Who was greater, Nietzsche or Stirner?

roots are deep tho

> the fact that nietzsche tried to invent a "new tree" isn't impressive
It's impressive to people that want a tree. Stirner just killed the tree. Nietzsche provided an alternative tree.

in your analogy, "tree" is literally synonymous with "spook". you're claiming that it's impressive for someone to try and create an artificial abstraction for people to follow because "muh feelings".

by your logic, L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith and flipping Shia Labeouf are all equally impressive, for they do equal things using an equal amount of logical reasoning and tangible bases.

>you're claiming that it's impressive
You're acting like impressive is an objective judgement. It's subjective. Spooks are impressive, they impress people, they make an impression, that's what makes them spooks. You are completely misunderstanding what impressive means.

>impressive
>evoking admiration through size, quality, or skill: grand, imposing, or awesome.

shut the fuck up please I don't care about what you say anymore

Why are you so mad? All I'm saying is spooked people tend to be easily impressed by Nietzsche. What Stirner has done is more important, but less impressive to most people.

no, you're just shifting goalposts after realizing that you've been defending spooks. the OP question was "who was greater", and you answered neechee, even though he designed excessive illogical arguments and stirner did not.

Kierkegaard

>evoking admiration through size, quality, or skill: grand, imposing, or awesome.

No I'm not. I did not answer "neechee". I attempted to explain why people found him more impressive. You've been arguing about an imaginary argument.

Yes, you can ask any teenager, they think ubermesnch is grand, imposing and awesome. Stirner tends to evoke the opposite response unless you're Engels.

but you did. isn't this you?

"who is greater?"
you: "Nietzsche"

then you got proven wrong and now you're shifting goalposts to "I didn't say he was greater I said he was more impressive!"

which he also wasn't because it's not more impressive to have your works riddled with non-sequitor than someone who has logically flawless writing, unless you're making a semantical argument such as "some people are more impressed!" like some kind of buttmad fool desperately finding a goalpost you can still fit a ball through.

No, is me. Then tried to defend Nietzsche, and I countered using his own tree analogy in . Note that when "impressive" is used, it is used in conjunction with the dismissive "only"
>Nietzsche is only more impressive because...

Thereupon you got offended in by the word impressive which you perceived as praise.

Stirner was the first meme

so what you're saying is that you've been on an irrelevant tangent the entire time, ignoring the OP's topic altogether? that's not any better.

if you refer to the OP post, the topic was "who was greater", not "who had a larger number of people that found them impressive". you can pretend that you were arguing only the irrelevant side of this from the beginning all you want. in the end you either tried to move goalposts or were never on topic in the first place. I'm sorry that I presumed you were intelligent enough to be posting on topic, simply using words like "impressiveness" for loose synonyms of "greatness". I'll be sure to assume people are as retarded as you at minimum in the future.

You seem to be deeply offended. I stated my opinion in the second response in this thread. >Nietzsche attacked the superficial. Stirner attacked the fundamental.

I then defended my position in response to replies. Nietzsche is superficial relative to Stirner. I then attempted to explain why some people might perceive Nietzsche to be greater, because he is more impressive to them, used in a pejorative sense, and why Stirner is often underappreciated.

You seem to think you can win an argument by reframing it to a ghost you've been chasing.

>simply using words like "impressiveness" for loose synonyms of "greatness"
"Great" has an even more positive connotation than "impressive" so I think you must be somewhat mentally challenged if you think your word choice is better than mine. I was not using "impressive" as a synonym for "great" that's your own lack of understanding. I specifically chose a word other than "great" because my intended meaning was not "great"

Does continuing to make a fool of yourself really serve your self interest?

Stimer is reddit: the dude. Netcheese is vastly superior.

>Stirner

Y'ALL NIGGAS NEED JOSEPH CAMPBELL

>Nietzsche is superficial relative to Stirner.

He's not really, they just attacked different things. Stirner critiqued the concept of the ideal itself to destroy left-Hegelianism, Nietzsche criticized the roots of western morality to suggest that we come up with something better.

Both are credible philosophers, acting flippantly dismissive with one of the most significant philosophers of the 19th century only makes you look like a jackass. Nietzsche covered areas such as psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics, which Stirner didn't.

>in your analogy, "tree" is literally synonymous with "spook". you're claiming that it's impressive for someone to try and create an artificial abstraction for people to follow because "muh feelings".

You haven't actually read the Ego and Its Own, have you? Stirner isn't the mad spookbuster Veeky Forums makes him out to be. There's nothing wrong with abstractions; they're useful, they're healthy, and everyone has them. Even fucking Stirner said he had his own spooks.

You just proved his point.

Oh eat a dick. I doubt anyone badmouthing Nietzsche in favour of Stirner has even fucking read the Ego and Its Own, let alone anything by Nietzsche; all that's been demonstrated so far is a fucking meme understanding of these thinkers.

Why does everything on Veeky Forums boils down to a semantics fight

Stirner = Gentoo
Nietzsche = FreeBSD

>I have no argument because I never read them so I'm just going to accuse him of not reading it

>And because he doesn't completely kill the tree like Stirner does, he allows the tree to grow back in a different form
Wrong. If we're to continue your analogy, Nietzsche goes to the roots, too — and he pulls them out. What he does that Stirner doesn't do is plant a new tree. Stirner just pulls it out and says "this land is mine now," without planting anything else.

>implying planting a new tree was a good thing

By that analogy, he might pull it out from the roots, but then Stirmer salts the earth

Nietzsche not even a question

What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.

Creation is power.

Are video games the ultimate good?

They're the most fun pastime. But there's a limit to how much power you can derive from them, since they're just little amusing things we made.

It's the feeling of power, not the actual possession of power though.

so does anyone actually believe that getting rid of spooks would be positive for society or even possible? I don't see how it is an argument in itself but I guess that is why it's just a meme.

Right. The greatest power isn't felt from playing a video game though (if we're still talking about them).

Hardly. Both of them leave the land to be planted on. Nietzsche suggests it would be to your benefit to do so, Stirner doesn't give a rat's ass.

No, both are like pulling weeds from the ground, but Nietzsche says you should plant a pretty flower instead, Stirner says do whatever the fuck you want, something that benefits you, because it's your land.

The main differences between Nietzsche and Stirner are the Nietzsche takes forays into the nature of knowledge, human psychology, and metaphysics (being successful to varying degrees on these) and suggests that creating a new grand narrative would ultimately be to your benefit, whereas Stirner does not.

Contrary to what some people claim in this thread, Stirner's philosophy isn't actually that deep. It isn't unnecessarily shallow either. It's pretty much exactly as in-depth as it needs to be to accomplish its aim (which is pointing out that despite its claims to the contrary, left-Hegelianism is not some sort of anti-superstitious liberation of the human condition; it's just a new paint-job on the old ideas). He accomplished his aim spectacularly (utterly wrecking idealistic left-Hegelianism), but the philosophy itself is fairly bare-bones. I feel in this regard it serves excellently as an intellectual foundation, but it offers little in the way of insight.

On these grounds, and the fact Nietzsche would ultimately become an incredibly influential philosopher in the 20th century (though Stirner was as well, indirectly by being a major influence on Marx) that Nietzsche is greater as a philosopher. Both are pretty fucking great however.

>No, both are like pulling weeds from the ground, but Nietzsche says you should plant a pretty flower instead, Stirner says do whatever the fuck you want, something that benefits you, because it's your land.

I would say Nietzsche would suggest that you utilize the land, rather than leaving it barren, whereas Stirner would suggest doing whatever suits you (even if that means letting it be barren).

Except all the shit that Nietzsche says that goes beyond Stirner is incoherent. If Stirner points out a new paint job, Nietzsche covers a canvas in literal shit and calls it art. Stirner only went as far as he needed to because that was all he knew could be actually justified. Nietzsche just wanted to replace one paradigm for another, still clinging to a paradigm.

Nietzsche says 100 times as many normative things as Stirner does. Which is why people like him. Nietzsche gives those normative answers, even if they're wrong, people want those answers.

>Except all the shit that Nietzsche says that goes beyond Stirner is incoherent.

In what way? All of his ideas seem pretty coherent to me. Perspectivism, will to power, eternal recurrence, master morality, slave morality, ressentiment, perspectivism etc. are all pretty damn coherent. I'm not going to claim all of his philosophy is perfect, but it's all pretty coherent and intelligent.

>Nietzsche just wanted to replace one paradigm for another, still clinging to a paradigm.

He never really suggests a new paradigm he suggests that creating a new paradigm would be to our benefit, but he never suggests a new paradigm.

He also wrote a shitload more, and there's nothing wrong with a philosopher making normative claims, and before you start rambling about abstractions and spooks I'll point you to

I said perspectivism twice. Dang.

Seems reasonable to me.
In the end, I suloose we need to clarify the question. Is one greater in scope or are they greater in efficiency/accuracy?

Nietzche tackled moral issues in a way and with an style that simply leave you "wtf man"

You have to be a little bit like him to actually undestrand him.

yes, I have actually, here's the section on "spooks" because apparently you haven't if you're implying I was incorrect in describing his analogy as representing a "spook" in a very literal sense. the tree in his analogy represented "a philosophy", or a "method" of life. an abstract "ought" that you use for decision making. a spook.

haha wow you expect me to read all of that buttmad text? dude, you already ousted yourself as either off-topic or a goalpost shifter, I have nothing to gain from interacting with you at this point. this is an anonymous board, you can engage me in conversation while pretending to be someone who didn't make an ass of himself if you like.

Indeed, and Nietzsche doesn't suggest you find some new abstraction to enslave yourself to. He suggests you create a new narrative to help drive yourself forward, give yourself purpose in life, and make sense of a senseless universe. It's hardly the same as saying "serve humanity because of common bonds of humanity" or some shit.

Nietzsche is greater in scope, no one debates this, but it is also his flaw. Stirner was to the point, concise and rock solid. Nietzsche wrote what came to mind, which makes him more interesting and more relateable, but it means he also meanders and often lacks any sort of proper justification and not all of his works are deep and insightful.

Think of Stirner as a 6 page A+ term paper that is absolutely flawless. Think of Nietzsche as an A- 17 page term paper on the same prompt that goes off on whimsical tangents and flowery prose, who spent a lot of time brain storming and putting ideas down on paper, but not as much time pruning and refining those ideas.

neechee is essentially telling you to spook yourself, and he implies that humans need something like this in their lives, for some baseless reason. that instead of subscribing to an artificial source of meaning, to create an artificial source of meaning for yourself, and that humans [i]ought[/i] to do this. you're right that it's not the same as "serve humanity because of common bonds of humanity" or something of a similar nature, but it's equally grounded in reality and equally non-sequitor. like, literally: why? that simple question defeats the main flesh of his arguments. this is why I stick to the phenomenologists.

Reddit is Freud, Veeky Forums is Diogenes

Why does semantics frustrate plebs so much? Of course meaning is important in a field as theoretical as philosophy.

Stirner is more of a blank slate. Nietzsche upholds a specific kind of man. Stirner is more concise and honestly more consistent, but Nietzsche has better prose and draws from a broader pool of knowledge. I personally prefer Stirner but I don't think his style has more merit than Nietzsche's, there's something to be said for Nietzsche's artistry... he wasn't trying to write an essay.

One of them doesn't promote cuckoldry.

>, it's what makes him look retarded compared to stirner.

For Stirner, the "tree" also exists, it's just the "ego" or the "Unique One".

Either way it's obviously you've never read neither Stirner nor Nietzsche.

Me.