Memes aside, what do you guys think of Stirner?

He succeeded where the both the reactionaries and the post-structuralists failed: he created a cutting critique of modernity that is basically unassailable.

There was no Marxism when Ego and His Own was released.

People who think he has anything in common with private property worshippers like Rand and Hayek have profoundly misunderstood him.

>Have you ever seen a spirit? "No, not I, but my grandmother." Now, you see, it’s just so with me too; I myself haven’t seen any, but my grandmother had them running between her feet all sorts of ways, and out of confidence in our grandmothers’ honesty we believe in the existence of spirits.

What an absolute madman

...

Based Adorno.

youtube.com/watch?v=3HAMk_ZYO7g

He's unimportant. I literally wouldn't have heard of him if it weren't for spook shitposters on Veeky Forums.

...

His importance has been completely overblown in the tiny little backwater that is Veeky Forums. They have made him into a cult; if fat psychologically broken neets scattered across the internet can form a cult.

He is an interesting oddity if you are interested in Anarchism, Marx, or Nietzsche.

Anything actually within his books is more interestingly expressed in the above three or elsewhere.

It's always funny seeing people getting flustered about Stirner while simultaneously denying he matters at all without bringing up any actual points.

he's written more than the ego and his own

write another book about it, Engels

Well that's good to hear, I'm definitely more interested in reading him then.

Wat

He absolutely destroyed left-Hegelianism. This is a historical fact.

He also expressed the concepts in his philosophy without the contradictory, delusional bullshit you'll find in those other three.

>He absolutely destroyed left-Hegelianism. This is a historical fact.

He apparently didn't, because the legacy of it still exists today among a lot of people.

Probably because of the horrible essay Saint Max though.

Hmm, I should have been clearer there.

He absolutely destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism. What came after is materialistic left-Hegelianism, and this shift was largely spurred by Stirner, both in being responsible for undermining the core of the idealistic strain, and for encouraging Marx to take up his later materialistic approach.

I agree wholeheartedly. He dealt a crushing blow to the idealism, but yes, Marx and Engels started developing the materialistic dialectic after it instead.

But the point is that the essay Saint Max never even lends a credence to anything Stirner said, it's literally a wall of shitposting, because Marx, unlike Engels, wasn't willing to admit that Stirner had a point.

Saint Max did point out that Stirner's philosophy pays little attention to material conditions, and can often achieve a net result that winds up with a person acting not particularly differently than they did before. Which isn't wrong, but I think misses the point of Stirner's work, which focuses primarily on getting you to think of why you believe or do what you do.

It does pay attention to it; he specifically defines property as only that object that you have the power to defend from others.

He actually has a pretty solid conception of property.

But yes, he doesn't talk about material conditions in the same way as Marx because I doubt he believed it had the same effect on society as Marx believed.

>He actually has a pretty solid conception of property.

This I absolutely agree with (not that I've disagreed with you much so far), I absolutely love Stirner's view of property. Every other conception I've seen seems to act as though the act of somehow claiming something etches your ownership of it into a cosmic ledger. Stirner eschews this entirely, and brings it back to its most primal, naked, and honest form.

I think he couldve been the Father of Psychology if he had wrote his book in a less abrasive style and wrote a few more than he did
Tbh I like him. His brain doesnt work like mine does I relate more to Nietzsche's or Camus's way of visualizing stuff so I find his perspective interesting

Stirner knew Marx personally dumbass
Probably heard many of Marxs ideas before they were ever set to paper

>Stirner knew Marx personally dumbass

He really didn't though. He knew Engels, but not Marx.

>I think he couldve been the Father of Psychology if he had wrote his book in a less abrasive style and wrote a few more than he did

Probably the one anarchist philosopher whose ideas are actually solid and well thought out.

I'm curious though, what would a Union of Egoists actually look like?