Ask someone who has read both Stirner translations fairly recently anything

Ask someone who has read both Stirner translations fairly recently anything

It's not worth reading because he was a Kraut

Why waste your time?

As far as I know, Stirnir never wrote about the subject, but what do you think Stirnir's opinion of the psychonormalization of anal sex and the consequent rise of the numbers of Assbabies would be?

he would probably say the same thing he would say for most things, do what you feel. Not very interesting I know.

I wanted to understand the memes and its cool but sometimes frustrating being one the few people who have read him, its fun being an expert.

Why do leftist ideologues idolize him even though he thought all ideologies were spooks?

they haven't read him and they read him selectively "wow he's btfoing those christfags and rightwingers and racists go stirner"

he's probably left wing but only in the sense he's anti authoritarian the left right thing isn't very useful.

Was he real, or an invention of Engels?

Assuming this wasn't a troll question. He was real but I'm no expert on whether he was a real person or not, Max Stirner was obviously a psuedonym there's enough evidence that he existed that his existance being a fabrication would be highly unlikely

>Max Stirner was obviously a psuedonym
A pseudonym for Engels, perhaps?

A pseudonym for Johann Kaspar Schmidt.

summarize plz

ideology subjugates the living human being follow your own will instead

>An ideology can't be your own will
mind = blown, didn't knew they came out of nothing, at first i thought someone will manifested will creates an ideology, but you have enlightened me, my fellow redditbro :) haha

Vladimir?

keep tilting at windmills retard

no

fuck off this isn't me

do you have a problem with the summation

Why does Nietzsche find abominable any decadent spirit who says 'Everything only to me!'?

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Everything you don't like is a ghost and you don't have to pay attention to it.

I'm not sure exactly what this is asking but afaik no other thinkers really go as far as stirner, random communists will criticise "ideology" they don't like as they shill their own, not having a replacement makes logical sense. It would be pretty stupid to establish the thing you spend most of the book asserting is stupid. He leaves it up to the individual to devise something better, they know their own circumstances the best after all.

>random communists will criticise "ideology" they don't like as they shill their own, not having a replacement makes logical sense. It would be pretty stupid to establish the thing you spend most of the book asserting is stupid. He leaves it up to the individual to devise something better, they know their own circumstances the best after all.
>not having a replacement makes logical sense
>He leaves it up to the individual to devise something better
But this itself is an ideology, "not having a replacement" is impossible. Not only that but this is a shit ideology because logically, those "individuals" will not be able to devise something better than a professional ideologist could. Stirner is the equivalent of this
>kids playing the ideology game
>communist kid criticises the "ideology" of the capitalist kid, while shilling their communist ideology
>stirner sits in the corner crying that the best ideology is to say you have no ideology
>first two kids sense this kid has severe mental illness, since he doesn't want to play the game like any physiologically healthy kid does
>they proceed to ignore him in the history of philosophy, unlike actual critical destructive giants like the Buddha, Nietzsche, or that cunning fraudster Derrida.

you don't need an ideology, what becomes your "ideology" is just your "true" beliefs and values. I just doens't have an "ism" name. its just "what you believe"

>Yfw Max Stirner means Huge Forehead

I honestly think he was Veeky Forums anno 1840.

...

The Jap knows.

>you don't need an ideology, what becomes your "ideology" is just your "true" beliefs and values. I just doens't have an "ism" name. its just "what you believe"
Every ideology that is genuinely believed-in, is the exact same thing as one's "true beliefs and values". Historical materialism incorporated Marx' true beliefs and values.

>I just doens't have an "ism" name. its just "what you believe"
Fucking retard. Ideologies do not need to have been labelled _ism to be an ideology. All ideologies are thought about before they are even written down or labelled. Not only that but not all ideologies have been written about in English, where we use "_ism".

In fact everything you are saying is an ideology, just a laughable stupid and basic one.

>what becomes your "ideology" is just your "true" beliefs and values
This is an ideology.

How does Stirner account for biological and cultural determinism?

Much of his spooks are inherent to biology and culturalization and are hard to resist as eating or drinking.

Is eating food a spook?
Is drinking water a spook?
If no then altruism is not a spook.

It presumes a free-will that people simply don't have.

>Stirner names the unique and says at the same time that “Names don’t name it.” He utters a name when he names the unique, and adds that the unique is only a name. So he thinks something other than what he says, just as, for example, when someone calls you Ludwig, he isn’t thinking of a generic Ludwig, but of you, for whom he has no word.

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept. What he says is not the meaning, and what he means cannot be said.

Pseudo religious garbage.

...

Not really

an ideology is a system that is shared by many people, that's the difference.


no, no, altruism isn't a spook and he never says it is. Helping people becuase "its the right thing to do" or something is a spook, he wants you to recognise you are doing so out of selfish reasons.

Ideology is a manifestation will, but not your own. If it was your own will you wouldn't need to legitimize it to yourself with a different word.

Has there ever been a more useless philosopher than Stirner?

almost any asian