Karl Schmidt BTFO Johannes Schmidt AKA Big Forehead AKA the milkman AKA Max Stirner.
He was spooked by infinite consciousness, and Karl dragged it to its grave.
(Karl Schmidt was the last Young Hegelian and criticised Stirner in "The Realm of Understanding and The Individual" as well as "Love Letters Without Love. If you haven't read him you are most certainly a /leftypol/ shill and probably have a hypocritical understanding of the unique one as well.)
Jesus Christ this guy should have picked a more unique pseudonym, Stirner had him beat in that aspect.
Can someone link me where to buy or download Das Verstandestum und das Individuum? Can't find it but sounds interesting enough,
That's because it wasn't a pseudonym.
Also was so obscure doesn't have a wiki page, find a reference to him on the young hegelians wiki page.
You can buy a part of the English translation called "The Individual" online, where he utterly BTFO'd Stirner though agreed on like 80% of what he said...point is you don't need to set your cause on nothing.
Maybe that came across wrong, I'm saying he should have picked one tbqh.
>a part
That's only like the second half though, right?
Yeah, but the first part is mostly about systematics and history. It's not vital to read. I mean if some fucker would translate it into English I'd love to read it, but...
Forget about English translations, I can't even find the thing in German.
Even just the second part.
Oh well, I guess I'll put it on my reading list.
=( Wow, really? Shit, didn't know he was so obscure. I've read him and he's actually really good so I don't get it.
I sent the german anarchist library a mail about it, maybe I'll get a response and maybe someone will know something (a little hopeful, I'll admit).
Otherwise I'll just have to read The Individual.
>Hegelians
>Btfo'ing anyone
Almost impressive, how far an ideology can get which harbours the impenetrability of Kant's prose - without any of the substance.
>Stirner
>Not a Hegelian
Are you dense?
>Kant
>Impenetrable
Only if you're lazy and don't prepare for it.
>Without any of the substance
Confirmed for never having read anything on Hegel.
Nothing Hegel wrote had any substance.
>Kant
>not a Mißgeburt
On the contrary, Hegel never wasted a sentence.
Why don't you think he had substance, user? I can't help but just think you're being lazy.
>I can see the Emperor's New Clothes!
Sure you can, bud.
Does the world and its ideas constantly change?
Congratulations, you just took step 1 to accepting Hegel. Now read the rest of it.
>Schopenasperger
Yeah ok bud
>accepting Hegel
If Hegel's 'idea' was that everything is in flux, then I trust I don't need to name the Ancient Greek from whom the idea was stolen.
Hegelians, when will they learn?
it's based off that. His content is a method by which the difference between our idea of something and the something is erased. How is that not content?
he stole the idea
he is a hack
Of course he did, user. Of course he did.
Seriously though, whether he did or not doesn't matter that's just personality bullshit. The point is it's correct.
Cheked.
Okay you name callers.
Can anyone comment on what Karl Schmidt said about Stirners philosophy. I mean if you want to get anything out of this this thread.
Hegel is bullshit because a guy who posts Simpsons reaction images told me so
o shit nigga thanks missed that
kk
The main issue with Stirner is that he set his cause on nothing. At the end of the Hegelian dialectic, the individual exists by grace of the spirit. The law of spirit is applied to itself, the individual takes it into itself, and drags spirit to its grave. Upon the pre-made world of the dialectic (the continuous rubble formed when the physical and psychical worlds sink into one another) the individual is the *last* thing in existence. It is a singularity, the one discreteness. It proclaims "I am nothing but myself". It doesn't need to set its cause, because being the one thing in existence, the final evidence of the dialectic, it justifies itself.
The corollary of this is *almost* identical to Stirner save a few things.
1. The labelling of one's self as egoist, it is hypocritical, as the individual is undefinable.
2. The unique one under Stirner is justified by comparisons to others. Comparisons of ideas, aspects. This lies in the realm of spirit. Having killed spirit, the aspects are no longer definable to the individual. The individual is not "free" or "X" or whatever, the individual just exists for itself. Ideology is shit, attempts to corner the individual and limit it.
He's the proto-existentialist, basically. Infinite consciousness is a spugg.
So basically this is just a hegelclub internal pissy fight?
What valuable new insight does this give us?
do you just show up in people's toilets and ask them what valuable new insight this gives us? are you a positivist or something? rarely heard anything more annoying
it's between two hegelians, ofc it's hegelian
it's also happens to be a decent repudiation of a meme on our board
You sound like an obnoxious asshole. Calm down hot shot.
>What valuable new insight.
>"I judge an idea based on use and not correctness"
I admit it was a little obnoxious, I'm just struggling to grasp how this justifies (and I'll admit, I haven't read it, I'm basing this on what I've gathered so far) OP's spectacular promise of stirner btfo destroyed roasted shitfucked back to the fucking stoneage etc. and so on and so on
The entire foundation of his philosophy, infinite consciousness gets destroyed. How is this not a really important step in proving that Stirner was wrong on the core of his ideas?
DEFINE "INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS".
I assumed you'd read Hegel since you knew Stirner, soz.
Infinite consciousness = universal = extension of consciousness of humanity
Please do not confuse me with this dimwit , lest I decide to don a trip.
shut up dummy
wahht do you mean by core of his ideas?
what the fuck is your point retard
im sexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can't claim I understand you.
Still, I have the feeling I don't have to:
The value of Stirners rants can be grasped, at least to some extent, without understanding him when he tries to fit his philosophy into the Hegelian dialectics, and all the talk about the ontology of "I", "self" and so on.
I'm all for investigating the "subject" as a concept and to find frameworks to make sense of it. But that's philosophy as an academic subject. I don't read philosophers to include them in a literature review or to write my own philosophy book in which I work out contrasts to old philosophers.
I read philosophy to form my view on how to live, and live a somewhat happy life at that..
Yikes. You've just discovered him, haven't you? If you had actually read anything by him you'd realize pretty quickly that Stirner BTFO Karl.