If you want a quick summary of his thought the SEP will do a better job of explaining it than I can.
plato.stanford.edu
And no, the "rebuttal" you gave is not a counterargument against him at all. The possibility that people will take his egoism in radically cruel directions is not an invalidation of his egoism. There's no contradictions there, there's nothing illogical there, it's a consequence that he accepts.
I never heard of Stirner in my life before Veeky Forums and I have a degree in Philosophy
>The possibility that people will take his egoism in radically cruel directions is not an invalidation of his egoism. There's no contradictions there, there's nothing illogical there, it's a consequence that he accepts.
Does he explicitly say: laflsdjgkdshkgjhesdjkghkhgKAHGLKHAG
I have said this 100 times already... stop being dense.a;,glsdglsdjglkjdslkgjkdlsjgsd
does he or does he not say:
PEOPLE CAN AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ABSOLUTELY WHATEVER THEY WANT WHEREEVER THEY WANT WHENEVER THEY WANT????????
Is that or is that not a component of his philosophy? If it is... my rebuttal makes that statement of his worth less than the shit he would be covered with....
So then.... GIVE ME ONE OTHER STATEMENT HE MADE. THAT ONE IS OVER. STOP BEING AN EMOTIONAL SPOOKED FAGGOT BY BRINGING UP VIOLENCE, ITS A PROV-ED POINT AND IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT
And I geuss I was warned for this, classic Veeky Forums pasta esque high literary value post so this will be my last post here. Thanks for being a dense block
Read the article.
I have never been on Reddit.