Who would win in a philosophy right

>Girl's School Teacher v.s. (youngest ever) Professor of Classical Studies at Basel
>marriages displaying class traitor and cuckold nature v.s. insincere marriage proposals and generally playful nature with women
>>"Stirner was a very sly man whom she had neither respected nor loved, and claiming that their relationship together had been more of a cohabitation than a marriage" v.s. "My husband, like myself, always kept friendly memories of Nietzsche [...] his behavior precisely towards women was so sensitive, so natural and comradely"
>died in poverty v.s. brain cancer after years of climbing mountains, eating healthily, engaging with the highest people and culture of the day
>>legacy: relatively-unknown guy that triggered Marx and precursor of "relativists" like Nietzsche v.s. legacy: among best known philosophers today, only Plato matches him in fame for aesthetic/literary presentation
>philosophy: "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. 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" v.s. "interested in the enhancement of individual and cultural health, and believed in life, creativity, power, and down-to-earth realities, rather than those situated in a world beyond. inspired leading figures in all walks of cultural life, including dancers, poets, novelists, painters, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and social revolutionaries"
>>rambling Hegelian-satire prose that obscures his reception despite having only one book v.s. one of the most distinct writers in German, at times Romanesque icy-clear objectivity and concision, other times over-flowing romantic affirmation

The sad thing is that even if it was an assured fact, he still would have been only a minor influence compared to Schopenhauer, Wagner, Goethe, and the Greeks. That Stirnerfags cling to the associations with more influential thinkers tells you a lot.

>Here we grasp the distance between Nietzsche and Max Stirner, which cannot be bridged despite superficial indications of the sort that made Nietzsche appear to ally with the sophists. As did the sophists, Stirner holds that all objective standards and values are imaginary and inessential, ghostly shadows confronting subjective reality. Stirner would find it meaningless to claim that the ego referred to anything beyond itself or that it should be graded according to a scale of values. He represents the renaissance of sophism, whereas Nietzsche writes: "We find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'

>two limp-wristed twinks famous for jerking themselves raw over their egotistic delirium

youtube.com/watch?v=HpA4ldGoHRQ

Stirner smirks at Nietzsche, "syphilis is a spook".

The professor responds by drooling on his blanket and slumping further into his chair.

Nietzsche, for saying more than one thing and in general being a better philosopher.

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 on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) 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.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

>spook-meme on suicide-watch

>Can't respect someone with a different ideology than you.
Veeky Forums leave

>Stirner smirks at Nietzsche, "syphilis is a spook".
>The professor responds by drooling on Stirner's new batch of milk.

>retard vs idiot
Nietzsche would win

nietzsche can't dismantle anything because he never erects a framework for his criticisms.

His work consists of basically edgy tweets without structure.

so stirner has a good point whereas nietzsche throws a tantrum because he doesn't want to do away with his precious memes

can someone explain to me what the difference between them is? Aren't they the same in a lot of ways in regard to their central message?

Not totally the same. They're both commonly associated with Nihilism but Nietzche isn't a "real" Nihilist

>Neetzchecucks actually believe this

No one. Maybe Alasdair MacIntrye if he taps in.

the immortal science of marxism-lesbianism

Doesn't Stirner attack the nihilist as well? Or am I misremembering?

user, I was prepared to meme you, but I can't. You are right

>I'm having another Æutistic fit