Refute me

I've been noticing a lot of anti-Stirner posting on Veeky Forums lately. I wonder why. If you actually read Stirner it's obvious he's not noticeably different in qualities from most other good philosophers.
There's nothing in that post to pay attention to. It's, as it says, simply reducing Stirnerism to the absurd "everything is nothing" and thenn ranting for a bit.

you sound like youve never read him. is that the case m8?

You don't have to read Stirner to know he's a vapid hack for Reddit memelords.

kys faggot

nice ad hominem

Is this really all you autists can respond with?

Yes.

Reading it right now actually, admittedly only made it half-way through so far.

>simply reducing Stirnerism to the absurd "everything is nothing"

Stirner's own introduction is literally titled "All Things Are Nothing To Me" you fag. And Stirnerism by its very nature is reductionist as I already explained in my post.

>Stirner's own introduction is literally titled "All Things Are Nothing To Me"
No it isn't. This is the whole point; he says one thing and means many things in combination. He does this through puns. Unfortunately, you are reading a shit translation (an inadequate one, at least), and this is not conveyed.

"All things are nothing to me" is the same as "I have set my cause to nothing". They do mention this in the translation, even if they don't translate it.

>as I already explained in my post.
You didn't explain shit my dude.

>2016+1
>2016

I downloaded a version in my native language and I'm happy to see that the translation of the introduction is something on the lines of «my cause is the cause of nothing». It also has a footnote mentioning it comes from Goethe and translates it literally to «I've founded my cause on nothing»

Honestly dude, why even bother?

I entertained Stirner back when I read him because imo he's extremely relevant to the modern condition, but there's no point arguing with people who stopped at Stirner. There's no intelligent discussion to be had with Stirnerites, so it's best not to subject yourself to the headache.

no

How can one philosopher make so many people so butthurt.

The meaning of history and dialectic together is not the realization of reason, freedom or man as species, but nihilism, just nihilism. Stirner is the dialectician who reveals that dialectics is nothing but nihilism. It is enough for him to pose the question “which one?” and the unique ego turns everything but itself into nothingness and this nothingness is precisely its own nothingness, the ego’s own nothingness. Stirner is too much of dialectician to think in any other terms but those of property, alienation and reappropriation – but unable to see where this thought leads: to the ego which is nothing, to nihilism.

>to the ego which is nothing, to nihilism.

But, if the ego does not want to or does not feel like doing nothing, or wants to no be nihilistic, such is its own prerogative, is this not the conclusion of his philosophy?

He seems to want to abolish 'amorphous communities', he seems to be reacting against the fact, that everyone is just born in a massive pre established 'community', and he did not agree or sign up to this, so purely, and ideally, and truly, reality should be, individuals attached to nothing but themselves and their desires, which should result, in communities being formed of pure consensual desire, which makes sense; but imo there must be an unibiased (mediator), to make sure this nation of egoists, does not invade, infiltrate, conquer this nation of egoists, or this nation of anarcho capitalists

Marx already did

>read a translation
>think he's qualified to comment

I've only heard very bad things about German Ideology.

I've heard lots of good things about it, but I get my info from scholars

And gentlemen too.

Philosophy that treats people as completely discrete individual "selves" are complete bullshit. Society itself is an organism, and the people around us are as important in shaping us as our own wills and desires.

Which is why, Stirner's obsession with the "self" is a spook. Stirner fails to realize we need other people, that you CAN'T be an egoist, it's a contradiction, a philosophical thought experiment, but not a reality.

It explains why his 2nd wife hated him and he died alone and in debt. He was a nobody, was hostile to everyone around him and enjoyed no fame or recognition. The only reason we still talk about him is the same autistic, lonely, ill lifestyle that produced him has produced more people who think like him.

That being said, he did have some good insights, but as a complete system his work is not tenable.

It's a very good book and worth reading. Marx is a fantastic philosopher and his remarks about Stirner are good.

>It explains why his 2nd wife hated him and he died alone and in debt. He was a nobody, was hostile to everyone around him and enjoyed no fame or recognition. The only reason we still talk about him is the same autistic, lonely, ill lifestyle that produced him has produced more people who think like him.

From what I could gather about him, he wasn't all like his book would lead one to believe.
In the philosopher clubs he attended, which is where Engels and other met him, he wasn't much of a contributor and simply a nice enough fellow.
His only actual worthwhile book starts with "to my Darling Dähnhardt". Which is baffling for me considering the whole topic at hand.

Not much is known about him due to his meager success, but I think rather than being obsessed with the "self" he just made his own observations about it and put it in contrast to the discussions which where going on at that time in Berlin.

The ego and is own is a work with some very interesting ideas but ultimately falls flat. Unnecessary ramblings about this and that with random prose thrown in there every now and then.

Probably one of the few Philosopher kept afloat entirely due to memes. Dadaism which referenced to him in the beginning also is one big meme.

Sorry Stirner, you're under arrest. We as an, albiet egoic community, agree to law; we simply cannot trust that you will not steal our property, as you have written you do not believe in such.

that is the point. and people who dont get it to the point of being riled deserve all the butthurt

Stirner is literally just for hipsters and people that can't catch up with philosophy post-20th century.

Hey congrats on actually reading him.

It might be a tad early but what do you think Stirner means when he talks about the creative nothing and what do you understand his conception of property to be? these are probably some of the most important parts of understanding his work

>It's hard to propose a counter-argument when your entire philosophy can be summed up in the pithy three word slogan "Everything is Nothing".

Stirner's philosophy is better summed up as "I have interests separate to ideas". Likewise all you need to do to refute him is attack his nominalism which is far from bulletproof.

>You always know who the intellectual child is in a conversation if he pulls the "u cant know nuffin" -card. Same with Stirnerism. It is anti-philosophy.

Not at all indeed once you get past the meme version of him on lit you will see that he is a pretty serious philosopher whose works were building on Hegels thought (another way to attack/refute Stirner)

>Philosophy that treats people as completely discrete individual "selves" are complete bullshit. Society itself is an organism,

A society without individuals is akin to a forest with no trees or plants.

> the people around us are as important in shaping us as our own wills and desires. Which is why, Stirner's obsession with the "self" is a spook. Stirner fails to realize we need other people, that you CAN'T be an egoist, it's a contradiction, a philosophical thought experiment, but not a reality.

Reading this it really doesnt seem like youve read Stirner given that you seem to be conflating his egoism with Rands.

You cannot embrace your own wills and desires by dogmatically being a "ruggard individualist who dont need no community" just as you cant embrace your own wills and desires be being a dogmatic collectivist.

>It explains why his 2nd wife hated him and he died alone and in debt.

His second wife hated him because 1. she blamed him for consequences of her youthful immaturity as if he tricked her into playing the role of the "degenerate" radical 2. because she lost a lot of her inheritance on his business which meant she couldn't easily turn back the clock.

All of which is part of the challenge of being an individual - our wills and desires arent set in stone - what makes us happy one day may cease doing so the very next day.

>you CAN'T be an egoist,

Here is a poem of his to help understand why you are wrong here

I sing as the bird sings

That on the bough alights;

The song that from me springs

Is pay that well requites.

"I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears." - the same applies for love and community.

> He was a nobody, was hostile to everyone around him and enjoyed no fame or recognition.

He was never hostile to anyone from what we have in his biography however your second point is certainly true.

>The only reason we still talk about him is the same autistic, lonely, ill lifestyle that produced him has produced more people who think like him.

Or because in him we find that same purity in Parmenides or Heraclitus and a man who destroyed the left Hegelians and provided an uncompromising and uncontradictory refutation of humanism.

>Marx is a fantastic philosopher and his remarks about Stirner are good.

Nah, even Marx wasnt happy with them which is why he chose not to publish it in his lifetime.

His critique is effectively the same blanket critique socialists levy (its not a work with class conflict as its foundation) and straw manning.

Didnt Camus do this?

And you haven't even read Stirner. This was embarrassing, not even the pseud-audience is impressed.

>A society without individuals is akin to a forest with no trees or plants.
Analogies sound nice but don't actually prove anything.

>You cannot embrace your own wills and desires by dogmatically being a "ruggard individualist who dont need no community" just as you cant embrace your own wills and desires be being a dogmatic collectivist.
Stirner's egoism implies it.

The rest of your post is pretty much a waste of time.

Or maybe Stirner literally doesn't matter so he never released it because nobody would care?

youre close

>*drops mic*

>Analogies sound nice but don't actually prove anything.

Its shows you the nomanalist critique of your reasoning. Trees and individuals exist forests and societies and the names used to describe collections of them (and their interactions) and have no reality outside of that.

>Stirner's egoism implies it.

Not at all its simply you jumping to conclusions about a book you havent even finished.

From that same work

>I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me."

and

>You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.

>The rest of your post is pretty much a waste of time.

That speaks more to the what it was responding to than the content itself.

However if you grasp that poem of his you will realise just how badly you've misinterpreted him

>Or maybe Stirner literally doesn't matter so he never released it because nobody would care?

I suppose he just wrote a 300 page book for a giggle then after all he had so much money and leisure time for such things

?

>I get my info from scholars
Christ.

>It might be a tad early
It is; he only gets into that in the second half.

wait, is stirner just roger klotz?

I'd like to hear from a Stirnerite who's read more than a pamphlet on modern psychoanalysis, or even just modern existentialism.
What's the point of idolizing (spooky) Stirner when all his good ideas have been developed so much further?

psychoanalysis, existensialism? lole

>(spooky) Stirner
have u read stirner's critics

not really worth listening to you if u haven't ;)

>Anarchism
>Organizing

Why refute what made no sense in the first place?

He's not an actual egoist, user. This was originally meant to be bait but the OP pic was more interesting.