This is reddit's view on Stirner
I think Max Stirner's meme presence comes with a hefty portion of irony and satirical posturing. Those who do sincerely subscribe to his views are probably of the kind of radical skepticism of "naive, arrogant, new atheist types."
So is it true that if you sincerely subscribe to Stirners view you're a naive, arrogant new atheist?
Yep
Atheism is a spook, kid
He was against "subscribing to views." So, I guess if you "subscribe to them," you misunderstand them, and so are probably a "naive, arrogant, new atheist."
if I am subscribed to them how do i unsubscribe? I feel like in my mind I am too attached?
If you're an egoist, in the way he meant, you're not subscribed to "his views." You are subscribed to yourself. You simply have to separate subscription to self from subscription to Stirner. For instance, stop using "spook" as a buzzword for anything you don't like and only use it when you are referring to a specific person being haunted. Spooks don't exist of themselves, they exist in possessed men.
The babe sleeps soundly in the peaceful valley of Dunning and Kruger
>i suscribe to the views of a 19th century philosopher
>that makes me a "new" atheist
kys
Stirner is Engels alter ego btw
>Stirner is Engels alter ego btw
is that actually true? I feel like it is definitely possible
>everyone I disagree with is an incompetent dullard
Sure thing Karl
read the german ideology
Who says I haven't? And what does that have to do with Dunning-Kruger?
On that note, his (Marx's) criticism of Stirner is laughable. For instance, he says that Stirner laments that we "cannot tell the sun to do the can-can," while the passage he's quoting is flatly ironic. It's not a deprecation of a man to say that he cannot literally make the sun do the can-can; he can do this in his mind at any point. It (Stirner's writing in that instance) is an ironic deprecation of polytheism or nature-based spirituality.
Karl was actually to autistic to understand irony, which is why he failed to comprehend Stirner's work. It is also why he called him "Saint Max"; he took Stirner's Jesus parallel far too literally
>For instance, stop using "spook" as a buzzword for anything you don't like and only use it when you are referring to a specific person being haunted.
This is an absurd proposal, all language is ultimately derived from others
Can someone tell me if this is true or not?
>all language is ultimately derived from others
And yourself. But I agree with you, that's why I said what I said. A person has to be haunted, because there are no actual ghosts. Hence the need for other people to use language with you.
At least, I think I agree with you. Elaborate?
>Elaborate?
Specifically that you should stop using "spooks" as a buzzword because it compromises you to reify Stirner himself by adopting his language.
If this is true then it is true for all language, maybe it'd be better to communicate only in impulsive shrieks and grunts
who the fuck cares about this faggot
he is so irrelevant that there were never real pictures of him
if he were alive today he would wear joker makeup and a guy fawkes mask
This is true of all language: if you use it thoughtlessly and parrot memes you are a fucking robot.
It's just more ironic with Stirner.
>compromises you to reify Stirner
That's not what I said. I said that Stirner would probably not want to be made into a spook (reified), then I gave using the word "spook" improperly as an example of something that would reify Stirner.
If you use the word properly, there is no reification. If you start, as you say, impulsively shrieking "SPOOKS!" at anything that makes you uncomfortable, you're misusing the word and making Stirner into some kind of prophet. "That's a spook" becomes the equivalent of "that's a sin" or "that's a crime."
I mean, I'm of the opinion people shouldn't use "buzzwords" (language tricks) without attention to the fact that they're figurative. Especially around children and autists, one should be as clear and literal as possible
>this thread
Guys can someone please tell me if Stirner is actually Engels alter ego?
But the redditor that wrote that clearly doesn't have as deep an understanding of Stirner and those who agree with him than he thinks he does
What's a New Atheist? I've never heard that term at all.
have u ever seen them in the same place
someone please respond
pls
Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens along with their followers are commonly called the new atheists.
>tfw you can't get the injokes without understanding Hegel
i loved the part where engels drew rlly cool pics of himself standing in the corner all dark and loner but not in a sad way just badass and he never got rattled by anything