Well Descartes was a shut in who slept in all day.

I remember reading Kant was a bit of an eccentric fellow who followed a strict daily routine. It's said townspeople could set their clocks based on when Kant went on his morning walk.

I don't know if this is a real photo of him but it showed up in google

I am retarded
Its not its a photo of Rudolf Steiner

The google auto-picture system is retarded. Two of these are from video games

Well according to the webpage that photo was on it is Max Stirner but it actually isn't
But yeah Google's picture shit is pretty retarded

It's the opposite. It's a test to see how autistic you AREN'T.

A computer is incapable of reading "in between the lines," grasping the implications of a poeticized philosophical declaration, because it doesn't have the same knack for creative intuition like humans do. That quality in our perceptive consciousness that is able to interpret symbols relate them to experiences via our sensory perception, and measure them under the instrument of the value-judgment, is what currently separates us from non-sentient computers that simply follow a pattern they are given. Robots look at objects and are able to identify them by the definitions they are given, but they are unable to create new definitions and shape the very method and process of which they analyze and identify things under.

Same with philosophy. Autistic people read continental philosophers and think they're being obscure or are just writing nonsense. The reality is that autists are like computers, unable to intuitively grasp and creatively interpret the symbolism in the work.

People who grasp philosophy (and not that pseudo Analytic bullshit) are the most human of humans on the planet.

Rudolph Steiner comes up because he gave some interesting critiques of Stirner's relation to Nietzsche and the possible influence therein (if I recall correctly, Steiner's opinion was that Nietzsche came to a position with some noted similarities to Stirner's, but ultimately shows its heritage as an outgrowth of German idealism, rather than being influenced by Stirner's works, which he felt was a limiting factor in its growth).

No, he was right

Is Max Stirner even real? How do we know he wasn't just a spook cooked up by Marx?

Why would Marx prove himself wrong
His spook actually makes more sense about the whole communism thing
By the way documents about marriage, death and shit like that

Stirner doesn't really prove Marx wrong, since Marx's communism focused on the dialectical conflict of worker and boss, rather than some sort of moral ought of communism. The concept that capitalism would lead to the workers banding together to look after their own interests in a basically egoistic fashion driven by material concerns is entirely capable of fitting into Stirner's thinking.

kek'd

This. In many ways, Marx is an extension of Stirner- providing a believable account of how the workers realize that property & state are constructs instead of just demanding that everyone abandon their spooks.

Yeah, they're not exactly all that far removed in their ideological underpinnings. The main thing that separates them is their focus, as Stirner was focused entirely on the individual and how they interact with the world around them, whereas Marx took a focus mostly on large scale matters such as economics and societal change.

Frankly, I found Marx's critique of him a bit baffling, as he seemed to be misconstruing Stirner, and attacking an ideology that wasn't really all that at odds with his own.

Narcissism of small differences.